5 ms·

> Like I said, most states use a paper trail. Most states don't matter, the swing states do. > But make no mistake, people who are crying about massive fraud

> Like I said, most states use a paper trail. Most states don't matter, the swing states do. > But make no mistake, people who are crying about massive fraud are not actually serious about doing any of that. Those people signed affidavits, what papers did you sign that make you liable under the penalty of perjury to get any weight and seriousness to your position?

titzer 6y ago
People are holding the Capitol building by force, and you think they are worried about consequences from signing paper?
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  That's what you get when the SCOTUS dismisses the case by one sentence without looking into those affidavits. Those 72 million citizens that supported and approved of the formal court hearings and wanted investigations to happen are not silent servants of those who sit in the Capitol building during normal days. When the due process is ignored by one side, another side has a full right to demand the due process by acting physically. They have this right granted to them by the US Constitution, which is above anyone in the Capitol building.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    I’m not aware of a line in the Constitution allowing what is happening. The Declaration of Independence mentions it, but not the Constitution.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      The Declaration sets principles behind a just and fair government, the Constitution outlines how this just government would function (it would function lawfully). When the government doesn't follow the principles and doesn't apply the required due process when it needs to be applied, it gets outisde the notion of a just government. The right to the current actions lies in the Constitution itself, as it doesn't allow for the current government to exist in its current form (doesn't function lawfully), and it doesn't fit the notion of a just government.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> Most states don't matter, the swing states do. The swing states all have a paper trail: Michigan: paper ballots Wisconsin: paper ballots or machines that produce a paper ballot Pennsylvania: paper ballots Georgia: machines that produce a paper ballot Arizona: paper ballots or machines that produce a paper ballot https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat...
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits and to check the paper trails and if they match and, based on the results of the investigation, prosecuted one party or the other? Or did they dissmiss them under technicalities not related to the sworn affidavits? That's the due process to follow.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court, instead withdrawing or avoiding making fraud claims in court filings (though sometimes referring to them in court arguments and then admitting they weren’t part of the case) and preferring to take the “evidence” to “hearings” run by political allies with no adjudicative role as an act of political theater.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court That's not how courts are supposed to work. If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury, because the just process would have to determine and prosecute the lying side (as that side is not known beforehand). None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process.

titzer 6y ago

People are holding the Capitol building by force, and you think they are worried about consequences from signing paper?

ghostwriter 6y ago
That's what you get when the SCOTUS dismisses the case by one sentence without looking into those affidavits. Those 72 million citizens that supported and approved of the formal court hearings and wanted investigations to happen are not silent servants of those who sit in the Capitol building during normal days. When the due process is ignored by one side, another side has a full right to demand the due process by acting physically. They have this right granted to them by the US Constitution, which is above anyone in the Capitol building.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I’m not aware of a line in the Constitution allowing what is happening. The Declaration of Independence mentions it, but not the Constitution.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    The Declaration sets principles behind a just and fair government, the Constitution outlines how this just government would function (it would function lawfully). When the government doesn't follow the principles and doesn't apply the required due process when it needs to be applied, it gets outisde the notion of a just government. The right to the current actions lies in the Constitution itself, as it doesn't allow for the current government to exist in its current form (doesn't function lawfully), and it doesn't fit the notion of a just government.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

> Most states don't matter, the swing states do. The swing states all have a paper trail: Michigan: paper ballots Wisconsin: paper ballots or machines that produce a paper ballot Pennsylvania: paper ballots Georgia: machines that produce a paper ballot Arizona: paper ballots or machines that produce a paper ballot https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat...

ghostwriter 6y ago
Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits and to check the paper trails and if they match and, based on the results of the investigation, prosecuted one party or the other? Or did they dissmiss them under technicalities not related to the sworn affidavits? That's the due process to follow.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Did the court rule to investigate the claims made in the affidavits No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court, instead withdrawing or avoiding making fraud claims in court filings (though sometimes referring to them in court arguments and then admitting they weren’t part of the case) and preferring to take the “evidence” to “hearings” run by political allies with no adjudicative role as an act of political theater.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court That's not how courts are supposed to work. If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury, because the just process would have to determine and prosecute the lying side (as that side is not known beforehand). None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process.