As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election

[SimplyMe]

In this case there was one big lie--that there was "no evidence" of election wrongdoing or fraud. There's a massive amount of evidence of election wrongdoing. Sworn affidavits are evidence by definition, and so the media was lying to you with claims of "no evidence" when there were sworn affidavits to the contrary. There were over a thousand sworn affidavits under penalty when I lost track of the number. Any American who reads them should be outraged.

Let's clear up one misconception first -- affidavits are not, by definition, evidence. It is a statement made by an individual that can be used as evidence but isn't necessarily evidence. For example, I can make an affidavit that the moon is made of green cheese. Does that mean the moon is actually made of green cheese, is it any type of evidence the moon is made of green cheese? I can even use it in a court case, where I seek access to information about NASA, to expose how they are hiding the true facts about the moon. Despite my trying to use that affidavit as "evidence," it still is not evidence, it is merely a statement of how I believe the moon is made of green cheese -- and the court will ignore it, as they should. They won't hold an evidentiary hearing on that, based on the fact that I did not present any actual evidence to support my claims.

One more correction, affidavits tend not to be made "under penalty." First, in most cases the are merely notarized to show you made the statement -- that I didn't make the statement and forge your name on to it. Some of this will depend on state law. Next, even if made under oath, it doesn't stop me from lying -- much less being incorrect. People are not charged with making false affidavits, it just doesn't happen in the real world. The issue is, it is too hard to prove intent -- and the prosecutor has to prove you were lying, which is a tough standard to meet; when all you have to do is claim you must have been mistaken.

As I've said there has only been one hearing that even resembled a legitimate evidentiary hearings where plaintiffs are allowed to

Again, go back to my example above. The court has to have sufficient reason to believe an evidentiary hearing is warranted. In the various court cases pursued by the Trump campaign, the courts found that that burden wasn't met. The court looked at and examined those affidavits you keep talking about -- yes, they were examined and were even discussed in the judges' ruling. I've posted several examples from the rulings, where a judge goes through the affidavits and explains why they are not evidence -- and that often, various affidavits contradict each other.

One example is in Arizona, where a large number of affidavits (I believe hundreds) were submitted over being told to use a Sharpie to fill out the ballot, and the ink bled through. The problem, there was no issue using Sharpies -- it was what the Maricopa County recommended for marking ballots, and it can be demonstrated they were saying that before the election and is recommended by the manufacturer of the counting machines. Additionally, they note the ballots are "offset" to ensure that, if ink bleeds through, it does not matter. So, to take those affidavits, the only thing they are evidence of is that the election was conducted properly.

I remember talking about one of the Michigan affidavits here and how the judge went through various affidavits and showed why they were not evidence of any type of "fraud" -- many merely were, again, show that the election procedures were followed (such as ballots being brought in by a back door, when that was the door that all the ballots were supposed to come in through). Seriously, go and find the judges decisions and read through them.

On top of that, the Trump campaign appealed almost all of these cases -- so if they felt there was something in the affidavits that warranted a closer look, they could order the original judge to have an evidentiary hearing. Yet, in all these cases that the Trump campaign filed, and then appealed, none of the appeals courts ever found a mistake by the original judge, that they should have had an evidentiary hearing. And, remember, many of these were judges that are not only Republican, but judges that Trump appointed to the Bench.

Of course, since the courts are not evidence enough for you, that the affidavits just aren't the evidence you think they are, let's go to the DoJ. Pres. Trump specifically requested AG Barr review the election and all the affidavites. Under Barrs direction and supervision, the FBI and DoJ both examined the affidavits. After they were done, Barr announced that there was no evidence of wide spread fraud. Now, remember, this is an individual Trumps specifically asked to investigate and that Trump has trust in -- and still talks glowingly of today.

And this is also ignoring the various local law enforcement groups, such as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation(GBI), that investigated the affidavits and "wrongdoing." Of course, none of these local/state law enforcement groups have found any wrongdoing and many of them are headed by Republicans. Then you have the various Governors and Secretaries of State that investigated, ensured procedures were followed and determined the results were true and correct -- and many of these are Republican.

A true unbiased journalist would have demanded to know the reason why the counting stopped in the middle of the night in the major swing state cities.

I'm not aware of "counting stopped in the middle of the night in the major swing state cities." I'm aware of counting that allegedly stopped in Fulton County, Georgia -- which is merely one of the counties that make up Atlanta. There may have been another one but, from what I recall, all the others continued counting. I do know some of the smaller counties stopped counting but, since those counties tended to go for Trump, you don't seem to care about why they stopped counting.

Especially after a number of lies were told, such as the broken water main, leaky toilet stories, etc.

There was a broken water main in the arena in Fulton County -- that is not in question and has been verified. Granted, it occurred in the morning and allegedly it did cause many of the counters to go home early -- from my understanding it was because they had been called in early, both to ensure no ballots were damaged by flooding caused and to make sure they remain secure, because of the water main break. And, from what I saw, the various media outlets investigated and found there wasn't really any story to report -- that they had a water main break and other issues that day.

Now, you can bring up your affidavits about how people were told they were done counting for the day. And I can see that. A large number of workers leave, so an observer asks why they are leaving; the response is "we're done counting for the day" -- the we referring to the counters that are leaving, not meant to mean that Fulton County is going to quit counting. I'll admit, I've not looked into this particular issue closely (I've mostly looked at Pennsylvania and Michigan). At the same time, I'll remidn you that the GBI specifically looked into this, it has been brought up in court cases, and the DoJ looked into it and none of them found an issue.

Any decent investigative reporter would be demanding to see the electronic computer information, the photos of the ballots and computer logs. And they would be reporting on the refusal of the states to provide such data every day.

Why? Show many any election where the state has made all this available publicly. Then, on top of that, consider that making all of this public (beyond maybe ballots) likely will violate federal privacy laws, not to mention the expense of scanning all of this information and hosting it on the Internet.

Instead, the reporters/media have observed the original election. They were present for the recounts. They were present for the audits. And, from their own observation they didn't see any issues. They know that other Independent observers saw no real issues in the voting and counting, and they know law enforcement, both state and federal, found no issues in their investigations. On top of that, they know the people directly responsible for running a fair election -- the Governors and Secretaries of State -- found no issues and certified the election results.

I daresay this is the most scrutinized election in American History, as things stand now. And, aside from Pres. Trump (who has claimed Fraud in every election, including the one where he was elected as President, since he started running for President) and a few of his hardcore supporters, no one is seeing any evidence of fraud that would have changed the results of the election. In fact, if you believe Republican Sen. Sasse, none of the Senators (and the House members he knows of), believe there was any fraud; instead their objections were all for political reasons.

The reason people state there is no evidence of some massive election fraud is because there actually is no real evidence.

 

[SimplyMe]

Let's see those ballots and election logs. It's so easy, that is, if you really believe there was no election fraud.

You can get access to them, or should be able to. Granted, you'll need to go to the states to examine them and likely need to pay a fee to recompense the state for the time they spend making them available to you, but every state -- now that the election is completed -- has a method to allow people to view the ballots and other election materials.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

No “widespread election fraud”. Even Rudy wouldn’t claim fraud when pressed.

It is funny how Rudy has no problem about telling the base all about the fraud and how he was going to fight it but when the opportunity to do so in front of a judge he admits there was none. I guess Rudy is afraid of jail or doesn't think Trump would be able to pardon him in time.

 

[A_JAY]

It would be funny if the Justice Dept failed to affix the correct seal on a pardon making it invalid. Or just plain drag their feet waiting for time to run out.

 

[Dan1988]

We have zero evidence that the election was stolen except for the claims of a notorious liar.

To believe that most of the government, thousands of members of the public, the media, the nation’s courts (up to the highest level) conspired, with no leaks and no evidence left in any form really boggles the mind. In fact, to those of us observing from the outside it appears completely ridiculous.

But trump lost right? It couldn’t possibly because a majority of folk didn’t think he did a particularly good job as president?

And yes, I do generally trust the media. Most people have the ability to discern fact from opinion in reporting. I have seen zero evidence to suggest that what they routinely report is untrue.

Of course you haven't seen any evidence, were not dealing with petty thieves here. These are intelligent people with friends in high places.
The fastest way to shut down an investigation, is to do what the courts have done. Make impossible demands and then demand them to be met in impossibly quick time.
75 million people believe the election was stolen, but you're welcome to put your faith in the mainstream media.

 

[Dan1988]

Which is odd because you can see it with your own eyes.

A huge red flag for motivated reasoning.

Have you ever heard of impostors, you'll never hear about them in the mainstream media which the vast majority stake their lives on but there is always two sides to every story.
We have nothing to discuss, if you refuse to look outside the box

 

[Speedwell]

Of course you haven't seen any evidence, were not dealing with petty thieves here. These are intelligent people with friends in high places.
The fastest way to shut down an investigation, is to do what the courts have done. Make impossible demands and then demand them to be met in impossibly quick time.
75 million people believe the election was stolen, but you're welcome to put your faith in the mainstream media.

Where are you getting that number? Not everybody who voted for Trump has bought into the "stolen election" fantasy. From what I've seen the number is more like 50M.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

75 million people believe the election was stolen.

You have no way to confirm this claim.

 

[Dan1988]

I have zero evidence that you haven't been murdering kittens and puppies in a back alley and then incinerating the remains. I guess it's ok for me to claim then that that's exactly what happened, since you haven't shown any evidence to prove that you haven't done that. I've heard many people say that. Many sources. I don't know them, but many say that.

So, did I do it right? This is the amount of logic in your arguement.

What kind of logic are you talking about, is it the type the courts are employing by making impossible demands and then saying "there you couldn't produce the evidence in a flash, so your claim must be false"

 

[Speedwell]

What kind of logic are you talking about, is it the type the courts are employing by making impossible demands and then saying "there you couldn't produce the evidence in a flash, so your claim must be false"

They couldn't produce the evidence at all.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Of course you haven't seen any evidence, were not dealing with petty thieves here. These are intelligent people with friends in high places.
The fastest way to shut down an investigation, is to do what the courts have done. Make impossible demands and then demand them to be met in impossibly quick time.

Sooooo, the evidence of fraud is the lack of evidence of fraud?

75 million people believe the election was stolen, but you're welcome to put your faith in the mainstream media.

Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy. Anyone who doesn’t understand that isn’t worth listening to.

 

[Pommer]

What kind of logic are you talking about, is it the type the courts are employing by making impossible demands and then saying "there you couldn't produce the evidence in a flash, so your claim must be false"

Yes, if you go to court with a complaint, you really should already have “evidence” that your complaint is a valid complaint.

What are we missing?

 

[Dan1988]

Yes, if you go to court with a complaint, you really should already have “evidence” that your complaint is a valid complaint.

What are we missing?

We have all the evidence to prove it was stolen, but you FAIL to understand how the real world works. In the real world (not Hollywood) it takes time to investigate and gather enough evidence to prosecute.
So if you want to kill an investigation, just deny the investigates the right to drain the swamp and the masses will believe there's no case to peruse.

 

[Dan1988]

Just look at what a failed pariah China has become. I bet no countries do business with them.

If you consider 600 million slaves living on a dollar a day, to be a good model for the US then I wish you well.

 

[Dan1988]

View attachment 293148

No, she's not that high up the pyramid. She's just a small player, she hasn't even met the boss

 

[Dan1988]

They couldn't produce the evidence at all.

I don't think those who are hiding the evidence are as good as hiding it, as you do. I reckon the investigators would find the evidence if they were given a bit of time and resources. But to say, you have no evidence and I won't allow you the opportunity to find it is a bit sus.

 

[The Ant]

I don't think those who are hiding the evidence are as good as hiding it, as you do. I reckon the investigators would find the evidence if they were given a bit of time and resources. But to say, you have no evidence and I won't allow you the opportunity to find it is a bit sus.

What do you mean “given the time”?? Courts and judges don’t host fishing expeditions.

 

[lasthero]

I don't think those who are hiding the evidence are as good as hiding it, as you do. I reckon the investigators would find the evidence if they were given a bit of time and resources. But to say, you have no evidence and I won't allow you the opportunity to find it is a bit sus.

You know what I find 'sus'?

How they always need 'more'.

It didn't sound like Trump and Co. needed all that much time when this first started. They had their press conferences, and they were certain that the courts would rule in their favor. No doubt.

Then the judges threw them out.

Then they had the audits and the recounts, and they were certain they would show the fraud.

Then all the recounts didn't show that. Some even widened Biden's lead.

Then they were sure - so sure - that the Supreme Court would end this all. 'If it gets to the Supreme, we win'. Rudy said that, in as many words. Heard it all over Parler. So much confidence, so confident.

And they failed.

Fail, fail, fail. Trump failed, over and over, and every time, it was always something else, always wanted something new, and when he got there he just failed again. It's easy to see the pattern - there's always going to be some excuse, some reason, something else they need, something they want to see, something that proves the fraud but they just won't show because they're hiding something and blah blah blah.

Two months of this is more than enough. Trump had his shot. He failed. Game over.

 

[MIDutch]

I don't think those who are hiding the evidence are as good as hiding it, as you do. I reckon the investigators would find the evidence if they were given a bit of time and resources. But to say, you have no evidence and I won't allow you the opportunity to find it is a bit sus.

Well, it's been over two months now.

Is it because there is no evidence ... or that trump's legal team and voter fraud investigators are complete incompetent idiots?

You know, with being as rich as he supposedly is, trump does seem to be a real penny pincher when it comes to hiring however many lawyers and investigators it would have taken to help him keep his job and keep him out of jail. If he was so convinced there was all this evidence just floating around, he should have had hundreds of lawyers and investigators scouring the land. But, no, he merely had Rudy and Powell and Wood regurgitate rumors they gleaned off of the right wing blogosphere. trump had better hope that you are right and SOMEBODY can find all of this evidence you speak of. Otherwise he might have to skip the country to avoid jail time.

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't think those who are hiding the evidence are as good as hiding it, as you do. I reckon the investigators would find the evidence if they were given a bit of time and resources. But to say, you have no evidence and I won't allow you the opportunity to find it is a bit sus.

So how do you explain that AG Barr, investigating the "fraud" after Pres. Trump had asked him to do it, came back and said there was no massive voter fraud. He didn't state that he didn't have enough time, or that he lacked resources (he had both the DoJ and FBI, and could select people he trusted while keeping "deep state" agents out of the investigation), he flat out stated the fraud didn't exist.

This is what people are closing their eyes to -- it isn't just the courts that ruled against the Trump campaign, or the appeals courts that upheld the lower courts rulings against the Trump campaigns (many of them judges that Trump put on the bench); it also included state law enforcement (many of them Republican controlled), Republican politicians that were running the elections (like in Georgia, where the Governor and Secretary of State were both Republican and Trump supporters (at least right up to the point they couldn't find fraud); national law enforcement, Homeland Security (also under the control of Trump with Trump appointees looking for fraud) -- it's just a huge number of groups and people, many Republican Trump supporters -- that are all saying there was no fraud that changed the results of the election.