Video Proof The Democrats Cheated

If your point was that you have no evidence then yes, I have proved your point...many times over.

 

You think more highly of yourself than anyone else would.

 

Not true...I think my mother thinks highly of me. Pretty sure my wife might. I dunno, depends of the day I guess. My kids are back to thinking highly of me since they are past their teenage years.
But enough about me....got evidence? I know, I know...you don’t.

 

What about the Pennsylvania case? What happened to that? Here's what happened.

"This is not a case about fraud." - Guliani

 

1) I would say this is EVIDENCE of foul play, but not proof. With that being said, and I think you would agree, everything about this video stinks. A stack of what appears to be uncreased ballots with three poll workers being quite adamant that they’re suspicious and then being told it will be handled later when signature verification supposedly had already been done.

2) I feel bad for those people but at the end of the day, the integrity of our government elections is of more importance than any individuals safety. What needs to happen is in the contested states, even the ones Trump won, there should be a signature verification of the envelopes.

That is the one AND ONLY way to verify the vote count. That’s the SOLE reason we have people sign; So the count can be verified through signature matching. It sounds like you agree that it should t be a problem. Unfortunately many of your compatriots are fighting tooth and nail to deny one. And as Jesus told us, “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen that they have been done in God.”

 

In a detailed, 35-page decision, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court in Carson City vetted each claim of fraud and wrongdoing made by the Trump campaign in the state and found that none was supported by convincing proof. The judge dismissed the challenge with prejudice, ruling that the campaign failed to offer any basis for annulling more than 1.3 million votes cast in the state’s presidential race.
The campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin of victory, which was about 33,600 votes, Russell wrote.

 

During a court hearing Thursday afternoon, Trump campaign lawyer Jesse R. Binnall said the Nevada election had been “stolen” from Trump and claimed a “robust body of evidence” supported his conclusion.

Among its allegations, the campaign claimed that more than 61,000 people voted twice or from out-of-state.

In his ruling, Russell concurred with election officials and academic experts that there is no evidence for this, and specifically dismissed witness declarations that had been touted by the campaign, calling them “self-serving statements of little or no evidentiary value.”

The judge added that the campaign’s so-called expert testimony “was of little to no value,” and called a claim of ballot-stuffing in broad daylight — made by one anonymous person and not corroborated by anyone else — “not credible.”

 

Mothers often compliment their kids, failures or not.

 

Well, bless your heart ...

 

Good to know your mother still compliments you with your failure to provide voter fraud evidence.

 

Because there is no evidence that the purported lists are anything but fabrications, like all the other "evidence" of large-scale voter fraud Trumpazoids have offered.

 

So is this, don't make it real

 

Pathetic ad hom BECAUSE you CANNOT credibly substantiate the worthless allegation that you made about the Dems in your OP all you have left now?

Sad!



YOU made this BASELESS allegation in post #17 above.

Are you also UNAWARE that a "write in candidate" ballot is cast for someone who is NEITHER Biden nor YOUR biggest LOSER*-in-Chief and THEREFORE makes ZERO difference to the OUTCOME?

Even if you threw 100% of ALL "write in candidate" ballots throughout the entire nation the END RESULT is NOT going to change by a single vote.

In essence you have NOTHING!

Really Sad!

 

Oh the IRONY coming from a supporter of the biggest LOSER*-in-Chief that egregiously IGNORED the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

We could only wish! LOL!

 

No he doesn't - you've got some erroneous methodology going on.

Firstly, it's 6 votes out of 1,626 (not 1,600) = 0.369% (as I said).

Secondly, this rate applies to duplicated ballots, not all ballots. Therefore the extrapolation applies to duplicated ballots, not all ballots. As a result of which, Trump gains 195 votes (52,897 total duplicated ballots x 0.369%) statewide.

It is not methodologically sound to apply it to all ballots. Duplicated ballots are known to be more prone to error as they involve the most human labor, and are therefore most subject to human error. That's why, among other reasons, duplication is a two-person process, to mitigate this. And that's why the rate cannot be applied to all ballots.

Any extrapolation applied to non-duplicated ballots would have to use an error rate for non-duplicated ballots.

What's more, regarding these other ballots, a hand-counted audit found no other discrepancies.

Thirdly, to describe the errors as "instances of fraud" is pure conjecture, with no basis. The Supreme Court of Arizona unanimously concluded likewise:

"The challenge fails to present any evidence of “misconduct,” “illegal votes” or that the Biden Electors “did not in fact
receive the highest number of votes for office,” let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that
would undermine the certainty of the election results."​

 

It seems that you have a profound misunderstanding of standing and laches.

For one thing, if you have no standing, or if laches applies, you simply don't have have a case - your complaint isn't valid or viable. It simply doesn't meet the fundamental requirements. That is a weakness in the complaint, not a weakness in the judicial system.

Secondly, you seem to think that standing or laches is determined without any regard to what the plaintiff brings to the table. That, of course, would be impossible. Judges have to know what injuries are alleged, how and why, on what basis, etc., as well as any factors impacting the timeliness of the complaint in order to determine if either applies, which necessitates reviewing what the petitioner brings to the table, often evidentiary and other hearings, as well as consideration of motions and responses from respondents - laches being, after all, a defense proffered by respondents.

Further, we know from opinions and rulings that judges have in fact given consideration to evidence because, even when ruling lack of standing or laches, it is often the case that in doing so, they use the opportunity to further explain how and why the case would not - in any event - succeed.

 

LOL, the sufferers think a few Facebook posts are massive interference while ignoring all the real interference by internal enemies, or China for that matter.

 

Standing or Laches have nothing to do with the evidence. Merit is never addressed.

 

Denial is a poor substitute for facts.

 

Yet denial of facts is all you have.

 

Have you tried the Conspiracy Forums because they love to share your sort of conspiracy claptrap?

 

Ahhh.. the old rubber-glue treatment. Lmao.

Infowars called. You're late!

 

Of course they address merit. Standing is a fundamental measure of merit. The first hurdle, as it were. If you can't meet even this basic requirement - pass this initial assessment - then your case is deficient at the the outset.

Or do you think you can say to a court, I'm injured but I can't show that I'm injured and/or I can't say who's responsible, but I think you should listen to me anyway. Of course not.

Laches speaks to the veracity and severity of the alleged injury, as well as the equity of relief requested. If it is a successful defense against the complaint, then again, that's because the complaint is deficient.

And, you keeping ignoring the fact that both the above require a review of the complaint and that, while not required, judges can - and often have - included their opinion as to whether (with standing/without laches) the case would have succeeded on its "merits".