FYI, Proof is still PROOF even if it isn't "WIDESPREAD"

I'd have to see the sorts of posts you're referring to, but clearly CLAIMS of fraud are not the same as PROOF of fraud. You say there's "mountains of admissible evidence fraud." That's intriguing since this suggests there's going to be a trial at which all this mountain of evidence will be presented. Is that what you're saying? If so, can you explain to me how you know that? I've looked at a some of the affidavits that are easily found online and haven't seen anything that is both credible and amount to much, so I'd be very interested in seeing what you've seen.

 

You really need to get in touch with Guliani with all this convincing proof because he's losing court cases badly. Maybe you should argue on behalf of Trump, but be sure to take your tinfoil hat off before appearing in court.

 

They lose their cases because they use a few hundred or a few thousand examples of fraud, or suspicion of fraud, here and there to justify overturning results number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Of course those cases would fail its absurd to think they wouldn't and that's the exact point; the existence of some fraudulent voters does not mean all votes were fraudulent. Did you only read my first paragraph before responding? It seems like that might be the case.

Oh and a word of advice new person, comments like that little tinfoil hate line belong at the kids table. You're not at r/politics, alright?

 

Actually read some of their filings not what OANN ore Newsmax tell you. In court they dont even allege fraud for the most part. Their claims revolve around minor issues like ballots that weren't dated but were received on time or ballots that didn't have the privacy envelope. So when you say there was significant fraud when Guliani doesn't make that same argument in court, you are pereptuating a lie. Lies don't belong at the adult table. This isn't r/conservative.

 

yep, they know this, now they are just trying to save face, "see we caught a republican voting for dead people, told you there was fraud"

at least Republicans are admitting there is no widespread fraud that would overturn the election

 

Maybe its you who should do the reading because you seem to think each of these election lawsuits have originated with or even involved Rudy Guliani. I'll give you a few cases alleging and demonstrating fraud below. But will they overturn results? No, of course not. But does that mean fraud doesn't occur? Again, no. Strike 2.

Pirkle v. Wolf
Johnson/Stoddard v. Benson
Bally v. Whitmer
Langenhorst v. Pecore
Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Pearson v. Kemp

 

Obtuse and obviously so. There have been thousands of affidavits referenced in many suits to date, those are all evidence, regardless of the procedural outcomes in lower, politically partisan courts. And no, we aren't going to start up the typical deflecting BS that several in this thread are known for. Sorry. There is a 100% chance you and yours will not accept whatever is introduced no matter how damning, as the commercials say, "It's what you do."

But let's cut to the chase, we can clear this up instantly. In states where there is significant testimony and forensic evidence of fraud, would you or would you not simply agree to a full audit procedure covering all the cast votes? In any election with far less abnormalities than this one, I'd gladly agree to such, as would a vast majority as non LW/Complex/shill posters here... regardless of the election, regardless the candidate.

 

First, I want to apologize for being snarky earlier and not being civil.

Pirke vs. Wolf --- voluntary dismissed
Johnson/Stoddard v. Benson ---voluntary dismissed
Bally v. Whitmer --- voluntary dismissed
Langenhorst v. Pecore --- voluntary dismissed
Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission --- recently filed so let's see what they bring to the table
Pearson v. Kemp --- recently filed

So a majority of these cases were voluntarily withdrawn, so I'm not seeing any cases where the judges say "yes there was fraud but not enough to overturn an election." Also, I'm seeing a lot of claims of fraud but no proof presented.

Did fraud occur this year. Yes. Do people vote for candidates using a dead person's name. Yes. I don't think anyone is arguing there was zero fraud. But this type of fraud happens every year in every election whether it be in the general election or state elections. The question is why is it such a big deal this year?

 

They are evidence of what specific crime? 1000 affidavits making 1000 different allegations constitute evidence for 1000 different possible crimes, but this doesn't constitute strong evidence for any specific crime. I'm not insisting there ARE no cases with multiple corroborating testimony, but if there are - please identify them.

While you're at it, please exclude process complaints. Observers wishing to be closer to the action does not constitute fraud. Perhaps they imply a greater opportunity for fraud than we'd like to have, but if opportunity implies guilt, we're all in jeopardy of going to prison.

Also, please exclude the claims that have already been investigated and shown to be innocent. For example, the claims about Dominion machines being connected tho the internet (they don't have the capability), or the claim they were designed by Chavez.

One more thing to filter. Pull out the claims where the witness just sees something he doesn't understand and says something to the effect, "I bet they were....". Speculations are not evidence.

I hope every state investigates every credible allegation, punishes anyone who committed a crime (including perjury, if false allegations are made) and that they take steps to prevent such crimes in the future and find ways to make the processes as transparent as possible. However, the legal and constitutional timeline for the election will have to be met, and everyone should accept that.

How do you know there are more "abnormalities" in this election? There are clearly more allegations, but no prior election has solicited allegations after stirring up emotions with allegations of fraud and claims the election was stolen. Allegations were made before a single vote was cast, and Team Trump has clearly seized on every allegation later debunked, and pushed them as proof. I encourage you to do what they haven't: filter out the less credible, uncorroborated allegations, and then let's look at them together.

 

By OP's view should we not be able to demand Trump concede since errors and fraud have been uncovered in his favor as well?

 

Was a crystal clear question, and spare the "deadline" bullshit, are you going to answer the question directly or not?

"But let's cut to the chase, we can clear this up instantly. In states where there is significant testimony and forensic evidence of fraud, would you or would you not simply agree to a full audit procedure covering all the cast votes? In any election with far less abnormalities than this one, I'd gladly agree to such, as would a vast majority as non LW/Complex/shill posters here... regardless of the election, regardless the candidate."

 

Sorry I omitted the word, "yes", I thought that was clear. Yes - absolutely.

 

Fair enough, thank you.