5 ms·

> unable to point to anything convincing? It's pretty well documented that poll watchers were denied their lawful right of meaningful observation. The counter

> unable to point to anything convincing? It's pretty well documented that poll watchers were denied their lawful right of meaningful observation. The counter-claim to this is that the poll-watchers were being rude/abusive but this is the claim that does not have evidence. The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out. There are many other ways election laws were also broken. This is just the example I use that, to me, is the most straight forward and best documented. > Why in most cases did they not even try once in a venue where lying would have penalties? Often times the courts haven't even provided the opportunity to swear in witnesses. Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all.

kadoban 6y ago
> The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out. That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law. Then going back to the premises, isn't this in PA the one where they could see, they just weren't as close as they wanted to be, and they were exactly as close as the observers from the other campaign? > Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all. Time reasons sounds reasonable to you? They have raised multiple _hundreds_ of millions of dollars, and the candidate has his own funds. They can't get more lawyers and assistants to help? This has been going for weeks. You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  In Michigan, based on testimony/affidavits: 1) The poll workers were almost exclusively Democrats. 2) It was only Republican poll watchers who were being thrown out 3) Republican poll watchers were not replaced after they were thrown out 4) By the end of the night there were only a handful of Republican watchers 5) The Democrat poll watchers would harass the Republican poll watchers until they are thrown out 6) The reasons provided to throw out Republicans were applied unevenly (Only applied to Republicans) Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. If there is evidence to the contrary for the above claims, I haven't seen it. > That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law. How should it work? It's not a fair system either to kick out all of the observers, and then claim that "no fraud happened" after kicking out everyone who was there to detect fraud. The election laws exist for a reason and these laws were basically outright ignored. Keep in mind, that even with the limited observation, there is testimony that points to specific cases of fraud. For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored. > You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have? I don't know why they chose to select those witnesses to depose, and not the others. Perhaps Binnall personally felt those were his strongest witnesses. Maybe the other witnesses were not available to testify (or did not want to seek out the harassment). I don't know. Judges are fallible, as are laywers, and people. I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far. (Please be considerate with the downvotes. I'm a new user, and I'm trying to be constructive with my posts, yet getting rate-limited due to negative karma.)
  - Loughla 6y ago
    >Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. Cite them, please. >For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. Cite this, please. >This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored. Cite this, as well, please. >I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far. These next two questions are real questions, not snark, I promise. Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)? Do you really believe that? Edit: Downvote me if you want, but at least have the decency to answer my questions. If you're so concerned about it, then get your information out in front of more people, instead of making baseless claims.
neogodless 6y ago
Are there any other controversial scenarios that you believe are true, but that require thousands of individuals to secretly plan and execute, and then cover up, and still not have enough evidence to win in court? Offer ten million dollars to one of the "inside" poll workers and get first hand eye witness testimony. Surely one of them even sneakily video taped the wrongdoing so that they could sell video evidence to the highest bidder. Surely at least one of these thousands has a paper trail of communications used to coordinate the scheme. And considering that polling officials are bipartisan, surely a few thousand would be motivated to testify about the corruption! It takes thousands to successfully conspire. It only takes one for it to fail.
- svieira 6y ago
  The Armenian Genocide comes to mind. You also couldn't prove that Uyghurs are being subject to anything out-of-the-ordinary in Chinese courts right now. I'm not saying that that's what we're dealing with here, but saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" is begging the question, not a convincing argument. Noting that we'd expect odd statistical distributions of votes in the case of fraud is a better one.
  - neogodless 6y ago
    > saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" That is not what I said.
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  The Trump campaign has stated a belief that this was organized from the top down. I am not in agreement with that. I do not think there was some conspiracy from the top to commit fraud. I think the fraud happened at an individual level. As an example, the woman's testimony below that starts at 1:34:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... This kind of fraud doesn't require any kind of "conspiracy". Her story involved only a couple of individuals, and I don't think they at any point gathered together to conspire to commit fraud. It just happened to occur that way.

kadoban 6y ago

> The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out. That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law. Then going back to the premises, isn't this in PA the one where they could see, they just weren't as close as they wanted to be, and they were exactly as close as the observers from the other campaign? > Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all. Time reasons sounds reasonable to you? They have raised multiple _hundreds_ of millions of dollars, and the candidate has his own funds. They can't get more lawyers and assistants to help? This has been going for weeks. You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?

prucomaclu 6y ago
In Michigan, based on testimony/affidavits: 1) The poll workers were almost exclusively Democrats. 2) It was only Republican poll watchers who were being thrown out 3) Republican poll watchers were not replaced after they were thrown out 4) By the end of the night there were only a handful of Republican watchers 5) The Democrat poll watchers would harass the Republican poll watchers until they are thrown out 6) The reasons provided to throw out Republicans were applied unevenly (Only applied to Republicans) Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. If there is evidence to the contrary for the above claims, I haven't seen it. > That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law. How should it work? It's not a fair system either to kick out all of the observers, and then claim that "no fraud happened" after kicking out everyone who was there to detect fraud. The election laws exist for a reason and these laws were basically outright ignored. Keep in mind, that even with the limited observation, there is testimony that points to specific cases of fraud. For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored. > You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have? I don't know why they chose to select those witnesses to depose, and not the others. Perhaps Binnall personally felt those were his strongest witnesses. Maybe the other witnesses were not available to testify (or did not want to seek out the harassment). I don't know. Judges are fallible, as are laywers, and people. I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far. (Please be considerate with the downvotes. I'm a new user, and I'm trying to be constructive with my posts, yet getting rate-limited due to negative karma.)
- Loughla 6y ago
  >Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. Cite them, please. >For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. Cite this, please. >This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored. Cite this, as well, please. >I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far. These next two questions are real questions, not snark, I promise. Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)? Do you really believe that? Edit: Downvote me if you want, but at least have the decency to answer my questions. If you're so concerned about it, then get your information out in front of more people, instead of making baseless claims.

neogodless 6y ago

Are there any other controversial scenarios that you believe are true, but that require thousands of individuals to secretly plan and execute, and then cover up, and still not have enough evidence to win in court? Offer ten million dollars to one of the "inside" poll workers and get first hand eye witness testimony. Surely one of them even sneakily video taped the wrongdoing so that they could sell video evidence to the highest bidder. Surely at least one of these thousands has a paper trail of communications used to coordinate the scheme. And considering that polling officials are bipartisan, surely a few thousand would be motivated to testify about the corruption! It takes thousands to successfully conspire. It only takes one for it to fail.

svieira 6y ago
The Armenian Genocide comes to mind. You also couldn't prove that Uyghurs are being subject to anything out-of-the-ordinary in Chinese courts right now. I'm not saying that that's what we're dealing with here, but saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" is begging the question, not a convincing argument. Noting that we'd expect odd statistical distributions of votes in the case of fraud is a better one.
- neogodless 6y ago
  > saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" That is not what I said.
prucomaclu 6y ago
The Trump campaign has stated a belief that this was organized from the top down. I am not in agreement with that. I do not think there was some conspiracy from the top to commit fraud. I think the fraud happened at an individual level. As an example, the woman's testimony below that starts at 1:34:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... This kind of fraud doesn't require any kind of "conspiracy". Her story involved only a couple of individuals, and I don't think they at any point gathered together to conspire to commit fraud. It just happened to occur that way.