Arizona Senate Intends to Hand-Count 2.1M Maricopa County 2020 Ballots; Not Clear How

[lasthero]

Complaints were not just from Republicans. A Democrat from Georgia stated:

“I also saw absentee ballots for Trump inserted into Biden’s stack, and counted as Biden votes. This occurred a few times.”

That's interesting. A couple of questions.

How do you know the individual in question was actually a Democrat, what other details did this individual provide, what was his name, how did he manage to be at the perfect distance to see what the ballots were for but far enough away that the wrongdoers didn't notice him, and why did he simply stand by and watch this happen?

 

[lasthero]

Why the rules were not obeyed and how often is simply a rhetorical question at this point. Let's see where things went wrong and fix areas that need fixing. The more cameras the better, the more crime can be caught, obviously people can always come up with ways to beat the system.

I agree, we should have more cameras all over the place. In fact, cameras should be in every American's house, in their bathroom, pointing at them from the street, covering as many angles as possible. Our crime rate would drop overnight!

 

[Valletta]

That's interesting. A couple of questions.

How do you know the individual in question was actually a Democrat, what other details did this individual provide, what was his name, how did he manage to be at the perfect distance to see what the ballots were for but far enough away that the wrongdoers didn't notice him, and why did he simply stand by and watch this happen?

Those, my friend, are good questions. That's what should have been determined in a court of law, for that sworn statement and a thousand other sworn statements.

 

[Valletta]

I agree, we should have more cameras all over the place. In fact, cameras should be in every American's house, in their bathroom, pointing at them from the street, covering as many angles as possible. Our crime rate would drop overnight!

As to privacy, today we are almost like a banana republic here, the 6 A.M. raid on Giuliani's home was an outrageous breach of privacy.

 

[Pommer]

I agree, we should have more cameras all over the place. In fact, cameras should be in every American's house, in their bathroom, pointing at them from the street, covering as many angles as possible. Our crime rate would drop overnight!

Winston Smith agrees!

 

[Pommer]

As to privacy, today we are almost like a banana republic here, the 6 A.M. raid on Giuliani's home was an outrageous breach of privacy.

Did the raiders have in their possession, a valid search warrant?

 

[lasthero]

Those, my friend, are good questions. That's what should have been determined in a court of law, for that sworn statement and a thousand other sworn statements.

Well, if that's all they had - some guy said he saw something - than I don't blame them for not giving it much of a look. The courts don't have an obligation to chase down every little accusation that comes up, especially when it seems so flimsy out of the gate.

 

[Pommer]

Well, if that's all they had - some guy said he saw something - than I don't blame them for not giving it much of a look. The courts don't have an obligation to chase down every little accusation that comes up, especially when it seems so flimsy out of the gate.

There’s an atheist YouTuber whose got a running series on preachers and prophets who’re still full-steam-ahead aboard the TrumpTrain®, expecting 45 to 86 46 and become 47 (which, in base-15 is 32, the number of which is for FDR, who reigned for twelve years), like Donald Trump wanted to do!
And these folks believe that he will.
A fair amount of their followers too, because, really, what choice do they have?

That’s a scary power that I don’t want used in our society: using people’s terror of admitting error to guide them into delusional thinking.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Nailed it.

 

[Vylo]

Those, my friend, are good questions. That's what should have been determined in a court of law, for that sworn statement and a thousand other sworn statements.

It was determined in a court that there was not sufficient evidence for a trial to take place. That statement was taken for what the judge deemed it was worth: almost nothing.

And that was the opinion of every judge these cases were brought before, many of them GOP appointed and some appointed by Trump himself. Politically, they had every incentive to have the cases heard. Legally and professionally, however, they had every reason not to waste time with cases that did not warrant a trial.

Note that Trump's lawyers couldn't even say there was widespread voter fraud in court because it would have been perjury, and they didn't want to be disbarred or possibly even jailed for lying in court. At least one has defended themselves against a defamation lawsuit by saying no reasonable person would believe their statements.

It's all theater. Trump lost soundly, and those leading the charge know it. They just want to gaslight enough of the public into believing it to scam them out of money, and if they can get enough of them to believe, make another grab at power.

 

[Valletta]

It was determined in a court that there was not sufficient evidence for a trial to take place. That statement was taken for what the judge deemed it was worth: almost nothing.

And that was the opinion of every judge these cases were brought before, many of them GOP appointed and some appointed by Trump himself. Politically, they had every incentive to have the cases heard. Legally and professionally, however, they had every reason not to waste time with cases that did not warrant a trial.

Note that Trump's lawyers couldn't even say there was widespread voter fraud in court because it would have been perjury, and they didn't want to be disbarred or possibly even jailed for lying in court. At least one has defended themselves against a defamation lawsuit by saying no reasonable person would believe their statements.

It's all theater. Trump lost soundly, and those leading the charge know it. They just want to gaslight enough of the public into believing it to scam them out of money, and if they can get enough of them to believe, make another grab at power.

Many of us use our own minds to determine the truth rather than rely on what some particular judge says.
I filed a successful lawsuit against federal agencies myself, the lead litigator confided in me that half the judges would have tossed the case immediately. When I asked why he said they were federal court judges and did not want to take on the federal government. The lawsuit was quite successful. As I've said before, you don't even need evidence to have a federal court order an evidentiary hearing in a civil lawsuit, the bar is very low. Democrats have hired over one hundred attorneys to try and stop the audit in Arizona, the court has ruled the audit to continue. Don't you think you should include that in your claims?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Those, my friend, are good questions. That's what should have been determined in a court of law, for that sworn statement and a thousand other sworn statements.

Perhaps the questions were already addressed, and the fact that no answer could be found that passed the laugh test is why this and other "sworn" statements just like it were deemed useful only as birdcage lining?

 

[Valletta]

Perhaps the questions were already addressed, and the fact that no answer could be found that passed the laugh test is why this and other "sworn" statements just like it were deemed useful only as birdcage lining?

People took an oath to God. Have you actually read any of the sworn statements?

 

[TLK Valentine]

People took an oath to God.

What's a god worth in the service of Donald?

People go to prison all the time for violating such oaths. And Donald ought to know; he pardoned quite a few of them.

Have you actually read any of the sworn statements?

Have you you given the follow-up questions any thought?

 

[lasthero]

People took an oath to God.

So?

What do you see as the significance of an oath?

 

[Vylo]

Many of us use our own minds to determine the truth rather than rely on what some particular judge says.
I filed a successful lawsuit against federal agencies myself, the lead litigator confided in me that half the judges would have tossed the case immediately. When I asked why he said they were federal court judges and did not want to take on the federal government. The lawsuit was quite successful. As I've said before, you don't even need evidence to have a federal court order an evidentiary hearing in a civil lawsuit, the bar is very low. Democrats have hired over one hundred attorneys to try and stop the audit in Arizona, the court has ruled the audit to continue. Don't you think you should include that in your claims?

it wasn't one judge, it was dozens. never was there sufficient evidence to proceed. it was never about an earnest belief in fraud. it is all about gaslighting.

 

[Valletta]

So?

What do you see as the significance of an oath?

I guess maybe it is lost on a lot of people today, but recall that the president and officials are required to take oaths, so are witnesses in court. Joe Biden swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and thus the laws of this land. Some say he has violated this oath by not enforcing the laws at the border. An oath is very serious for Christians who understand the meaning. Catholics view our Sacraments as of particularly great importance, the word "sacrament" comes from the Latin word for oath.

 

[Valletta]

it wasn't one judge, it was dozens. never was there sufficient evidence to proceed. it was never about an earnest belief in fraud. it is all about gaslighting.

Oh there was more than enough evidence to proceed, in a civil case you don't even need evidence, just a strong belief. The bar is far lower than in a criminal case. It was a mockery of justice for the Supreme court not to hold a hearing on the Texas lawsuit. Election laws are like any other laws, there was no valid reason not to treat election laws as such. Fear is not a valid reason. Did you read the dissenting opinion from Justice Thomas in the Pennsylvania case? Thomas understood this, although he was a bit kinder in his words, using the word "inexplicable."
" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf

 

[TLK Valentine]

Winston Smith agrees!

Anyone would after a visit to room 101.

 

[Arcangl86]

Oh there was more than enough evidence to proceed, in a civil case you don't even need evidence, just a strong belief.

That's true for most civil cases, but fraud cases require that the plaintiff pleads with specificity. It's a heightened standard that only applies to fraud cases.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many of us use our own minds to determine the truth rather than rely on what some particular judge says.

And the powers-that-be thank you for it.