Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 58

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,155

    Not a Shread of Evidence

    Witness: Fulton County’s 2020 Election Results Never Should Have Been Certified
    Donald Trump is set to stand trial in Fulton County, Georgia, for challenging the state’s election results in 2020. Part of his beef was that Fulton County’s election was an unmitigated disaster, rife with corruption and incompetence. And now, Trump has gotten high-octane fuel for his case from Fulton County Election Board member Mark Wingate. During the recent court shenanigans concerning Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s professional and personal improprieties as she seeks to bring a RICO case against Trump and his associates, Wingate testified that the county’s election results never should have been certified. One prime reason? The county’s 145,000 mail-in ballots did not have the necessary signature verification.

    “I asked what did we do for signature verification?” Wingate testified, “And the comment I got back frankly floored me, ‘We didn’t do any.'”

    According to Fulton County election records, 115,600 of the mail-in votes went to Joe Biden, and 29,506 to Trump. Keep in mind, the official margin of victory for Biden in Georgia was 11,779 votes.

    Wingate also testified there was neither chain-of-custody documentation for the mail-in ballots, nor “any surveillance tape, an inch of footage delivered to the board” of the mail-in ballots or election dropboxes. The Elections Board wanted it, asked for it, but never got it, he said. Was that because the footage would show what Dinesh D’Souza later documented in his film 2000 Mules? Repeated instances of illegal ballot dumping?
    Nothing to see here.





  2. Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    I imagine they are hard at work already.....





  3. #3

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    How many court cases have ruled in favor of election denial?

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    PROUD DISABLED VETERAN DESPITE RSR HATRED





  4. #4

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    How many court cases have ruled in favor of election denial?

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    Do you deny that ballots were counted without signature verification?





  5. #5

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Do you deny that ballots were counted without signature verification?
    Is that direct evidence of a stolen election? I don't think so

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    PROUD DISABLED VETERAN DESPITE RSR HATRED





  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,780

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Is that direct evidence of a stolen election? I don't think so

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    Yes but how can you say Trump doesnt have the right to challenge it? Dont forget about the sprinkler leakage that caused pollworkers to chase people out of the building and then suitcases being drug out from under tables. Thing is everybody can challenge elections except Trump of course.

    What is it you believe? Should we have 3rd party unsecured drop boxes or mail in votes just sent out to every voter with little chain of custody control and being able to be postmarked after election day like in Pennsylvania? No voter ID cuz thats Jim Crow like. Even worse Jim Eagle. No signature verification? I mean just to get a hotel room you need ID right? But not for voting tho? I mean I would think our elections are more important than a motel room or picking up baseball tickets wouldn't you? But yet the far left doesn't think we need this. Do you agree or disagree with that?
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Do you deny that ballots were counted without signature verification?
    Back in November 2020 this Wingate guy, who was a Republican member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, said signature verification on mail-in ballots "were derived by a manual process."

    So I guess yeah, on the basis of that, I do deny it. Evidently the computerized tool they use for it, which was either called BlueCrest or ElectioNet, was down; so they had to do it some old-fashioned way.

    More fully, I deny that there was any wrong-doing in the process, or anything fishy about it.





  8. #8

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Back in November 2020 this Wingate guy, who was a Republican member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, said signature verification on mail-in ballots "were derived by a manual process."

    So I guess yeah, on the basis of that, I do deny it. Evidently the computerized tool they use for it, which was either called BlueCrest or ElectioNet, was down; so they had to do it some old-fashioned way.

    More fully, I deny that there was any wrong-doing in the process, or anything fishy about it.
    Well good for you. Now please verify the chain of custody for those reams of ballots. That's right. You can't.





  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Well good for you. Now please verify the chain of custody for those reams of ballots. That's right. You can't.
    Of course I can't. I was in Maryland at the time. Probably paying more attention to Lamar's perfect second half against Indy that weekend than to Fulton county reams.

    Your post is another fun example of a common Republican bullshit argument tactic: misplace the burden of proof.

    Please verify that Trump wasn't born on Venus, and that his birth certificate isn't an elaborate forgery done by aliens. That's right. You can't.





  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,155

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    How many court cases have ruled in favor of election denial?

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    I don't think any of them have ruled at all on the evidence because they haven't taken the cases up. They dismiss them on technical grounds like standing before they even look at evidence.

    You have been told this many times so this lack of comprehension and/or retention might be helpful in explaining your ability to be wrong so consistently.





  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,614
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I don't think any of them have ruled at all on the evidence because they haven't taken the cases up. They dismiss them on technical grounds like standing before they even look at evidence.

    You have been told this many times so this lack of comprehension and/or retention might be helpful in explaining your ability to be wrong so consistently.
    It’s fake. They are feigning ignorance about questions having been answered. That way they can rope in the casual observer that hey they are being reasonable.





  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I don't think any of them have ruled at all on the evidence because they haven't taken the cases up. They dismiss them on technical grounds like standing before they even look at evidence.
    You've said this at least a couple times, in the big 2024 election thread, and here. It isn't true.

    You're right that at least some of the cases in some states were dismissed for standing – I remember one in Pennsylvania. There's a conversation to be had about whether "standing" is merely a technicality. The Twiqbal principle that "heightened the pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" is based on two Supreme Court cases where the justices in the majority were:
    2007: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
    2009: Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
    I suspect you're pretty happy with it most of the time, and are only complaining now because it doesn't give you the result you want.



    But you're completely wrong that courts haven't looked at the evidence. A federal civil case isn't like a criminal trial on Law & Order, where the evidence comes out at trial. The plaintiff has to show all their evidence in the initial filing. They have to lead with the evidence. So the judge gets to read the case right at the outset.

    In at least two states (Atlanta, I think two cases there, & I think Wisconsin) the judge dismissed "on the merits", which means they considered the evidence and decided it didn't make a case.

    I read the evidence in one of the Atlanta cases 3˝ years ago. It was in a LONG, un-indexed Appendix at the end of the intial filing. And it was gobbledycook. It was nonsense. It was disconnected ramblings from "witnesses" who weren't sure what they saw and couldn't describe why it was wrongdoing. Bullshit like, "I followed a truck for two hours and it went around the beltway." Why? What truck? What does that have to do with the election? The filing doesn't make that clear. It was ridiculous; I mean the idea that it consituted "evidence" was ridiculous. The judge punted that one on the merits.

    Here all the filings in Sidney Powell's Kraken lawsuit:


    I don't think this is the same case I looked at 3˝ years ago. It doesn't look the same; if it is the same one, some clerk has done heroic work to separate out all the appendix affadavits into separate PDFs. You can look at the supporting affadivits yourself (I haven't yet).

    Judge Timothy Batten did look at all the affadavits. In the hearing transcript (which is Doc #23, on Nov 30, about a third of the way down the page) he said this on page 16:
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Batten
    ...But what I do have an opinion on is that the burden is on the Plaintiffs, and the relief that they seek is extraordinary. And although they make allegations of tremendous worldwide improprieties regarding the Dominion voting machines, those allegations are supported by precious little proof.
    He dismissed. Not on a technicality.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->