4 ms·

Chosing to believe the story told by one side does not automatically make the other story misinformation. > nearly everything about the election being stolen i

Chosing to believe the story told by one side does not automatically make the other story misinformation. > nearly everything about the election being stolen is an explicit lie So all of the people who swore affidavits committed perjury?

Guvante 6y ago
So many people committed perjury that the Plaintiff's discarded the ones that were obviously spam. Some unknown number of affidavits were discarded by Trump's legal team that were acquired in exactly the same manner. Their star witness claimed that there was an error of 100k in the books when an error of 30k (necessary to swing the election) wasn't found during review. When challenged on that point she claimed the Republican was in on it. Whatever it is. No claim has been made of general election malfiance. All accusations are specifically about the presidential election. How and why would you rig only a presidential election? You can't do that by merely rescanning ballots.
modriano 6y ago
> So all of the people who swore affidavits committed perjury? Perjury is very rarely prosecuted as it's difficult to prove the person knew they were affirming a lie. So even though there have been sworn affidavits asserting fraud which was then utterly disproven by hand recounts, there still won't be many or any prosecutions of perjury. Even though these people are most likely guilty of perjury, prosecutors won't waste scarce resources building cases and prosecuting them. Judges have mostly just dismissed these false affidavits as not credible. A better test would be corroborating evidence or some victories for these lawsuits. In most states, election systems are designed for traceability and error detection (while some like Kentucky only have auditability in 14% of precincts). If there was fraud, there would be evidence. If there's evidence, why has Trump lost 55 of 56 of these election-related cases to date (and the one victory changed nothing, because it held that that PA had to separate out ballots that arrived after Nov 3, which the PA SoS was already doing preemptively). Seriously, read through these filings [0]. These are clearly bad faith arguments that have no basis in reality. Trump and co have raised over $170 million from the people they are blasting with these claims that can't stand up to any scrutiny [1]. One side is objectively spewing misinformation. [0] https://www.democracydocket.com/ https://www.democracydocket.com/ [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-than-150-million-appealing-to-false-election-claims/2020/11/30/82e922e6-3347-11eb-afe6-e4dbee9689f8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-th...

Guvante 6y ago

So many people committed perjury that the Plaintiff's discarded the ones that were obviously spam. Some unknown number of affidavits were discarded by Trump's legal team that were acquired in exactly the same manner. Their star witness claimed that there was an error of 100k in the books when an error of 30k (necessary to swing the election) wasn't found during review. When challenged on that point she claimed the Republican was in on it. Whatever it is. No claim has been made of general election malfiance. All accusations are specifically about the presidential election. How and why would you rig only a presidential election? You can't do that by merely rescanning ballots.

modriano 6y ago

> So all of the people who swore affidavits committed perjury? Perjury is very rarely prosecuted as it's difficult to prove the person knew they were affirming a lie. So even though there have been sworn affidavits asserting fraud which was then utterly disproven by hand recounts, there still won't be many or any prosecutions of perjury. Even though these people are most likely guilty of perjury, prosecutors won't waste scarce resources building cases and prosecuting them. Judges have mostly just dismissed these false affidavits as not credible. A better test would be corroborating evidence or some victories for these lawsuits. In most states, election systems are designed for traceability and error detection (while some like Kentucky only have auditability in 14% of precincts). If there was fraud, there would be evidence. If there's evidence, why has Trump lost 55 of 56 of these election-related cases to date (and the one victory changed nothing, because it held that that PA had to separate out ballots that arrived after Nov 3, which the PA SoS was already doing preemptively). Seriously, read through these filings [0]. These are clearly bad faith arguments that have no basis in reality. Trump and co have raised over $170 million from the people they are blasting with these claims that can't stand up to any scrutiny [1]. One side is objectively spewing misinformation. [0] https://www.democracydocket.com/ https://www.democracydocket.com/ [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-than-150-million-appealing-to-false-election-claims/2020/11/30/82e922e6-3347-11eb-afe6-e4dbee9689f8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raises-more-th...