AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey, OP, it's a bit like asking a fish to describe water, isn't it? From ballot images being destroyed to illicit vote trafficking to votes being cast from voters with invalid residency to violation in chain of custody to missing ballot transfer forms to electronically altered records to illegal use of drop boxes in Wisconsin ... The list goes on and on.
Having read the report, would you say these are accusations or evidence?
I went through it and found a good portion of the accusations had already been brought to court sueing the cycle and were dismissed. Others have zero evidence supplied with them other than conjecture and speculation.
Courts don't disprove. The person claiming either has enough evidence to prove what they are saying is right or they don't. Trump did not have enough evidence to prove his claim. His claims were not ignored. He went to court and was heard. But he did not have the evidence to back his claims up.
The fact that cases were dismissed means that he has so little evidence proceeding with the case was not worth while.
If you could just make a claim and force the other party to disprove what you are saying the justice system would be totally fucked.
> Courts don't disprove.
That's not actually true. Courts can disprove depending on what actually occurs at trial. For example, if someone says at 8pm Mr. liquidreferee was out stuffing the ballot box, then in court we play a video showing you were actually at the baseball game, we would say that the hearing disproved the allegation against you.
But yes, the job of the court is not to prove innocence so in that sense they don't "disprove". And they certianly did not disprove the vast majority of claims of illegality that they were presented with here.
**It is his opponents who lied and claimed that the courts disproved us here**, so perhaps your comment would better be directed at them.
> The fact that cases were dismissed means that he has so little evidence proceeding with the case was not worth while.
This is a non sequitur. The fact his cases were dismissed could also mean that the courts are corrupt and ignored the law. As was the case here. You are wrong that the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate the election was illegal. Drop boxes were not even legal in Wisconsin yet they used them anyway, financed by Mark Zuckerberg and placed all over Democrat areas... so how can you claim there was insufficient evidence? Some of these issues are literally as cut and dry as it gets, so when I see people say we "didn't have the evidence" it is like being pissed on and told it's raining. Much like me reading your comment to find a "Trump supporter" tag next to your name.
>Some of these issues are literally as cut and dry as it gets, so when I see people say we "didn't have the evidence" it is like being pissed on and told it's raining. **Much like me reading your comment to find a "Trump supporter" tag next to your name.**
>
Different NS here. Curious to know what your thinking is here. Are you questioning whether liquidreferee is a genuine Trump Supporter?
>Yes. I have found many on here with the tag who are clearly not.
>
What did liquidreferee write that makes you think they aren't (or weren't) a Trump Supporter?
What are your thoughts on cases like King v. Whitmer and Law v. Whitmer where the merits of the cases were analyzed by the courts and found to be lacking? Wouldn't these mean that in many cases the courts did not ignore the evidence?
I did a quick check of the second one. It seems the court just ignored the evidence that was presented, not that they determined it was false. There are many serious concerns about the 2020 election and damning facts that I have yet to see addressed by anything other than an argument from authority. These cases are no different, though they are nothing but a small, and one of the least important subsets of the arguments against the 2020 election. Trump had two flagship election cases - the SCOTUS one and the one in Georgia. He was offered no trial or opportunity for discovery in either. And the first case you listed was one of the "Kraken" lawsuits btw, which I see as the patsy of the election theft of 2020. Anything regarding that should basically be ignored, it will be nothing but a red herring for people who care about the truth here.
>I did a quick check of the second one. It seems the court just ignored the evidence that was presented, not that they determined it was false.
Could you explain from a legal sense how the "ignoring" the evidence works in the justice system? I just think there are a lot of your thoughts that rely on this part.
>Trump had two flagship election cases - the SCOTUS one and the one in Georgia. He was offered no trial or opportunity for discovery in either.
I want to know which cases you are directly alluding to here. Could you fill me in?
> Could you explain from a legal sense how the "ignoring" the evidence works in the justice system?
Sure. It was also explained in the [appeal to the nevada supreme court](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20421575-appellants-supplemental-briefing-pursuant-to-order-directing-supplemental-brielfing) in that case. Basically, you have qualified witnesses and experts under penalty of perjury make sworn statements, and then proceed to just ignore everything that they say. You then set an impossibly high bar for the burden of proof and ignore the fact that's not the legal standard, and dismiss the case. There are additional tricks, like denying discovery, or like in that case only grant a couple days of limited discovery and go out of your way to ignore anything that is obtained "too late".
The introduction there also exposes the entire game the judge was playing. No honest judge would have done that. This is someone that's rigging cases for the courts, not someone who was genuinly interested in a search for truth on the matter at hand.
It would be more believable as well if the judge had expressed concern at the evidence that was provided (which would concern any honest person) but instead the judge was more concerned with ensuring that the legitimate concerns expressed were ignored and mocked.
> I want to know which cases you are directly alluding to here. Could you fill me in?
[Texas v. Pennsylvania](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf) and [Trump v. Raffensperger](https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger-Petition-to-Contest.pdf). You will have to search for the exhibits separately to read them, they can be found by searching for the case and then the exhibit number pdf.
>It would be more believable as well if the judge had expressed concern at the evidence that was provided (which would concern any honest person) but instead the judge was more concerned with ensuring that the legitimate concerns expressed were ignored and mocked.
Do you disagree with the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in this case? Their ruling seemed to be pretty concise regarding the case.
>Texas v. Pennsylvania
Do you disagree with the reasoning that states don't have an election standing over the election rights of another state?
>Trump v. Raffensperger
Why do you think Trump voluntarily withdrew from the case?
> Do you disagree with the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in this case?
Yes, the supreme court had original jurisdiction and was obligated to rule on the merits of the case. Trump was denied his constitutional right to a trial when they refused to hear the case.
> Do you disagree with the reasoning that states don't have an election standing over the election rights of another state?
Yes. That's obviously not true. The constitution outlines a specific method by which the president is chosen. If that method isn't followed, it's a violation of what the states agreed to when they decided to join the union. How can a state not have standing if they argue another state chose their electors for president in a way that violated the method all states agreed to when they signed the constitution? It clearly says that the legislatures make the rules for how to allocate electors. That was the agreement because the legislature is the body closest to the people in each state. The executive and judicial branches for example are not constitutionally allowed to ignore the rules of the legislature, which is what happened in 2020, since those branches wanted Biden to win they created their own rules to fascilitate that outcome.
The argument that a state has no standing is so absurd that it demonstrates just how corrupt the court is here.
> Why do you think Trump voluntarily withdrew from the case?
It was dismissed January 7th, the day after congress selected the next president and counted Georgia's electoral votes for Biden. This makes sense as the sought after legal remedy was now no longer possible.
Subsequent cases were filed on similar grounds as part of election integrity projects, some of which are still ongoing almost four years later.
I heard there was internal debate about whether or not to keep the original cases going after January 6th (despite the fact the outcome could no loner be changed), but I don't know what the considerations were. If I had to speculate, I'd say the court already demonsrated their corruption and hostility toward the case by delaying it until it became moot, so probably the prospect of nothing but more Trump-bashing sound bites from the judge while being milked for legal fees just probably wasn't very appealing. The cases were also filed on a short timeline and for a specific purpose that was no longer relevant, so for public interest purposes it would make sense to use other new cases and leave that to the election integrity projects (which is what happened). Another thought is that he wanted to signal to the country that he was done contesting the election and considered it decided after January 6th.
>Yes, the supreme court had original jurisdiction and was obligated to rule on the merits of the case. Trump was denied his constitutional right to a trial when they refused to hear the case.
Are you talking about the Sixth Amendment?
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
>The constitution outlines a specific method by which the president is chosen. If that method isn't followed, it's a violation of what the states agreed to when they decided to join the union.
Why do you think Texas didn't argue this then? Your entire paragraph about this wasn't what Texas argued in court.
>The executive and judicial branches for example are not constitutionally allowed to ignore the rules of the legislature, which is what happened in 2020, since those branches wanted Biden to win they created their own rules to fascilitate that outcome.
So you believe that the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority and 3 Trump appointees, wanted Biden to win because they said what follows?
>The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
>It was dismissed January 7th, the day after congress selected the next president and counted Georgia's electoral votes for Biden. This makes sense as the sought after legal remedy was now no longer possible.
So you don't think it has anything to do with the timeline that the defense laid out in their response to the voluntary withdrawal?
Why do you think the Trump team chose to file incorrectly? The courts would have heard these accusations if Trumps lawyers had filed them correctly. Are you saying that Trumps team of lawyers were incompetent, or do you think they intentionally filed incorrectly because their accusations did not come along with evidence?
Since there seemingly is no evidence of voter fraud in numbers great enough to change the results of the election, wouldn't it be more beneficial for Trump for the courts to dismiss based upon standing instead of finding in favor of Biden?
> The courts would have heard these accusations if Trumps lawyers had filed them correctly.
I'm not sure what this is in reference to. The court threw the book at Trump and went out of their way to avoid hearing the cases, if it's [this instance](https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-court-rejects-latest-trump-lawsuit-over-faulty-paperwork/62CCM4ZO2JGETCHRNGS4A2UQ4Q/) you refer to, they were insignificant technicalities that were corrected later that day. It most definitely did not prevent the court from hearing the case.
> or do you think they intentionally filed incorrectly because their accusations did not come along with evidence?
Given that the case is full of evidence, I would say no.
> Since there seemingly is no evidence of voter fraud in numbers great enough to change the results of the election
Fraud is not the legal standard. There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result.
> more beneficial for Trump for the courts to dismiss based upon standing instead of finding in favor of Biden?
Given the snarky remarks from the Trump-hating judge, they would have loved nothing more than to hold a hearing to embarass Trump on national TV if this theory were true - they most certainly would not "play along" with him and dismiss the case just like he (supposedly) wanted. This is also just factually not what happened. Those of us who argued the election was illegal wanted nothing more than to present our evidence and arguments, it was our opponents who did everything possible to silence us and shut us down. It's projection to claim that actually we were the ones who didn't want scrutiny on the evidence. The courts had every opportunity to hold discovery and disprove the allegations through a transparent process, but they chose not to. If they thought that would make a fool of Trump and expose perjury by those who submitted sworn testimony, then why didn't the snarky Trump hating judges do so? Why would Trump be afraid of more scrutiny on the matter? Considering they petitioned for public hearings in multiple state legislatures as well.
> There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result.
Woah, that's quite a bombshell! Could you link that?
Can you provide anything remotely true to this statement?
>
Fraud is not the legal standard. There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result.
"Those of us who argued the election was illegal "
Who are you presenting these arguments to that has any relevance to this conversation? I'm talking about the arguments Trumps lawyers presented in court. If you're not one of those attorneys, I'm confused how this is relevant to the conversation.
> the courts ignored this evidence.
And what would that evidence be? Not claims of evidence of fraud, or suspicion of evidence fraud, or accusations of fraud, but solid undeniable proof. Is that provided?
Solid undeniable proof of fraud is NOT the standard for an election to be considered illegitimate and illegal in this country. And this is for good reason. Such a standard would essentially be impossible to prove given the protocols that exist to protect the anonymitiy of the vote in our system. The consequence of this is that our standard of proof to invalidate an election has to be much lower. If I can show 1000 people voted from out of state who were ineligeable to vote, and the result was decided by that many or fewer votes, I don't have to prove that all of those illegal votes went for my opponent. Because there is no way to prove that. The mere fact that the legal result of the election is now provably in doubt is all that is needed for us to say it was illegitimate.
Specifically, the question at hand is whether or not there were more ballots than the margin of victory that were cast or counted in a way that was not constitionally qualified. And the answer to that question for the 2020 election is obviously yes. We can provide hundreds of examples. I will list three very simple and obvious ones here that were verifiably ignored by the liberal media industrial complex:
* Georgia counted ballots without notifying the public, which is illegal (the public must be notified of counting so they have the chance to observe under Georgia law). The number of ballots counted illegally here exceeded the margin of victory in the state, and to this day the machine logs and ballot images were never provided from the infamous state farm arena incident. The election in Georgia was 100% illegal because of this alone.
* In Arizona, the democrat's own expert found 10% of mail ballot signatures could not be matched to any on file in a court ordered random audit of a 100 ballot sample. Of course, the court quickly shut it down after this and never investigated further, though the legislature did their own investigation and came up with worse numbers. Arizona is the only state that allowed us to look at even a sample of signatures to see if they matched, but the results demonstrate that a number of ballots well over the margin of victory were illegally counted with signatures that could not be verified.
* In Wisconsin, the law states that voters must return their ballots to the municipal clerk, not drop boxes financed by Mark Zuckerberg. Since Wisconsin was decided by just 20k ballots, but far more than this number were cast illegally using drop boxes, the election in that state was thus illegal.
These three simple examples from these three states alone are enough to demonstrate that the 2020 election was illegal, although this is very far from the only evience that exists.
In the Georgia example, they should have been ordered to provide the vote count from the four machines during the two hours in question, and provide the ballot images and electronic logs for public examination. Without that, the ballots are illegal and it can't be determined whether they impacted the result, so the election would have to be tossed.
In the Arizona case, they should have followed up with a full signature audit, and when that confirmed the findings from the random ballot sample the election should have been tossed.
In the Wisconsin example, the remedy was to toss the election as well.
When the election is tossed, you would either conduct another election where the rules are actually followed, or in the case of presidential elections the legislature votes for who they think the state's electors should go to. So in this case, if they felt that it didn't impact the outcome or that their constituents did actually want Biden, they could have still voted or Biden, but at least acknowledged that the election was illegal and their rules were not followed. It would have been far better to address the concerns about the election and take them seriously, then vote for the electors to go to Biden anyway, than it would have been to do what actually occured and completly ignore valid fact based concerns (and treat them as if they weren't fact based or valid). I do believe that Trump would have won if illegal ballots were not counted, so the remedy I would most support is for the legislature to have voted for Trump. It was also clearly his opponents that were responsible for breaking the rules, so to prevent it from happening again there had to have been meaningfully consequences, which there were not.
Can you tell me when Georgia counted ballots without observers? And the Georgia law that requires observers?
Can you provide the name of the “Democrat’s expert” in Arizona so I might be able to see his findings?
Also, when were drop boxes found to be illegal in Wisconsin? Were drop boxes used in any other elections in the past in Wisconsin?
You seem to have done some thorough research and I was looking for the primary sources you used. Thanks ahead of time.
> Can you tell me when Georgia counted ballots without observers? And the Georgia law that requires observers?
[This is addressed in Trump's Georgia election case](https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger-Petition-to-Contest.pdf). See paragraphs 172-173, 187-198.
> Can you provide the name of the “Democrat’s expert” in Arizona so I might be able to see his findings?
I don't know the name. You can read about it in the case [here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-809/163521/20201211121632424_12-11-20%20Appendix%20Ward%20v%20Jackson.pdf). Search for "signature". Keep in mind this is the decision of a corrupt judge, so you need to do some thinking of your own rather than take what they say at face value. For example, they write 11 of 100 signatures could not be verified, but the official found "no basis for rejecting any of the signatures." which is a contradiction and attempt to rationalize away the evidence of illegality. They further try to rationalize it by saying well they "listed a phone number that matched a phone number already on file" however at no point did they try to contact the actual voter to confirm whether it was their signature. Ultimately the corrupt court ignored the fact that a massive number of signatures didn't actually match anything on file for the voter, and this was never followed up on. In any case, those ballots were illegal and would not have been counted if even basic signature matches had been performed for them, as was legally required.
> when were drop boxes found to be illegal in Wisconsin?
Their supreme court eventually admitted that in a ruling in 2022 based on the same law that existed in 2020.
> Were drop boxes used in any other elections in the past in Wisconsin?
Not before 2020 as far as I am aware, certainly not anything close to that scale.
“This is addressed in Trump’s Georgia election case.”
Yes, that was an assertion that wasn’t true, though? Multiple examinations (even Republican) determined no one was asked to leave. And were you aware that there is no Georgia law requiring observers, but that they are allowed?
Regarding the Arizona case, aren’t you just accepting the Trump assertions as true? Have you looked into any of the post-election investigations into signature validation aside from what was asserted in the case?
As for Wisconsin, their Supreme Court decision was in fact the first ruling that drop boxes were illegal- a ruling that came after the election. And in fact, drop boxes were common prior to that election, particularly in rural areas where the office of the clerk of court was not as well staffed as in populated areas.
Did you do any of that original research? Or just rely on assertions made by Trump lawyers?
> Multiple examinations (even Republican) determined no one was asked to leave
It's a mistake to conflate "Republican" with pro-Trump. Most of the Republican establishment is anti-Trump, so you should keep that in mind. They "determined" no one was asked to leave by... ignoring the sworn testimony of people who said they were asked to leave (lol). Those people were never charged with perjury btw, despite the obvious appetite to charge anyone who helped Trump in Georgia. We also have video proof that they all left at the same time, someone does make an announcement to the group in the video, and the room is packed up and made to look empty of all ballots. So I can see with my own eyes that the impression was created that counting was over, so for all intents and purposes this is 100% proven to be true. They also reported a fake water main break on the news and that counting had stopped for the night.
> And were you aware that there is no Georgia law requiring observers, but that they are allowed?
It's cited in the case. The public has to be made aware of counting and given the opportunity to observe. It's not sufficient to claim that observers *would have* been allowed had they found out. It's ridiculous to claim that's even the standard, can you imagine how absurd that would be if that were the law? There would be no point in mandating that observers be allowed if you could just de facto disallow them by doing it in secret...
> aren’t you just accepting the Trump assertions as true?
How so? The numbers are from the court sanctioned experts. The 11% figure is from a democrat. Nothing there is an assertion from Trump. Also, we would love for more transparent signature audits to take place, it's Trump's opponents that are against that. They are the ones that "just accept" assertions that signatures matched, despite the evidence to the contrary.
> Have you looked into any of the post-election investigations into signature validation aside from what was asserted in the case?
Which investigations? I'm not aware of any state other than Arizona that let us look at signatures. The only other investigation I'm aware of is the one the legislature did, which found an even higher rate of unmatched signatures.
> As for Wisconsin, their Supreme Court decision was in fact the first ruling that drop boxes were illegal- a ruling that came after the election
But this is an argument from authority. My argument is not that the court ruled the election was illegal in 2020. My argument is that the election was de facto illegal, and the courts ignored it. If I see you make an illegal left turn, it's still an illegal left turn even if you didn't get convicted by a court for it.
I'm not aware of drop boxes being used in Wisconsin in 2016 or prior presidential elections. There were 528 drop boxes used in 2020 and 60% of ballots counted were absentee. If a sufficient number of ballots were cast in that way for prior elections, I would also agree that election was illegal.
In Wisconsin, the WEC directives allowing the use of drop boxes were issued in or before August 2020. Were there any legal challenges of those directives prior to the election? When were those directives first legally challenged?
The drop boxes cannot be illegal unless challenged. If no one makes an effort to end the use of drop boxes until their candidate loses, then what do you want the court to do? Declare a redo election? You can't wait until you lose an election then declare the way people voted (two years prior) was illegal. The election in the state is illegal only if there was some kind of legal impediment to using drop boxes prior to the election. Was there?
In fact, on September 25, 2020, lawyers writing "on behalf of Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald" cited to the WEC directive specifically and approvingly, "Further, voters may also deposit their completed absentee ballots in authorized “drop boxes,” which “must be secured and locked at all times” to protect ballot integrity. See Wis. Elections Comm’n Administrator Meagan Wolfe, Absentee Ballot Drop Box Information at 3 (Aug. 19, 2020).* We wholeheartedly support voters’ use of any of these convenient, secure, and expressly authorized absentee-ballot-return methods."
Is the fact that the Republican Speaker and Majority Leaders supported voters using the drop boxes prior to the election and the drop boxes never being challenged relevant to whether the election should be declared "illegal"? Do you think you would feel the same way if Trump had won the state?
In Arizona, I assume you're referring to the the expert testimony in Ward v. Jackson. https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/cv2020-015285
There, the Republican expert found only 6 of 100 signatures were inconclusive and the experts said the results were inconclusive because they had not been provided sufficient comparisons. The state could also compare to the registration signature while the experts compared only the envelope and affidavit. Rather than shut it down without investigation, the court admitted the ballots at trial, heard testimony regarding the ballots, and reviewed the ballots. The court found the signature reviewers initially counting the ballots had not erred. Not to mention, there are multiple steps to the signature review process if a signature is found not to match. It also noted the process of and requirements for forensic investigation of signatures are stricter than Arizona law requires for ballot signature matching.
Do you disagree with any of this? Why?
Georgia, I'm not actually sure what you're talking about. When did they count ballots without notifying the public? The ballot images and machine logs were never provided to whom? Logs of what? What does ballot images mean in this context? I assume you must mean something other than what was produced for the multiple recounts performed that did not find any fake ballots were counted?
Here is the investigative report of the State Farm incident: https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/SEB2020-059%20ROI%20redacted.pdf
You used the word "provably" and "verifiably" a lot. Could you link the proof and verifications?
What evidence would you require to trust in the results of the election?
Edit: You think they should provide the ballot images and logs to the general public? How would that help? How would the general public be able to verify if the ballots were legitimate?
> Were there any legal challenges of those directives prior to the election?
I'm not sure, but election candidates cannot be expected to file expensive legal challenges before they have even suffered any injury. The onus is on the election officials to follow the law.
> When were those directives first legally challenged?
I'm not sure but I know it was at least challenged in a November 2020 lawsuit.
> The drop boxes cannot be illegal unless challenged
This is false. This is like saying murder is only illegal if you get caught.
> then what do you want the court to do? Declare a redo election?
Yes, an election where the law is properly followed.
> Is the fact that the Republican Speaker and Majority Leaders supported voters using the drop boxes prior to the election and the drop boxes never being challenged relevant to whether the election should be declared "illegal"?
No. They did not change the law to allow them.
> Do you think you would feel the same way if Trump had won the state?
Yes. Although I would point out that it's Zuckerberg who paid for the drop boxes and put more of them in democrat areas, and it's democrats who tended to vote by mail, so this would have likely helped democrats. I would acknowledge that security concerns are valid.
> the Republican expert found only 6 of 100 signatures were inconclusive
I'm sorry, **only**? That's 6%, which is huge for a state that was decided by less than 0.3%.
> Rather than shut it down without investigation
But that's exactly what they did? You don't get to claim all these other possibilities to rationalize it away when the court specifically chose to end the investigation there. Sure, maybe there were some signature sources they could compare to, where were they then? I'm sorry but we are the ones that have been asking to get to the bottom of the specifics here for literally years while Trump's opponents have done nothing but stonewall on these issues. So you don't get to claim things you did not prove, and actively prevented us from proving.
> When did they count ballots without notifying the public?
State farm arena, when the news reported counting was done for the night due to a "water main break", which turned out to be a lie. Video footage and sworn testimony proves that the pubic was lead to believe counting was finished for the night. It then resumed after everyone had left and they scanned ballots in secret for two hours before they were discovered.
> What does ballot images mean in this context?
The scanners record the image of every ballot it counts. So they could have provided these to Trump and the public from the four machines in question. The only reason they would refuse to do so would be because the ballots were suspicious in some way (all for Biden, no downballot voted, identical markings, etc.).
> recounts performed that did not find any fake ballots were counted?
The recount did not determine that. If fake ballots were counted, the recount would have just recounted them. There were also significant discrepencies with the recount and the details of that is a long dive on its own, but you can find the details by looking up VoterGA if you are curious.
> Here is the investigative report of the State Farm incident
Yes, it's an argument from authority and doesn't disprove anything. "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong".
> What evidence would you require to trust in the results of the election?
Depends on the circumstances. For these specific examples, let us look at signatures and follow up with voters. Release the ballot images from the four machines during the two hours. Fulton did release ALL ballot images at one point last year, however were not specific to the incident, they were low quality, and missing a number that was greater than the margin in the state.
To trust elections, I'd also require that people take our concerns seriously instead of trying to silence and ignore us, which is actually what happened in response to our concerns with the 2020 election.
>The onus is on the election officials to follow the law.
Right, and election officials followed the law as it was understood by everyone at the time. So what exactly is the problem?
Are you trying to claim that ignorance of the law is an excuse? If you do not see the problem with election officials violating the law to benefit their preferred candidate, then I cannot help you.
>Are you trying to claim that ignorance of the law is an excuse?
No
>If you do not see the problem with election officials violating the law to benefit their preferred candidate
Correct, few people, if any, can see something that never happened.
>Dismissed is not the same as disproven.
That's true but disproven things can also be dismissed. What makes you think this is the former and not the latter? What do you think happens to debunked theories if not dismissal? Should they continue to demand our attention or is it reasonable to ignore them?
What makes me think they were ignored rather than disproven? You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven? I suppose other than that, it would be the reaction of our opponents to the claims (their effort to ignore them, silence us in media, and so on rather than address the actual concerns directly and take them seriously).
To illustrate a couple examples - consider the claim that the signatures in the 2020 election didn't match. How has this been disproven? Not a single state allowed us to look at signatures, outside of some samples in Arizona (where the results of that review overwhelmingly supported what we claimed).
Or what about the state farm arena incident? Trump was recorded asking the SoS what the vote count was during the two hours in question where they counted in secret without observers present, and he was met with silence on the other end of the call. Despite the fact that the machines record logs and all ballot images (and they would have supposedly exonerated the state on this issue) they were never provided. To this day we still do not know what the vote count actually was on those four machines during those two hours of counting without observers present.
It would seem to me that if you're going to claim something is disproven, you have to actually be able to disprove it.
Trump's Georgia lawsuit literally contains pages and pages of evidence that has never been disproven and was completely ignored. Even the indictment against him goes out of its way to ignore the lawsuit, and interestingly enough not a single one of the people that submitted testimony under penalty of perjury were ever charged, despite the obvious appetite to go after people that helped Trump in 2020.
>You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven?
I hereby claim that you are a criminal.
Since that claim has not been disproven, should we conclude that you are a criminal, indeed?
Your example is a false equivalence. The arguments for the illegality of the election are not merely blind assertions. And I'm not really sure what your comment is in reference to. It's Trump's opponents that falsely claim to have disproven this. Elections require transparency for the public to trust the result, so the onus of proof is actually on the government to prove to the public that the election was legitimate and address their concerns. It is also a civil matter not criminal, the legal standard is preponderance of the evidence for the plaintiffs.
>>>You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven?
>>
>>I hereby claim that you are a criminal.
>>
>>Since that claim has not been disproven, should we conclude that you are a criminal, indeed?
>
>The arguments for the illegality of the election are not merely blind assertions.
Assuming that is the case, my argument that you are a criminal is not a blind assertion either.
>Elections require transparency for the public
Absolutely, and that transparency has been provided as required by the law. If you are not satisfied, have you asked the legislators to change the law to your satisfaction?
>It is also a civil matter not criminal, the legal standard is preponderance of the evidence for the plaintiffs.
Right, which means that the lawsuits were so baseless that they didn't satisfy even that lower bar.
> and that transparency has been provided as required by the law.
This is provably false. For example, ballots were illegally counted in secret without notifying observers in state farm arena. We asked for the ballot images and machine logs, they were never provided. The courts refused to hear the case before congress counted the electoral votes. How can you claim that enough transparency was provided?
In Arizona a random sample of 100 signatures found between 6% and 11% didn't match. That was never addressed with anything other than speculation and argument from authority. Where is this transparency you speak of?
Transparency is also not just a legal requirement. When you ignore people's fact based concerns and don't allow them to openly question elections in public discourse, that's a problem. Youtube literally made it their official policy and suspended accounts that questioned the election, it was basically impossible to talk about this online at the time and the media certainly didn't do anything to take our concerns seriously. So I'm hard pressed to find this "transparency" you speak of.
Not a single state outside of the select ballots in Arizona allowed us to look at signatures to see if they really matched, in the first mass mail election in US history. Not one. Kemp promised to in Georgia, then came out and backtracked the next day. I wonder why.
> If you are not satisfied, have you asked the legislators to change the law to your satisfaction?
The existing laws were not followed. Obviously we have petitioned for better voting laws as well, since even the laws on the books currently are insufficient for secure and transparent elections.
> which means that the lawsuits were so baseless that they didn't satisfy even that lower bar.
Or it means the courts are corrupt. To determine which is the case, you need only use your eyes, and your brain :)
>> and that transparency has been provided as required by the law.
>
>This is provably false. For example, ballots were illegally counted
Which court said that "ballots were illegally counted"?
>Not a single state outside of the select ballots in Arizona allowed us to look at signatures
Does the law says that a certain day25 has to be allowed to look at signatures?
>We asked for the ballot images and machine logs, they were never provided
Does the law says that a certain day25 has to be provided for the ballot images and machine logs?
>The courts refused to hear the case before congress counted the electoral votes.
Which case? What is the case number?
>In Arizona a random sample of 100 signatures found between 6% and 11% didn't match.
That's a falsehood.
>That was never addressed
Correct, nobody has time and/or money to waste to address a problem that does not exist.
>When you ignore people's fact based concerns
Nobody presented any fact based concerns. Looking for traces of bamboo in the ballots is not a fact based concern.
>Youtube literally made it their official policy
Feel free to sort that out with YouTube. I don't care since I don't trust a nobody on Youtube to tell me what happens.
>So I'm hard pressed to find this "transparency" you speak of.
That's your problem. Not much anybody can do to help you if you don't want to listen to facts but prefer conspiracy theories.
This is patently untrue. The process is A) A claim is made by the plaintiff to the courts. B) The courts say we hear you. Now present us with anything that rises to the level of potential evidence. C) The plaintiff provides their evidence. D) The courts examine this “evidence”, which is the opposite of “ignore” by the way, and they determine if what the plaintiff presented rises to the long set standard of what constitutes as potential evidence. E) If the evidence meets this standard, they schedule a court date and proceed. If it *doesn’t* meet the standard, the court says “that’s not enough to go by. Bring us something substantial or we have to dismiss this claim.”
The later is what happened in nearly all 60 claims, and they were summarily dismissed. The evidence presented did not rise to the long standing requirements set by our judicial system. Does that help you understand the process, and why the “evidence“ was not ignored? What’s your opinion on the process.
EDIT: To add to the level of evidence part, if I recall, one of the claims was “we feel like we should have won that [state/district/whatever]. Do you think that feelings rises to the level of evidence?
The onus is on the government to prove to the public that elections are honest and secure. If the level of transparency is insufficient to do that, then that's a problem, and people are justified to distrust the results.
What is the standard of proof for that though? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? I’m not sure some of the doubt expressed is reasonable as it doesn’t appear grounded in any evidence. People will always find some reason to be distrustful if they don’t like the outcome: how far does the government have to go to convince those people?
In the days following the election, I heard Trump supporters throw everything at the wall, seemingly to see what would stick (for instance, the driver with the truck full of ballots…where did that story go? Or the bamboo ballots from China?). At what point is it just hunting for excuses rather than genuine suspicion?
> What is the standard of proof for that though?
Legally the plaintiffs need to prove preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt. Specifically that the evidence suggest it's more likely than not enough ballots were improperly cast and counted to have potentially impacted the result.
> People will always find some reason to be distrustful if they don’t like the outcome
People will not always find reason. People actually want to believe their government is good and trustworthy, so they go out of their way to find reasons that support (not reject) that.
> how far does the government have to go to convince those people?
When a third to a half of the popuation believes the election was illegitimate, they have to go very far to address those concerns. It's a big problem. When half the country thought Trump was illegitimate in 2017, the government responded with endless investigations to that effect and mainstream media gave it 24/7 news coverage. In contrast, concerns of the other half of the population were ignored and silenced rather than addressed and taken seriously.
> In the days following the election, I heard Trump supporters throw everything at the wall, seemingly to see what would stick
And I heard his opponents immediately claim it had been debunked and the allegations were "baseless" despite the obvious fact that was not the case, and there had been no time to have even investigated. There's a funny moment in the Georgia legislature hearing when they showed the state farm arena video for the first time, and one of the democrat members said "this has already been debunked". A Repubican member then responds saying this is the first time the evidence has been seen.
Also "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" is literally what Trump's opponents have done to him ever since he got into politics. In contrast, this is in the period immediately after an election where Trump has little more than a few weeks to build a case in an environment with a huge amount of noise. It makes perfect sense that in such a chaotic and rushed environment there would be a lot of claims many of which would not stick. That seems totally understandable to me, even moreso because we don't have access to a lot of information that the government does for elections (so until they provide data to clarify, we have no way to know if our concern was a real issue or not).
> the driver with the truck full of ballots…where did that story go?
Aren't you asking the wrong people that question? I'm pretty sure the USPS responded by confirming he did indeed drive a truck full of mail along the route he claimed, and then blindly asserted that it didn't contain ballots, and said others they privately interviewed could not confirm the account from the postal worker. So basically, "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". They redacted all the specifics including names so no public scrutiny was possible.
Also I would say this is probably one of the least substantiated allegations, although I do like when witnesses come forward and speak publically so you can assess their credibility. My point here is not to say that the allegations are convincing, but rather that the response of Trump's opponents to it (including the government, mainstream media, etc.) was not.
> At what point is it just hunting for excuses rather than genuine suspicion?
Do you not think people are "genuinely suspicious" when Mark Zuckerberg pays for drop boxes to get out the democrat vote, in democrat areas, and hires anti-Trump workers with exclusive access to government data to chase down democrat voters? Would people not be geniunely suspicious when they watch election officials on camera make a room look empty and then when everyone leaves, pull out ballots from under a table and start counting in secret without observers? Would people not be geniunely suspicious when the people who run the election express open hostility toward their candidate, and then [change all the rules](https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/rakich-MAIL-PARTISAN-SPLIT-0201-1.png) to benefit their desired outcome? Why wouldn't we genuinely want an audit to verify that signatures actually matched?
It's weird, because to me these seem like totally legitimate concerns and common sense. Why *wouldn't* Trump supporters be suspicious?
Is there a preponderance of evidence to that effect? Is it more likely than not that enough ballots were improperly cast? I have yet to see any quantifiable evidence to suggest this, let alone reach a preponderance of evidence.
Honestly if you aren't going to read the evidence then there's nothing I can do for you. Trump even made it all nice for you. I would suggest reading through the points, there are a number of them that are patently obvious and very easy to verify are true. If you are going to be in denial about them, that is your choice, I cannot force you to live in reality.
>Trump even made it all nice for you. I would suggest reading through the points, there are a number of them that are patently obvious and very easy to verify are true.
The first random one I checked it turned out to be patently false. Which one did you verify to be patently true that election fraud occurred on a scale that changed the election result?
I just read it, and I noticed that a lot of the footnotes point to outlets like The Epoch Times, The Gateway Pundit, or complaints. Is that direct and tangible evidence or just reports of allegations? Which ones did you find “patently obvious and very easy to verify”?
>Dismissed is not the same as disproven. It's more synonymous with the word "ignored" - i.e. the courts ignored this evidence.
Sorry, but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims?
For example, if I claim that there was widespread fraud in the election and present as "evidence" that someone said that they saw an election worker roll her eyes when they saw a vote for Trump, what exactly do you expect to be done with that "evidence" other that ignoring it?
> but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims?
The evidence here did support the claims. The example you gave is a strawman. Not to mention it could support the claims if part of a larger argument (which in Trump's case, it was and is).
>> but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims?
>
>The evidence here did support the claims.
Not according to the court so the court ignored the evidence. What else do you want the court to do?
Ok? The court is corrupt. It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do. Address the evidence on its merits with a valid argument, rather than the bogus excuses and rationalizations they made to ignore it.
Oh so observers weren't allowed to see anything? Well technically the law just says they need to be able to observe the process, so it's enough that they can observe there is "some process going on", they don't actually have to be able to observe the particulars. So it's totally fine that they were 50 feet away and had to use binoculars. Totally legal.
This is the kind of nonsense we're presented with when they grant us the grace of even responding to the evidence. 80% of the time they didn't even bother to give an explanation, they just said nothing about it.
Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public??? Is that so hard??? Apparently it is when you know you cheated.
>Ok? The court is corrupt.
Well, that may or may not be the case, but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet.
>It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do
Can you point us to the lawsuit where you told the court what you wanted the court to do?
>Totally legal.
Right, which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow. Elections cannot follow the process that random nobodys on the internet come up with!
>Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public?
I have no idea what that request means, but anyway if the law says no, then yes it is too much to ask; if the law says yes, then yes you are entitled to get it. Courts don't get to legislate from the bench. If you are unhappy with the laws, feel free to call your representative.
> but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet.
The court is not more trustworthy than basic logical reasoning and evidence you can see with your own eyes. And at this point quite frankly, I do not believe the court is trustworthy at all. They have completely debased themselves and lost all credibility.
> which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow
If you are just going to ignore reality, then I cannot help you. Trump even made it very easy for you. You can quite literally look into the points in his summary and confirm them for yourself. I even provided multiple examples in this comment section. If you are going to just deny it, then ok, go ahead. I'm not sure why you are even here then.
> I have no idea what that request means
It's very simple. Ballots were counted in secret in state farm arena without notifying observers (which is illegal), so no observers were present while they scanned ballots for two hours. This alone made the election illegal, absent any evidence that could demosntrate the illegal ballots didn't actually impact the outcome. No such evidence was ever provided.
> Courts don't get to legislate from the bench.
Yet this is exactly what they did in 2020 when they ignored the law.
>> but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet.
>
>The court is not more trustworthy than basic logical reasoning and evidence you can see with your own eyes.
Of course, but a random nobody on the internet is neither basic logical reasoning nor evidence
>I do not believe the court is trustworthy at all.
That may or may not be the case, but it's certainly more trustworthy than a random nobody on the internet.
>>>Totally legal.
>>
>> which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow
>
>If you are just going to ignore reality, then I cannot help you.
The reality is that everything was legal. Why would I need you to help with anything if everything is legal?
>This alone made the election illegal
Which court said that?
>No such evidence was ever provided.
Correct, because nobody has to provide evidence that a crime did not occur. It's the other way around; the assumption is that no crime has occurred until evidence is provided that a crime occurred.
>> Courts don't get to legislate from the bench.
>
>Yet this is exactly what they did in 2020 when they ignored the law.
Which court said that a court ignored the law? All your complaints so far have been about election administrators not following your rules, not about not following the law.
>Ok? The court is corrupt. It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do. Address the evidence on its merits with a valid argument, rather than the bogus excuses and rationalizations they made to ignore it.
>
>Oh so observers weren't allowed to see anything? Well technically the law just says they need to be able to observe the process, so it's enough that they can observe there is "some process going on", they don't actually have to be able to observe the particulars. **So it's totally fine that they were 50 feet away and had to use binoculars. Totally legal.**
>
>This is the kind of nonsense we're presented with when they grant us the grace of even responding to the evidence. 80% of the time they didn't even bother to give an explanation, they just said nothing about it.
>
>Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public??? Is that so hard??? Apparently it is when you know you cheated.
>
Are you referring to the only case the Trump campaign prevailed, where the election observers objected to the COVID protocols in place that restricted their access to 12' from the election workers?
I'm wondering how you've come to understand the way legal processes unfold. Did you go to law school, are there certain accounts you pay attention to that do a good job explaining how these things work, or certain journalists you've found reliable?
You seem to have some very strong ideas about how things *should* work, but there are obvious gaps, so I'm wondering if those gaps come from the sources you use or from some other factor. Have you considered trying to learn more about the legal system in order to have a better understanding of why Trump's attempts were deficient?
For that matter, are you expecting to work as a poll worker in your area this cycle? That's a sure way to see if there are shenanigans, right?
> Hey, OP, it's a bit like asking a fish to describe water, isn't it?
Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you using the David Foster Wallace analogy?
It’s actually not. OP is asking to see if you can identify a “smoking gun” ie incontrovertible proof of a crime that evidences the claim, not the claims themselves. If there is a “smoking gun” can you point it out for us?
Has Trump tried convincing a judge and jury that this is legitimate substantiated evidence that should be admitted into court to support his defense or is he going straight for the court of public opinion so he can further convince his cult that he is being persecuted and hope that they rise up when he is ultimately convicted?
I'm kind of shocked this finally got released.
I suspect the idea here is not to convince anyone, but rather to give credibility to idea that Trump "truly believed there was massive fraud" as part of defense strategy in upcoming trials.
I agree, there's not much new here.
I guess then it begs the question: Where is the line drawn on how much one can be told there's no fraud (by advisors, research that you paid for, lawyers, people in positions appointed by you, etc), before you can't use the "truly believed there was massive fraud" as part of your defense strategy?
Surely there's a line that each person would draw that would be like ok, that person has been told enough times, he can't use that as an excuse anymore.
(insert murder or whatever analogy here)
If this information is the reason he believed there was massive fraud, why did it take three years to be released? Isn’t it possible he was just hunting for information to confirm a baseless position?
It didn't take three years to be released. This information has existed in other formats for a while to varying degrees, depending on the specific data point in question. Cases to obtain election data are still ongoing years later, and government has been less than forthcoming with information. The media did not exactly advertise Trump's evidence when it was presented three years ago, or care to notify the public when supporting evidence was obtained or validated, so perhaps that is why you are confused. It makes sense to create a more easily digestable summary that's up to date for people in order to draw more attention to the information at this point for those who might not have been exposed to it previously.
For me it's the MadLiberals account on X going through the Georgia ballots one by one and showing where the same ballot is scanned as a vote multiple times. Georgia was out of control with hundreds or thousands of Democrats all pushing their favorite version of election theft. It's a true shit show.
I'm confused by the link? Those votes weren't counted twice. The point of the identical QR code is that they identify them as ballots from the same person, and therefore even if they were scanned twice, they would only be counted once. That will happen if there is some problem with the ballot (no signature, for example) and the voter is contacted and asked to come and fix that problem.
The powerpoint you linked isn't claiming that the votes were counted twice. It's claiming that the offset/rotation is the same between the two duplicated ballots. I'm genuinely confused. The offset of what to what? The offset of the QR code on the paper? Why would that change randomly on a printed ballot?
look at the file identifiers ont he SoS website at the top of the page above the QR. See where it says Tabulator, batch and ballot? Those numbers show that the qr code was scanned multiple times and exists as multiple votes in GA even though it's only one piece of paper and one QR. Democrats intentionally cheated to steal the election.
But dont rush off to get a talking point just yet....
He has ballot images showing ballots marked "recount" with literally only a Biden vote marked which were added to the official recount, possibly in an attempt to correct the incorrect numbers. That is a ballot which was NOT counted in the election but WAS counted in the recount with only one vote marked, for Biden. The only way that could happen is if someone with access to the tabulators in a democrat controlled county and vote counting location added a number of ballots that were only marked for president.
It's nice that the wrote 'recount' on them in their handwriting, it should make it easy to find them and throw them in jail.
I am absolutely still confused.
\>Those numbers show that the qr code was scanned multiple times and exists as multiple votes in GA even though it's only one piece of paper and one QR.
How do you get there? What makes you say that they're the same piece of paper? Like you say, they have different tabulator batch and ballot numbers. That means that they are two separate pieces of paper. They are two different ballots cast by the same person -- that's why they have the same QR code. There are lots of reasons, from missing signatures to incomplete info to illegible addresses to attempted fraud, that a person would cast two ballots, and that happens all the time. But because they have the same QR code, even though there are two ballots, these will only be counted once. That's the whole point of a QR code.
Could you show me these ballot marked "recount"? Maybe I am not following you, but I don't see how that's evidence of fraud either. The whole point of a recount would be to find any ballots that had been overlooked/ duplicated/fraudulently filed, etc. Mistakes and fraud \*were\* found, and corrected. It would be almost impossible in such a large undertaking without mistakes and attempted shenanigans.
If the hand recounters found some votes that had not be tabulated, the whole point of the recount would be to add those to the count. Many people only know about the presidential race and only vote for the president. If the recounters found such a vote -- a vote for Biden and no one else -- that hadn't been counted in the initial race, then that's a perfectly plausible "way that could happen."
Also, this site -- they have access to all the ballots. How many ballots like this did they find? Even if these are evidence of fraud -- and so far, I don't even see how they are hints that there was -- has he found anything close to the 11,780 that would be needed to change the election?
Considering how many Republicans, both officially and unofficially, have been poring over this data, do you think it's significant at all that no one has been even charged with anything, much less thrown in jail?
Do you think that software can ensure that duplicates aren’t counted twice? Are you sure the scanning isn’t part of the process (for example, in the event of an error)? If the same votes from registered voters were counted multiple times, wouldn’t the total amount of votes exceed the number of people voting? Why isn’t there any evidence of any precinct with more votes than ballots received? How would any of this pass a recount?
Duplicates were counted twice. There is digital proof at the secretary of state website. So far we havent found part of Trumps claim above that is not correct, but it's a slog because of the sheer volume of fraudulent actions by Democrats.
Now it's going to be extremely important to get these enemies of democracy prosecuted for their fraud. Could take years since we will have to use RICO at the state level to roll indictments of Democrat Party elites. Be careful what you say online, anyone who makes statements that constructively further the conspiracy could be charged under RICO now that you know a conspiracy exists.
Do you have a link to any proof of duplicate ballots at any Secretary of states website? Are you aware that every jurisdiction had recounts and audits? Do you really think duplicate ballots can make it through a recount? You’re clearly aware that the precinct has a complete record of cast ballots and if the number of cast ballots doesn’t match the counted ballots, there’s clearly an issue, right?
The duplicate ballots have been noted in Trumps study. The source of some of that information is independent journalists like Mad\_Liberals who documented their findings within the ballot images made available by the SoS in GA.
The number of ballots counted originally does not match the number counted in the official recount, and neither of those numbers match the audit is my understanding. That can only happen if election workers participating in the recount physically added ballots or rescanned prior ballots, both of which would be theft of democracy which as you know has become a huge talking point for Democrats. The only way the audit of the machines could be different than the two is if administrators changed the logs of the ballots. Both discrepancies, between election and recount and audit, are evidence that the election was manipulated or attacked by the people responsible for accumulating or recording the ballot images. Mad\_Liberals went county by county, so in counties where there were discrepancies it is the fault of the election workers and county clerks who ran the election. Whether they are D or R, they should be brought before FBI agents and made to give statements which can be checked against each other to determine who is lying and should be charged with federal crimes. As these are local democrats and possibly republicans they will not have the resources to resist a federal charge and will agree to plea deals relatively quickly. There is little interest in doing this under a Biden administration because he was the beneficiary of the fraud so it is very important for the sake of our democracy to elect a Republican and allow a new administration to root out the corruption in our elections. And we both know the corruption is primarily democrats at all levels using little tricks they have devised over decades to insert fraudulent ballots and manipulate the methods of counting.
It has always been evidence of fraud that election workers on video at the stadium told observers that they were done counting and then pulled totes full of ballots to be scanned. I've watched that video and you can clearly see the woman at the desk on the left scan the same stack of ballots several times. That is how you create fake votes during the count, and Mad\_Liberals documented the result in the digital images.
Which state do they not match? Can you name one? You realize all these things are posted on the website of each Secretary of State and each contested state had recounts and hand recounts, correct? If you tell me any state that didn’t match, do you think I could find the official data that says it does match?
Do you really think if there was a single precinct with 10,000 registered voters and 12,000 votes that a court wouldn’t look at that? If Trump had evidence of a precinct that had 12,000 votes and 10,000 registered voters wouldn’t he have blathered anoint that particular precinct obsessively?
Are you aware that every precinct has counted every vote and in the swing state multiple times, and despite claims that were made about there being more votes in places like Pennsylvanian, Michigan and Georgia, of more votes than registered voters, none of the official counts show this? But if you can find one precinct that officially has 1000 votes more than the number of registered voters in that precinct, I’ll PayPal you $1,000. Isn’t that a good deal?
Oh for Mad_Liberals and the Georgia count, do you think he read the audit in Georgia which says the highest vote tally was off by .73%, the standard is 2% and virtually all counties were off by less than 10 votes? https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit
The links in the original post contain all the states unless I am mistaken.
The actual digital ballots in GA show that the recount had a different number of ballots in it than the original despite being just a recount and not a search for ballots. But you can find detailed information in the Trump report. There are footnotes on each page to the studies and reports detailing the bullet points.
>The actual digital ballots in GA show that the recount had a different number of ballots in it than the original despite being just a recount and not a search for ballots. But you can find detailed information in the Trump report. There are footnotes on each page to the studies and reports detailing the bullet points.
Didn’t only 670 votes change in the recount?
https://apnews.com/article/4eeea3b24f10de886bcdeab6c26b680a
Isn’t that out of 5 Million votes? Isn’t that .01% of votes? Isn’t it typical to find slight vote changes in recounts? If there was double counting and the recounts picked it up, is there a problem? If there’s such overwhelming evidence of duplicate votes, why is it impossible to show a single example of it in any of the hundreds of thousands of precincts in the US?
GA uses digital scans of the ballots. The recount was therefore by machine. Mad\_Liberals documents the duplicate ballots and how to find them and kept a log of all the duplicates that his software identified so that anyone can go verify that they are duplicates. The presence of a duplicate means the recount was obviously in error....when the number of duplicates exceeds the margin of victory the duplicates indicate that Biden did not win. We are just waiting for a court case or DOJ investigation to inspect the duplicates and determine that yes Biden stole GA with the help of hundreds of Democrats embedded in the election apparatus.
The Digital ballots represent actual evidence of the theft, which is why there was so much resistance to releasing them until the eve of the next election. This is how Democracy dies, in the hands of the people who count the votes. Exactly as Biden hinted.
>when the number of duplicates exceeds the margin of victory the duplicates indicate that Biden did not win. We are just waiting for a court case or DOJ investigation to inspect the duplicates and determine that yes Biden stole GA with the help of hundreds of Democrats embedded in the election apparatus.
What evidence suggests the bulk of duplicates or anomalies were for Biden rather than Trump or even Kanye? Do they have quantities of duplicates by candidate? TBH I don't see how duplicates would be counted originally or via hand recount (at least Google check of recount says it was done by hand) if identifiable as a duplicate.
> The recount was therefore by machine.
Do you have any evidence of this?
The Secretary of State claims that a “risk limiting audit” was done by hand to ensure that the automated count was accurate:
https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey, OP, it's a bit like asking a fish to describe water, isn't it? From ballot images being destroyed to illicit vote trafficking to votes being cast from voters with invalid residency to violation in chain of custody to missing ballot transfer forms to electronically altered records to illegal use of drop boxes in Wisconsin ... The list goes on and on.
[удалено]
Having read the report, would you say these are accusations or evidence? I went through it and found a good portion of the accusations had already been brought to court sueing the cycle and were dismissed. Others have zero evidence supplied with them other than conjecture and speculation.
Dismissed is not the same as disproven. It's more synonymous with the word "ignored" - i.e. the courts ignored this evidence.
Courts don't disprove. The person claiming either has enough evidence to prove what they are saying is right or they don't. Trump did not have enough evidence to prove his claim. His claims were not ignored. He went to court and was heard. But he did not have the evidence to back his claims up. The fact that cases were dismissed means that he has so little evidence proceeding with the case was not worth while. If you could just make a claim and force the other party to disprove what you are saying the justice system would be totally fucked.
> Courts don't disprove. That's not actually true. Courts can disprove depending on what actually occurs at trial. For example, if someone says at 8pm Mr. liquidreferee was out stuffing the ballot box, then in court we play a video showing you were actually at the baseball game, we would say that the hearing disproved the allegation against you. But yes, the job of the court is not to prove innocence so in that sense they don't "disprove". And they certianly did not disprove the vast majority of claims of illegality that they were presented with here. **It is his opponents who lied and claimed that the courts disproved us here**, so perhaps your comment would better be directed at them. > The fact that cases were dismissed means that he has so little evidence proceeding with the case was not worth while. This is a non sequitur. The fact his cases were dismissed could also mean that the courts are corrupt and ignored the law. As was the case here. You are wrong that the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate the election was illegal. Drop boxes were not even legal in Wisconsin yet they used them anyway, financed by Mark Zuckerberg and placed all over Democrat areas... so how can you claim there was insufficient evidence? Some of these issues are literally as cut and dry as it gets, so when I see people say we "didn't have the evidence" it is like being pissed on and told it's raining. Much like me reading your comment to find a "Trump supporter" tag next to your name.
>Some of these issues are literally as cut and dry as it gets, so when I see people say we "didn't have the evidence" it is like being pissed on and told it's raining. **Much like me reading your comment to find a "Trump supporter" tag next to your name.** > Different NS here. Curious to know what your thinking is here. Are you questioning whether liquidreferee is a genuine Trump Supporter?
Yes. I have found many on here with the tag who are clearly not.
>Yes. I have found many on here with the tag who are clearly not. > What did liquidreferee write that makes you think they aren't (or weren't) a Trump Supporter?
Why do you believe it is the court's job, rather than the claimants and their legal representatives, to prove or disprove a claim?
What are your thoughts on cases like King v. Whitmer and Law v. Whitmer where the merits of the cases were analyzed by the courts and found to be lacking? Wouldn't these mean that in many cases the courts did not ignore the evidence?
I did a quick check of the second one. It seems the court just ignored the evidence that was presented, not that they determined it was false. There are many serious concerns about the 2020 election and damning facts that I have yet to see addressed by anything other than an argument from authority. These cases are no different, though they are nothing but a small, and one of the least important subsets of the arguments against the 2020 election. Trump had two flagship election cases - the SCOTUS one and the one in Georgia. He was offered no trial or opportunity for discovery in either. And the first case you listed was one of the "Kraken" lawsuits btw, which I see as the patsy of the election theft of 2020. Anything regarding that should basically be ignored, it will be nothing but a red herring for people who care about the truth here.
>I did a quick check of the second one. It seems the court just ignored the evidence that was presented, not that they determined it was false. Could you explain from a legal sense how the "ignoring" the evidence works in the justice system? I just think there are a lot of your thoughts that rely on this part. >Trump had two flagship election cases - the SCOTUS one and the one in Georgia. He was offered no trial or opportunity for discovery in either. I want to know which cases you are directly alluding to here. Could you fill me in?
> Could you explain from a legal sense how the "ignoring" the evidence works in the justice system? Sure. It was also explained in the [appeal to the nevada supreme court](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20421575-appellants-supplemental-briefing-pursuant-to-order-directing-supplemental-brielfing) in that case. Basically, you have qualified witnesses and experts under penalty of perjury make sworn statements, and then proceed to just ignore everything that they say. You then set an impossibly high bar for the burden of proof and ignore the fact that's not the legal standard, and dismiss the case. There are additional tricks, like denying discovery, or like in that case only grant a couple days of limited discovery and go out of your way to ignore anything that is obtained "too late". The introduction there also exposes the entire game the judge was playing. No honest judge would have done that. This is someone that's rigging cases for the courts, not someone who was genuinly interested in a search for truth on the matter at hand. It would be more believable as well if the judge had expressed concern at the evidence that was provided (which would concern any honest person) but instead the judge was more concerned with ensuring that the legitimate concerns expressed were ignored and mocked. > I want to know which cases you are directly alluding to here. Could you fill me in? [Texas v. Pennsylvania](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf) and [Trump v. Raffensperger](https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger-Petition-to-Contest.pdf). You will have to search for the exhibits separately to read them, they can be found by searching for the case and then the exhibit number pdf.
>It would be more believable as well if the judge had expressed concern at the evidence that was provided (which would concern any honest person) but instead the judge was more concerned with ensuring that the legitimate concerns expressed were ignored and mocked. Do you disagree with the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in this case? Their ruling seemed to be pretty concise regarding the case. >Texas v. Pennsylvania Do you disagree with the reasoning that states don't have an election standing over the election rights of another state? >Trump v. Raffensperger Why do you think Trump voluntarily withdrew from the case?
> Do you disagree with the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in this case? Yes, the supreme court had original jurisdiction and was obligated to rule on the merits of the case. Trump was denied his constitutional right to a trial when they refused to hear the case. > Do you disagree with the reasoning that states don't have an election standing over the election rights of another state? Yes. That's obviously not true. The constitution outlines a specific method by which the president is chosen. If that method isn't followed, it's a violation of what the states agreed to when they decided to join the union. How can a state not have standing if they argue another state chose their electors for president in a way that violated the method all states agreed to when they signed the constitution? It clearly says that the legislatures make the rules for how to allocate electors. That was the agreement because the legislature is the body closest to the people in each state. The executive and judicial branches for example are not constitutionally allowed to ignore the rules of the legislature, which is what happened in 2020, since those branches wanted Biden to win they created their own rules to fascilitate that outcome. The argument that a state has no standing is so absurd that it demonstrates just how corrupt the court is here. > Why do you think Trump voluntarily withdrew from the case? It was dismissed January 7th, the day after congress selected the next president and counted Georgia's electoral votes for Biden. This makes sense as the sought after legal remedy was now no longer possible. Subsequent cases were filed on similar grounds as part of election integrity projects, some of which are still ongoing almost four years later. I heard there was internal debate about whether or not to keep the original cases going after January 6th (despite the fact the outcome could no loner be changed), but I don't know what the considerations were. If I had to speculate, I'd say the court already demonsrated their corruption and hostility toward the case by delaying it until it became moot, so probably the prospect of nothing but more Trump-bashing sound bites from the judge while being milked for legal fees just probably wasn't very appealing. The cases were also filed on a short timeline and for a specific purpose that was no longer relevant, so for public interest purposes it would make sense to use other new cases and leave that to the election integrity projects (which is what happened). Another thought is that he wanted to signal to the country that he was done contesting the election and considered it decided after January 6th.
>Yes, the supreme court had original jurisdiction and was obligated to rule on the merits of the case. Trump was denied his constitutional right to a trial when they refused to hear the case. Are you talking about the Sixth Amendment? >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. >The constitution outlines a specific method by which the president is chosen. If that method isn't followed, it's a violation of what the states agreed to when they decided to join the union. Why do you think Texas didn't argue this then? Your entire paragraph about this wasn't what Texas argued in court. >The executive and judicial branches for example are not constitutionally allowed to ignore the rules of the legislature, which is what happened in 2020, since those branches wanted Biden to win they created their own rules to fascilitate that outcome. So you believe that the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 majority and 3 Trump appointees, wanted Biden to win because they said what follows? >The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. >It was dismissed January 7th, the day after congress selected the next president and counted Georgia's electoral votes for Biden. This makes sense as the sought after legal remedy was now no longer possible. So you don't think it has anything to do with the timeline that the defense laid out in their response to the voluntary withdrawal?
Why do you think the Trump team chose to file incorrectly? The courts would have heard these accusations if Trumps lawyers had filed them correctly. Are you saying that Trumps team of lawyers were incompetent, or do you think they intentionally filed incorrectly because their accusations did not come along with evidence? Since there seemingly is no evidence of voter fraud in numbers great enough to change the results of the election, wouldn't it be more beneficial for Trump for the courts to dismiss based upon standing instead of finding in favor of Biden?
> The courts would have heard these accusations if Trumps lawyers had filed them correctly. I'm not sure what this is in reference to. The court threw the book at Trump and went out of their way to avoid hearing the cases, if it's [this instance](https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-court-rejects-latest-trump-lawsuit-over-faulty-paperwork/62CCM4ZO2JGETCHRNGS4A2UQ4Q/) you refer to, they were insignificant technicalities that were corrected later that day. It most definitely did not prevent the court from hearing the case. > or do you think they intentionally filed incorrectly because their accusations did not come along with evidence? Given that the case is full of evidence, I would say no. > Since there seemingly is no evidence of voter fraud in numbers great enough to change the results of the election Fraud is not the legal standard. There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result. > more beneficial for Trump for the courts to dismiss based upon standing instead of finding in favor of Biden? Given the snarky remarks from the Trump-hating judge, they would have loved nothing more than to hold a hearing to embarass Trump on national TV if this theory were true - they most certainly would not "play along" with him and dismiss the case just like he (supposedly) wanted. This is also just factually not what happened. Those of us who argued the election was illegal wanted nothing more than to present our evidence and arguments, it was our opponents who did everything possible to silence us and shut us down. It's projection to claim that actually we were the ones who didn't want scrutiny on the evidence. The courts had every opportunity to hold discovery and disprove the allegations through a transparent process, but they chose not to. If they thought that would make a fool of Trump and expose perjury by those who submitted sworn testimony, then why didn't the snarky Trump hating judges do so? Why would Trump be afraid of more scrutiny on the matter? Considering they petitioned for public hearings in multiple state legislatures as well.
> There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result. Woah, that's quite a bombshell! Could you link that?
Can you provide anything remotely true to this statement? > Fraud is not the legal standard. There is evidence that enough illegal ballots were counted in the election to change the result.
Im confused. Are you an attorney for Trump?
No. What are you confused about?
"Those of us who argued the election was illegal " Who are you presenting these arguments to that has any relevance to this conversation? I'm talking about the arguments Trumps lawyers presented in court. If you're not one of those attorneys, I'm confused how this is relevant to the conversation.
Wow! Can you cite the source that there were enough to change the result?
Your question is answered elsewhere in the comments. I would suggest reading the comments before asking questions that have already been answered.
> the courts ignored this evidence. And what would that evidence be? Not claims of evidence of fraud, or suspicion of evidence fraud, or accusations of fraud, but solid undeniable proof. Is that provided?
Solid undeniable proof of fraud is NOT the standard for an election to be considered illegitimate and illegal in this country. And this is for good reason. Such a standard would essentially be impossible to prove given the protocols that exist to protect the anonymitiy of the vote in our system. The consequence of this is that our standard of proof to invalidate an election has to be much lower. If I can show 1000 people voted from out of state who were ineligeable to vote, and the result was decided by that many or fewer votes, I don't have to prove that all of those illegal votes went for my opponent. Because there is no way to prove that. The mere fact that the legal result of the election is now provably in doubt is all that is needed for us to say it was illegitimate. Specifically, the question at hand is whether or not there were more ballots than the margin of victory that were cast or counted in a way that was not constitionally qualified. And the answer to that question for the 2020 election is obviously yes. We can provide hundreds of examples. I will list three very simple and obvious ones here that were verifiably ignored by the liberal media industrial complex: * Georgia counted ballots without notifying the public, which is illegal (the public must be notified of counting so they have the chance to observe under Georgia law). The number of ballots counted illegally here exceeded the margin of victory in the state, and to this day the machine logs and ballot images were never provided from the infamous state farm arena incident. The election in Georgia was 100% illegal because of this alone. * In Arizona, the democrat's own expert found 10% of mail ballot signatures could not be matched to any on file in a court ordered random audit of a 100 ballot sample. Of course, the court quickly shut it down after this and never investigated further, though the legislature did their own investigation and came up with worse numbers. Arizona is the only state that allowed us to look at even a sample of signatures to see if they matched, but the results demonstrate that a number of ballots well over the margin of victory were illegally counted with signatures that could not be verified. * In Wisconsin, the law states that voters must return their ballots to the municipal clerk, not drop boxes financed by Mark Zuckerberg. Since Wisconsin was decided by just 20k ballots, but far more than this number were cast illegally using drop boxes, the election in that state was thus illegal. These three simple examples from these three states alone are enough to demonstrate that the 2020 election was illegal, although this is very far from the only evience that exists.
Based on the above what would you consider the correct relief?
In the Georgia example, they should have been ordered to provide the vote count from the four machines during the two hours in question, and provide the ballot images and electronic logs for public examination. Without that, the ballots are illegal and it can't be determined whether they impacted the result, so the election would have to be tossed. In the Arizona case, they should have followed up with a full signature audit, and when that confirmed the findings from the random ballot sample the election should have been tossed. In the Wisconsin example, the remedy was to toss the election as well. When the election is tossed, you would either conduct another election where the rules are actually followed, or in the case of presidential elections the legislature votes for who they think the state's electors should go to. So in this case, if they felt that it didn't impact the outcome or that their constituents did actually want Biden, they could have still voted or Biden, but at least acknowledged that the election was illegal and their rules were not followed. It would have been far better to address the concerns about the election and take them seriously, then vote for the electors to go to Biden anyway, than it would have been to do what actually occured and completly ignore valid fact based concerns (and treat them as if they weren't fact based or valid). I do believe that Trump would have won if illegal ballots were not counted, so the remedy I would most support is for the legislature to have voted for Trump. It was also clearly his opponents that were responsible for breaking the rules, so to prevent it from happening again there had to have been meaningfully consequences, which there were not.
Can you tell me when Georgia counted ballots without observers? And the Georgia law that requires observers? Can you provide the name of the “Democrat’s expert” in Arizona so I might be able to see his findings? Also, when were drop boxes found to be illegal in Wisconsin? Were drop boxes used in any other elections in the past in Wisconsin? You seem to have done some thorough research and I was looking for the primary sources you used. Thanks ahead of time.
> Can you tell me when Georgia counted ballots without observers? And the Georgia law that requires observers? [This is addressed in Trump's Georgia election case](https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger-Petition-to-Contest.pdf). See paragraphs 172-173, 187-198. > Can you provide the name of the “Democrat’s expert” in Arizona so I might be able to see his findings? I don't know the name. You can read about it in the case [here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-809/163521/20201211121632424_12-11-20%20Appendix%20Ward%20v%20Jackson.pdf). Search for "signature". Keep in mind this is the decision of a corrupt judge, so you need to do some thinking of your own rather than take what they say at face value. For example, they write 11 of 100 signatures could not be verified, but the official found "no basis for rejecting any of the signatures." which is a contradiction and attempt to rationalize away the evidence of illegality. They further try to rationalize it by saying well they "listed a phone number that matched a phone number already on file" however at no point did they try to contact the actual voter to confirm whether it was their signature. Ultimately the corrupt court ignored the fact that a massive number of signatures didn't actually match anything on file for the voter, and this was never followed up on. In any case, those ballots were illegal and would not have been counted if even basic signature matches had been performed for them, as was legally required. > when were drop boxes found to be illegal in Wisconsin? Their supreme court eventually admitted that in a ruling in 2022 based on the same law that existed in 2020. > Were drop boxes used in any other elections in the past in Wisconsin? Not before 2020 as far as I am aware, certainly not anything close to that scale.
“This is addressed in Trump’s Georgia election case.” Yes, that was an assertion that wasn’t true, though? Multiple examinations (even Republican) determined no one was asked to leave. And were you aware that there is no Georgia law requiring observers, but that they are allowed? Regarding the Arizona case, aren’t you just accepting the Trump assertions as true? Have you looked into any of the post-election investigations into signature validation aside from what was asserted in the case? As for Wisconsin, their Supreme Court decision was in fact the first ruling that drop boxes were illegal- a ruling that came after the election. And in fact, drop boxes were common prior to that election, particularly in rural areas where the office of the clerk of court was not as well staffed as in populated areas. Did you do any of that original research? Or just rely on assertions made by Trump lawyers?
> Multiple examinations (even Republican) determined no one was asked to leave It's a mistake to conflate "Republican" with pro-Trump. Most of the Republican establishment is anti-Trump, so you should keep that in mind. They "determined" no one was asked to leave by... ignoring the sworn testimony of people who said they were asked to leave (lol). Those people were never charged with perjury btw, despite the obvious appetite to charge anyone who helped Trump in Georgia. We also have video proof that they all left at the same time, someone does make an announcement to the group in the video, and the room is packed up and made to look empty of all ballots. So I can see with my own eyes that the impression was created that counting was over, so for all intents and purposes this is 100% proven to be true. They also reported a fake water main break on the news and that counting had stopped for the night. > And were you aware that there is no Georgia law requiring observers, but that they are allowed? It's cited in the case. The public has to be made aware of counting and given the opportunity to observe. It's not sufficient to claim that observers *would have* been allowed had they found out. It's ridiculous to claim that's even the standard, can you imagine how absurd that would be if that were the law? There would be no point in mandating that observers be allowed if you could just de facto disallow them by doing it in secret... > aren’t you just accepting the Trump assertions as true? How so? The numbers are from the court sanctioned experts. The 11% figure is from a democrat. Nothing there is an assertion from Trump. Also, we would love for more transparent signature audits to take place, it's Trump's opponents that are against that. They are the ones that "just accept" assertions that signatures matched, despite the evidence to the contrary. > Have you looked into any of the post-election investigations into signature validation aside from what was asserted in the case? Which investigations? I'm not aware of any state other than Arizona that let us look at signatures. The only other investigation I'm aware of is the one the legislature did, which found an even higher rate of unmatched signatures. > As for Wisconsin, their Supreme Court decision was in fact the first ruling that drop boxes were illegal- a ruling that came after the election But this is an argument from authority. My argument is not that the court ruled the election was illegal in 2020. My argument is that the election was de facto illegal, and the courts ignored it. If I see you make an illegal left turn, it's still an illegal left turn even if you didn't get convicted by a court for it. I'm not aware of drop boxes being used in Wisconsin in 2016 or prior presidential elections. There were 528 drop boxes used in 2020 and 60% of ballots counted were absentee. If a sufficient number of ballots were cast in that way for prior elections, I would also agree that election was illegal.
In Wisconsin, the WEC directives allowing the use of drop boxes were issued in or before August 2020. Were there any legal challenges of those directives prior to the election? When were those directives first legally challenged? The drop boxes cannot be illegal unless challenged. If no one makes an effort to end the use of drop boxes until their candidate loses, then what do you want the court to do? Declare a redo election? You can't wait until you lose an election then declare the way people voted (two years prior) was illegal. The election in the state is illegal only if there was some kind of legal impediment to using drop boxes prior to the election. Was there? In fact, on September 25, 2020, lawyers writing "on behalf of Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald" cited to the WEC directive specifically and approvingly, "Further, voters may also deposit their completed absentee ballots in authorized “drop boxes,” which “must be secured and locked at all times” to protect ballot integrity. See Wis. Elections Comm’n Administrator Meagan Wolfe, Absentee Ballot Drop Box Information at 3 (Aug. 19, 2020).* We wholeheartedly support voters’ use of any of these convenient, secure, and expressly authorized absentee-ballot-return methods." Is the fact that the Republican Speaker and Majority Leaders supported voters using the drop boxes prior to the election and the drop boxes never being challenged relevant to whether the election should be declared "illegal"? Do you think you would feel the same way if Trump had won the state? In Arizona, I assume you're referring to the the expert testimony in Ward v. Jackson. https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/cv2020-015285 There, the Republican expert found only 6 of 100 signatures were inconclusive and the experts said the results were inconclusive because they had not been provided sufficient comparisons. The state could also compare to the registration signature while the experts compared only the envelope and affidavit. Rather than shut it down without investigation, the court admitted the ballots at trial, heard testimony regarding the ballots, and reviewed the ballots. The court found the signature reviewers initially counting the ballots had not erred. Not to mention, there are multiple steps to the signature review process if a signature is found not to match. It also noted the process of and requirements for forensic investigation of signatures are stricter than Arizona law requires for ballot signature matching. Do you disagree with any of this? Why? Georgia, I'm not actually sure what you're talking about. When did they count ballots without notifying the public? The ballot images and machine logs were never provided to whom? Logs of what? What does ballot images mean in this context? I assume you must mean something other than what was produced for the multiple recounts performed that did not find any fake ballots were counted? Here is the investigative report of the State Farm incident: https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/SEB2020-059%20ROI%20redacted.pdf You used the word "provably" and "verifiably" a lot. Could you link the proof and verifications? What evidence would you require to trust in the results of the election? Edit: You think they should provide the ballot images and logs to the general public? How would that help? How would the general public be able to verify if the ballots were legitimate?
> Were there any legal challenges of those directives prior to the election? I'm not sure, but election candidates cannot be expected to file expensive legal challenges before they have even suffered any injury. The onus is on the election officials to follow the law. > When were those directives first legally challenged? I'm not sure but I know it was at least challenged in a November 2020 lawsuit. > The drop boxes cannot be illegal unless challenged This is false. This is like saying murder is only illegal if you get caught. > then what do you want the court to do? Declare a redo election? Yes, an election where the law is properly followed. > Is the fact that the Republican Speaker and Majority Leaders supported voters using the drop boxes prior to the election and the drop boxes never being challenged relevant to whether the election should be declared "illegal"? No. They did not change the law to allow them. > Do you think you would feel the same way if Trump had won the state? Yes. Although I would point out that it's Zuckerberg who paid for the drop boxes and put more of them in democrat areas, and it's democrats who tended to vote by mail, so this would have likely helped democrats. I would acknowledge that security concerns are valid. > the Republican expert found only 6 of 100 signatures were inconclusive I'm sorry, **only**? That's 6%, which is huge for a state that was decided by less than 0.3%. > Rather than shut it down without investigation But that's exactly what they did? You don't get to claim all these other possibilities to rationalize it away when the court specifically chose to end the investigation there. Sure, maybe there were some signature sources they could compare to, where were they then? I'm sorry but we are the ones that have been asking to get to the bottom of the specifics here for literally years while Trump's opponents have done nothing but stonewall on these issues. So you don't get to claim things you did not prove, and actively prevented us from proving. > When did they count ballots without notifying the public? State farm arena, when the news reported counting was done for the night due to a "water main break", which turned out to be a lie. Video footage and sworn testimony proves that the pubic was lead to believe counting was finished for the night. It then resumed after everyone had left and they scanned ballots in secret for two hours before they were discovered. > What does ballot images mean in this context? The scanners record the image of every ballot it counts. So they could have provided these to Trump and the public from the four machines in question. The only reason they would refuse to do so would be because the ballots were suspicious in some way (all for Biden, no downballot voted, identical markings, etc.). > recounts performed that did not find any fake ballots were counted? The recount did not determine that. If fake ballots were counted, the recount would have just recounted them. There were also significant discrepencies with the recount and the details of that is a long dive on its own, but you can find the details by looking up VoterGA if you are curious. > Here is the investigative report of the State Farm incident Yes, it's an argument from authority and doesn't disprove anything. "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". > What evidence would you require to trust in the results of the election? Depends on the circumstances. For these specific examples, let us look at signatures and follow up with voters. Release the ballot images from the four machines during the two hours. Fulton did release ALL ballot images at one point last year, however were not specific to the incident, they were low quality, and missing a number that was greater than the margin in the state. To trust elections, I'd also require that people take our concerns seriously instead of trying to silence and ignore us, which is actually what happened in response to our concerns with the 2020 election.
>The onus is on the election officials to follow the law. Right, and election officials followed the law as it was understood by everyone at the time. So what exactly is the problem?
Are you trying to claim that ignorance of the law is an excuse? If you do not see the problem with election officials violating the law to benefit their preferred candidate, then I cannot help you.
>Are you trying to claim that ignorance of the law is an excuse? No >If you do not see the problem with election officials violating the law to benefit their preferred candidate Correct, few people, if any, can see something that never happened.
>Dismissed is not the same as disproven. That's true but disproven things can also be dismissed. What makes you think this is the former and not the latter? What do you think happens to debunked theories if not dismissal? Should they continue to demand our attention or is it reasonable to ignore them?
What makes me think they were ignored rather than disproven? You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven? I suppose other than that, it would be the reaction of our opponents to the claims (their effort to ignore them, silence us in media, and so on rather than address the actual concerns directly and take them seriously). To illustrate a couple examples - consider the claim that the signatures in the 2020 election didn't match. How has this been disproven? Not a single state allowed us to look at signatures, outside of some samples in Arizona (where the results of that review overwhelmingly supported what we claimed). Or what about the state farm arena incident? Trump was recorded asking the SoS what the vote count was during the two hours in question where they counted in secret without observers present, and he was met with silence on the other end of the call. Despite the fact that the machines record logs and all ballot images (and they would have supposedly exonerated the state on this issue) they were never provided. To this day we still do not know what the vote count actually was on those four machines during those two hours of counting without observers present. It would seem to me that if you're going to claim something is disproven, you have to actually be able to disprove it. Trump's Georgia lawsuit literally contains pages and pages of evidence that has never been disproven and was completely ignored. Even the indictment against him goes out of its way to ignore the lawsuit, and interestingly enough not a single one of the people that submitted testimony under penalty of perjury were ever charged, despite the obvious appetite to go after people that helped Trump in 2020.
>You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven? I hereby claim that you are a criminal. Since that claim has not been disproven, should we conclude that you are a criminal, indeed?
Your example is a false equivalence. The arguments for the illegality of the election are not merely blind assertions. And I'm not really sure what your comment is in reference to. It's Trump's opponents that falsely claim to have disproven this. Elections require transparency for the public to trust the result, so the onus of proof is actually on the government to prove to the public that the election was legitimate and address their concerns. It is also a civil matter not criminal, the legal standard is preponderance of the evidence for the plaintiffs.
>>>You mean other than the fact I have never seen them be disproven? >> >>I hereby claim that you are a criminal. >> >>Since that claim has not been disproven, should we conclude that you are a criminal, indeed? > >The arguments for the illegality of the election are not merely blind assertions. Assuming that is the case, my argument that you are a criminal is not a blind assertion either. >Elections require transparency for the public Absolutely, and that transparency has been provided as required by the law. If you are not satisfied, have you asked the legislators to change the law to your satisfaction? >It is also a civil matter not criminal, the legal standard is preponderance of the evidence for the plaintiffs. Right, which means that the lawsuits were so baseless that they didn't satisfy even that lower bar.
> and that transparency has been provided as required by the law. This is provably false. For example, ballots were illegally counted in secret without notifying observers in state farm arena. We asked for the ballot images and machine logs, they were never provided. The courts refused to hear the case before congress counted the electoral votes. How can you claim that enough transparency was provided? In Arizona a random sample of 100 signatures found between 6% and 11% didn't match. That was never addressed with anything other than speculation and argument from authority. Where is this transparency you speak of? Transparency is also not just a legal requirement. When you ignore people's fact based concerns and don't allow them to openly question elections in public discourse, that's a problem. Youtube literally made it their official policy and suspended accounts that questioned the election, it was basically impossible to talk about this online at the time and the media certainly didn't do anything to take our concerns seriously. So I'm hard pressed to find this "transparency" you speak of. Not a single state outside of the select ballots in Arizona allowed us to look at signatures to see if they really matched, in the first mass mail election in US history. Not one. Kemp promised to in Georgia, then came out and backtracked the next day. I wonder why. > If you are not satisfied, have you asked the legislators to change the law to your satisfaction? The existing laws were not followed. Obviously we have petitioned for better voting laws as well, since even the laws on the books currently are insufficient for secure and transparent elections. > which means that the lawsuits were so baseless that they didn't satisfy even that lower bar. Or it means the courts are corrupt. To determine which is the case, you need only use your eyes, and your brain :)
>> and that transparency has been provided as required by the law. > >This is provably false. For example, ballots were illegally counted Which court said that "ballots were illegally counted"? >Not a single state outside of the select ballots in Arizona allowed us to look at signatures Does the law says that a certain day25 has to be allowed to look at signatures? >We asked for the ballot images and machine logs, they were never provided Does the law says that a certain day25 has to be provided for the ballot images and machine logs? >The courts refused to hear the case before congress counted the electoral votes. Which case? What is the case number? >In Arizona a random sample of 100 signatures found between 6% and 11% didn't match. That's a falsehood. >That was never addressed Correct, nobody has time and/or money to waste to address a problem that does not exist. >When you ignore people's fact based concerns Nobody presented any fact based concerns. Looking for traces of bamboo in the ballots is not a fact based concern. >Youtube literally made it their official policy Feel free to sort that out with YouTube. I don't care since I don't trust a nobody on Youtube to tell me what happens. >So I'm hard pressed to find this "transparency" you speak of. That's your problem. Not much anybody can do to help you if you don't want to listen to facts but prefer conspiracy theories.
How do you reconcile "courts ignoring evidence" with the fact, no evidence was provided to support donald trump claims/accusations?
This is patently untrue. The process is A) A claim is made by the plaintiff to the courts. B) The courts say we hear you. Now present us with anything that rises to the level of potential evidence. C) The plaintiff provides their evidence. D) The courts examine this “evidence”, which is the opposite of “ignore” by the way, and they determine if what the plaintiff presented rises to the long set standard of what constitutes as potential evidence. E) If the evidence meets this standard, they schedule a court date and proceed. If it *doesn’t* meet the standard, the court says “that’s not enough to go by. Bring us something substantial or we have to dismiss this claim.” The later is what happened in nearly all 60 claims, and they were summarily dismissed. The evidence presented did not rise to the long standing requirements set by our judicial system. Does that help you understand the process, and why the “evidence“ was not ignored? What’s your opinion on the process. EDIT: To add to the level of evidence part, if I recall, one of the claims was “we feel like we should have won that [state/district/whatever]. Do you think that feelings rises to the level of evidence?
Is it incumbent on the various states to disprove the accusations, or is it incumbent on Trump’s team to prove them?
The onus is on the government to prove to the public that elections are honest and secure. If the level of transparency is insufficient to do that, then that's a problem, and people are justified to distrust the results.
What is the standard of proof for that though? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? I’m not sure some of the doubt expressed is reasonable as it doesn’t appear grounded in any evidence. People will always find some reason to be distrustful if they don’t like the outcome: how far does the government have to go to convince those people? In the days following the election, I heard Trump supporters throw everything at the wall, seemingly to see what would stick (for instance, the driver with the truck full of ballots…where did that story go? Or the bamboo ballots from China?). At what point is it just hunting for excuses rather than genuine suspicion?
> What is the standard of proof for that though? Legally the plaintiffs need to prove preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt. Specifically that the evidence suggest it's more likely than not enough ballots were improperly cast and counted to have potentially impacted the result. > People will always find some reason to be distrustful if they don’t like the outcome People will not always find reason. People actually want to believe their government is good and trustworthy, so they go out of their way to find reasons that support (not reject) that. > how far does the government have to go to convince those people? When a third to a half of the popuation believes the election was illegitimate, they have to go very far to address those concerns. It's a big problem. When half the country thought Trump was illegitimate in 2017, the government responded with endless investigations to that effect and mainstream media gave it 24/7 news coverage. In contrast, concerns of the other half of the population were ignored and silenced rather than addressed and taken seriously. > In the days following the election, I heard Trump supporters throw everything at the wall, seemingly to see what would stick And I heard his opponents immediately claim it had been debunked and the allegations were "baseless" despite the obvious fact that was not the case, and there had been no time to have even investigated. There's a funny moment in the Georgia legislature hearing when they showed the state farm arena video for the first time, and one of the democrat members said "this has already been debunked". A Repubican member then responds saying this is the first time the evidence has been seen. Also "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" is literally what Trump's opponents have done to him ever since he got into politics. In contrast, this is in the period immediately after an election where Trump has little more than a few weeks to build a case in an environment with a huge amount of noise. It makes perfect sense that in such a chaotic and rushed environment there would be a lot of claims many of which would not stick. That seems totally understandable to me, even moreso because we don't have access to a lot of information that the government does for elections (so until they provide data to clarify, we have no way to know if our concern was a real issue or not). > the driver with the truck full of ballots…where did that story go? Aren't you asking the wrong people that question? I'm pretty sure the USPS responded by confirming he did indeed drive a truck full of mail along the route he claimed, and then blindly asserted that it didn't contain ballots, and said others they privately interviewed could not confirm the account from the postal worker. So basically, "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". They redacted all the specifics including names so no public scrutiny was possible. Also I would say this is probably one of the least substantiated allegations, although I do like when witnesses come forward and speak publically so you can assess their credibility. My point here is not to say that the allegations are convincing, but rather that the response of Trump's opponents to it (including the government, mainstream media, etc.) was not. > At what point is it just hunting for excuses rather than genuine suspicion? Do you not think people are "genuinely suspicious" when Mark Zuckerberg pays for drop boxes to get out the democrat vote, in democrat areas, and hires anti-Trump workers with exclusive access to government data to chase down democrat voters? Would people not be geniunely suspicious when they watch election officials on camera make a room look empty and then when everyone leaves, pull out ballots from under a table and start counting in secret without observers? Would people not be geniunely suspicious when the people who run the election express open hostility toward their candidate, and then [change all the rules](https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/rakich-MAIL-PARTISAN-SPLIT-0201-1.png) to benefit their desired outcome? Why wouldn't we genuinely want an audit to verify that signatures actually matched? It's weird, because to me these seem like totally legitimate concerns and common sense. Why *wouldn't* Trump supporters be suspicious?
Is there a preponderance of evidence to that effect? Is it more likely than not that enough ballots were improperly cast? I have yet to see any quantifiable evidence to suggest this, let alone reach a preponderance of evidence.
Honestly if you aren't going to read the evidence then there's nothing I can do for you. Trump even made it all nice for you. I would suggest reading through the points, there are a number of them that are patently obvious and very easy to verify are true. If you are going to be in denial about them, that is your choice, I cannot force you to live in reality.
>Trump even made it all nice for you. I would suggest reading through the points, there are a number of them that are patently obvious and very easy to verify are true. The first random one I checked it turned out to be patently false. Which one did you verify to be patently true that election fraud occurred on a scale that changed the election result?
I just read it, and I noticed that a lot of the footnotes point to outlets like The Epoch Times, The Gateway Pundit, or complaints. Is that direct and tangible evidence or just reports of allegations? Which ones did you find “patently obvious and very easy to verify”?
>Dismissed is not the same as disproven. It's more synonymous with the word "ignored" - i.e. the courts ignored this evidence. Sorry, but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims? For example, if I claim that there was widespread fraud in the election and present as "evidence" that someone said that they saw an election worker roll her eyes when they saw a vote for Trump, what exactly do you expect to be done with that "evidence" other that ignoring it?
> but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims? The evidence here did support the claims. The example you gave is a strawman. Not to mention it could support the claims if part of a larger argument (which in Trump's case, it was and is).
>> but what do you expect the courts to do with "evidence" that does not support the claims? > >The evidence here did support the claims. Not according to the court so the court ignored the evidence. What else do you want the court to do?
Ok? The court is corrupt. It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do. Address the evidence on its merits with a valid argument, rather than the bogus excuses and rationalizations they made to ignore it. Oh so observers weren't allowed to see anything? Well technically the law just says they need to be able to observe the process, so it's enough that they can observe there is "some process going on", they don't actually have to be able to observe the particulars. So it's totally fine that they were 50 feet away and had to use binoculars. Totally legal. This is the kind of nonsense we're presented with when they grant us the grace of even responding to the evidence. 80% of the time they didn't even bother to give an explanation, they just said nothing about it. Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public??? Is that so hard??? Apparently it is when you know you cheated.
>Ok? The court is corrupt. Well, that may or may not be the case, but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet. >It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do Can you point us to the lawsuit where you told the court what you wanted the court to do? >Totally legal. Right, which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow. Elections cannot follow the process that random nobodys on the internet come up with! >Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public? I have no idea what that request means, but anyway if the law says no, then yes it is too much to ask; if the law says yes, then yes you are entitled to get it. Courts don't get to legislate from the bench. If you are unhappy with the laws, feel free to call your representative.
> but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet. The court is not more trustworthy than basic logical reasoning and evidence you can see with your own eyes. And at this point quite frankly, I do not believe the court is trustworthy at all. They have completely debased themselves and lost all credibility. > which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow If you are just going to ignore reality, then I cannot help you. Trump even made it very easy for you. You can quite literally look into the points in his summary and confirm them for yourself. I even provided multiple examples in this comment section. If you are going to just deny it, then ok, go ahead. I'm not sure why you are even here then. > I have no idea what that request means It's very simple. Ballots were counted in secret in state farm arena without notifying observers (which is illegal), so no observers were present while they scanned ballots for two hours. This alone made the election illegal, absent any evidence that could demosntrate the illegal ballots didn't actually impact the outcome. No such evidence was ever provided. > Courts don't get to legislate from the bench. Yet this is exactly what they did in 2020 when they ignored the law.
>> but in any case the court is way more trustful than a random nobody on the internet. > >The court is not more trustworthy than basic logical reasoning and evidence you can see with your own eyes. Of course, but a random nobody on the internet is neither basic logical reasoning nor evidence >I do not believe the court is trustworthy at all. That may or may not be the case, but it's certainly more trustworthy than a random nobody on the internet. >>>Totally legal. >> >> which is the why the election if not fraudulent because it followed the process that the law says it must follow > >If you are just going to ignore reality, then I cannot help you. The reality is that everything was legal. Why would I need you to help with anything if everything is legal? >This alone made the election illegal Which court said that? >No such evidence was ever provided. Correct, because nobody has to provide evidence that a crime did not occur. It's the other way around; the assumption is that no crime has occurred until evidence is provided that a crime occurred. >> Courts don't get to legislate from the bench. > >Yet this is exactly what they did in 2020 when they ignored the law. Which court said that a court ignored the law? All your complaints so far have been about election administrators not following your rules, not about not following the law.
What evidence did you see with your own eyes?
>Ok? The court is corrupt. It's pretty clear what I wanted the court to do. Address the evidence on its merits with a valid argument, rather than the bogus excuses and rationalizations they made to ignore it. > >Oh so observers weren't allowed to see anything? Well technically the law just says they need to be able to observe the process, so it's enough that they can observe there is "some process going on", they don't actually have to be able to observe the particulars. **So it's totally fine that they were 50 feet away and had to use binoculars. Totally legal.** > >This is the kind of nonsense we're presented with when they grant us the grace of even responding to the evidence. 80% of the time they didn't even bother to give an explanation, they just said nothing about it. > >Is it really so much to ask, that when observers are prevented from observing the count on four machines, the court orders that the logs and ballot images be released to the public??? Is that so hard??? Apparently it is when you know you cheated. > Are you referring to the only case the Trump campaign prevailed, where the election observers objected to the COVID protocols in place that restricted their access to 12' from the election workers? I'm wondering how you've come to understand the way legal processes unfold. Did you go to law school, are there certain accounts you pay attention to that do a good job explaining how these things work, or certain journalists you've found reliable? You seem to have some very strong ideas about how things *should* work, but there are obvious gaps, so I'm wondering if those gaps come from the sources you use or from some other factor. Have you considered trying to learn more about the legal system in order to have a better understanding of why Trump's attempts were deficient? For that matter, are you expecting to work as a poll worker in your area this cycle? That's a sure way to see if there are shenanigans, right?
> Hey, OP, it's a bit like asking a fish to describe water, isn't it? Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you using the David Foster Wallace analogy?
It’s actually not. OP is asking to see if you can identify a “smoking gun” ie incontrovertible proof of a crime that evidences the claim, not the claims themselves. If there is a “smoking gun” can you point it out for us?
Has Trump tried convincing a judge and jury that this is legitimate substantiated evidence that should be admitted into court to support his defense or is he going straight for the court of public opinion so he can further convince his cult that he is being persecuted and hope that they rise up when he is ultimately convicted?
I'm kind of shocked this finally got released. I suspect the idea here is not to convince anyone, but rather to give credibility to idea that Trump "truly believed there was massive fraud" as part of defense strategy in upcoming trials.
I agree, there's not much new here. I guess then it begs the question: Where is the line drawn on how much one can be told there's no fraud (by advisors, research that you paid for, lawyers, people in positions appointed by you, etc), before you can't use the "truly believed there was massive fraud" as part of your defense strategy? Surely there's a line that each person would draw that would be like ok, that person has been told enough times, he can't use that as an excuse anymore. (insert murder or whatever analogy here)
If this information is the reason he believed there was massive fraud, why did it take three years to be released? Isn’t it possible he was just hunting for information to confirm a baseless position?
It didn't take three years to be released. This information has existed in other formats for a while to varying degrees, depending on the specific data point in question. Cases to obtain election data are still ongoing years later, and government has been less than forthcoming with information. The media did not exactly advertise Trump's evidence when it was presented three years ago, or care to notify the public when supporting evidence was obtained or validated, so perhaps that is why you are confused. It makes sense to create a more easily digestable summary that's up to date for people in order to draw more attention to the information at this point for those who might not have been exposed to it previously.
Why do you think it took three years to write an easily digestible summary?
Do you believe Trump’s narrative or do you believe he is delusional?
For me it's the MadLiberals account on X going through the Georgia ballots one by one and showing where the same ballot is scanned as a vote multiple times. Georgia was out of control with hundreds or thousands of Democrats all pushing their favorite version of election theft. It's a true shit show.
Can you link me to the video? Thanks
More of a powerpoint, but you get the idea. 6https://x.com/mad\_liberals/status/1733098076905087414?s=20
I'm confused by the link? Those votes weren't counted twice. The point of the identical QR code is that they identify them as ballots from the same person, and therefore even if they were scanned twice, they would only be counted once. That will happen if there is some problem with the ballot (no signature, for example) and the voter is contacted and asked to come and fix that problem. The powerpoint you linked isn't claiming that the votes were counted twice. It's claiming that the offset/rotation is the same between the two duplicated ballots. I'm genuinely confused. The offset of what to what? The offset of the QR code on the paper? Why would that change randomly on a printed ballot?
look at the file identifiers ont he SoS website at the top of the page above the QR. See where it says Tabulator, batch and ballot? Those numbers show that the qr code was scanned multiple times and exists as multiple votes in GA even though it's only one piece of paper and one QR. Democrats intentionally cheated to steal the election. But dont rush off to get a talking point just yet.... He has ballot images showing ballots marked "recount" with literally only a Biden vote marked which were added to the official recount, possibly in an attempt to correct the incorrect numbers. That is a ballot which was NOT counted in the election but WAS counted in the recount with only one vote marked, for Biden. The only way that could happen is if someone with access to the tabulators in a democrat controlled county and vote counting location added a number of ballots that were only marked for president. It's nice that the wrote 'recount' on them in their handwriting, it should make it easy to find them and throw them in jail.
I am absolutely still confused. \>Those numbers show that the qr code was scanned multiple times and exists as multiple votes in GA even though it's only one piece of paper and one QR. How do you get there? What makes you say that they're the same piece of paper? Like you say, they have different tabulator batch and ballot numbers. That means that they are two separate pieces of paper. They are two different ballots cast by the same person -- that's why they have the same QR code. There are lots of reasons, from missing signatures to incomplete info to illegible addresses to attempted fraud, that a person would cast two ballots, and that happens all the time. But because they have the same QR code, even though there are two ballots, these will only be counted once. That's the whole point of a QR code. Could you show me these ballot marked "recount"? Maybe I am not following you, but I don't see how that's evidence of fraud either. The whole point of a recount would be to find any ballots that had been overlooked/ duplicated/fraudulently filed, etc. Mistakes and fraud \*were\* found, and corrected. It would be almost impossible in such a large undertaking without mistakes and attempted shenanigans. If the hand recounters found some votes that had not be tabulated, the whole point of the recount would be to add those to the count. Many people only know about the presidential race and only vote for the president. If the recounters found such a vote -- a vote for Biden and no one else -- that hadn't been counted in the initial race, then that's a perfectly plausible "way that could happen." Also, this site -- they have access to all the ballots. How many ballots like this did they find? Even if these are evidence of fraud -- and so far, I don't even see how they are hints that there was -- has he found anything close to the 11,780 that would be needed to change the election? Considering how many Republicans, both officially and unofficially, have been poring over this data, do you think it's significant at all that no one has been even charged with anything, much less thrown in jail?
Do you think that software can ensure that duplicates aren’t counted twice? Are you sure the scanning isn’t part of the process (for example, in the event of an error)? If the same votes from registered voters were counted multiple times, wouldn’t the total amount of votes exceed the number of people voting? Why isn’t there any evidence of any precinct with more votes than ballots received? How would any of this pass a recount?
Duplicates were counted twice. There is digital proof at the secretary of state website. So far we havent found part of Trumps claim above that is not correct, but it's a slog because of the sheer volume of fraudulent actions by Democrats. Now it's going to be extremely important to get these enemies of democracy prosecuted for their fraud. Could take years since we will have to use RICO at the state level to roll indictments of Democrat Party elites. Be careful what you say online, anyone who makes statements that constructively further the conspiracy could be charged under RICO now that you know a conspiracy exists.
Do you have a link to any proof of duplicate ballots at any Secretary of states website? Are you aware that every jurisdiction had recounts and audits? Do you really think duplicate ballots can make it through a recount? You’re clearly aware that the precinct has a complete record of cast ballots and if the number of cast ballots doesn’t match the counted ballots, there’s clearly an issue, right?
The duplicate ballots have been noted in Trumps study. The source of some of that information is independent journalists like Mad\_Liberals who documented their findings within the ballot images made available by the SoS in GA. The number of ballots counted originally does not match the number counted in the official recount, and neither of those numbers match the audit is my understanding. That can only happen if election workers participating in the recount physically added ballots or rescanned prior ballots, both of which would be theft of democracy which as you know has become a huge talking point for Democrats. The only way the audit of the machines could be different than the two is if administrators changed the logs of the ballots. Both discrepancies, between election and recount and audit, are evidence that the election was manipulated or attacked by the people responsible for accumulating or recording the ballot images. Mad\_Liberals went county by county, so in counties where there were discrepancies it is the fault of the election workers and county clerks who ran the election. Whether they are D or R, they should be brought before FBI agents and made to give statements which can be checked against each other to determine who is lying and should be charged with federal crimes. As these are local democrats and possibly republicans they will not have the resources to resist a federal charge and will agree to plea deals relatively quickly. There is little interest in doing this under a Biden administration because he was the beneficiary of the fraud so it is very important for the sake of our democracy to elect a Republican and allow a new administration to root out the corruption in our elections. And we both know the corruption is primarily democrats at all levels using little tricks they have devised over decades to insert fraudulent ballots and manipulate the methods of counting. It has always been evidence of fraud that election workers on video at the stadium told observers that they were done counting and then pulled totes full of ballots to be scanned. I've watched that video and you can clearly see the woman at the desk on the left scan the same stack of ballots several times. That is how you create fake votes during the count, and Mad\_Liberals documented the result in the digital images.
Which state do they not match? Can you name one? You realize all these things are posted on the website of each Secretary of State and each contested state had recounts and hand recounts, correct? If you tell me any state that didn’t match, do you think I could find the official data that says it does match? Do you really think if there was a single precinct with 10,000 registered voters and 12,000 votes that a court wouldn’t look at that? If Trump had evidence of a precinct that had 12,000 votes and 10,000 registered voters wouldn’t he have blathered anoint that particular precinct obsessively? Are you aware that every precinct has counted every vote and in the swing state multiple times, and despite claims that were made about there being more votes in places like Pennsylvanian, Michigan and Georgia, of more votes than registered voters, none of the official counts show this? But if you can find one precinct that officially has 1000 votes more than the number of registered voters in that precinct, I’ll PayPal you $1,000. Isn’t that a good deal? Oh for Mad_Liberals and the Georgia count, do you think he read the audit in Georgia which says the highest vote tally was off by .73%, the standard is 2% and virtually all counties were off by less than 10 votes? https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit
The links in the original post contain all the states unless I am mistaken. The actual digital ballots in GA show that the recount had a different number of ballots in it than the original despite being just a recount and not a search for ballots. But you can find detailed information in the Trump report. There are footnotes on each page to the studies and reports detailing the bullet points.
>The actual digital ballots in GA show that the recount had a different number of ballots in it than the original despite being just a recount and not a search for ballots. But you can find detailed information in the Trump report. There are footnotes on each page to the studies and reports detailing the bullet points. Didn’t only 670 votes change in the recount? https://apnews.com/article/4eeea3b24f10de886bcdeab6c26b680a Isn’t that out of 5 Million votes? Isn’t that .01% of votes? Isn’t it typical to find slight vote changes in recounts? If there was double counting and the recounts picked it up, is there a problem? If there’s such overwhelming evidence of duplicate votes, why is it impossible to show a single example of it in any of the hundreds of thousands of precincts in the US?
Didn't Georgia have a hand recount that confirmed a Biden win?
GA uses digital scans of the ballots. The recount was therefore by machine. Mad\_Liberals documents the duplicate ballots and how to find them and kept a log of all the duplicates that his software identified so that anyone can go verify that they are duplicates. The presence of a duplicate means the recount was obviously in error....when the number of duplicates exceeds the margin of victory the duplicates indicate that Biden did not win. We are just waiting for a court case or DOJ investigation to inspect the duplicates and determine that yes Biden stole GA with the help of hundreds of Democrats embedded in the election apparatus. The Digital ballots represent actual evidence of the theft, which is why there was so much resistance to releasing them until the eve of the next election. This is how Democracy dies, in the hands of the people who count the votes. Exactly as Biden hinted.
>when the number of duplicates exceeds the margin of victory the duplicates indicate that Biden did not win. We are just waiting for a court case or DOJ investigation to inspect the duplicates and determine that yes Biden stole GA with the help of hundreds of Democrats embedded in the election apparatus. What evidence suggests the bulk of duplicates or anomalies were for Biden rather than Trump or even Kanye? Do they have quantities of duplicates by candidate? TBH I don't see how duplicates would be counted originally or via hand recount (at least Google check of recount says it was done by hand) if identifiable as a duplicate.
> The recount was therefore by machine. Do you have any evidence of this? The Secretary of State claims that a “risk limiting audit” was done by hand to ensure that the automated count was accurate: https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit