How I Respond to “ The Fraud is Insignificant and Wouldn’t Change the Outcome”

[Renegade]

There's a difference between influencing and interference. My vote can be influenced to vote a different direction then intent, but it's still the way I voted. If my vote was changed through interference, then I was cheated out of my vote.

You continue to miss the point.

 

[easy rider]

You continue to miss the point.

I don't think I do. Clinton was not cheated through the voting process that I'm aware of.

 

[Renegade]

I don't think I do. Clinton was not cheated through the voting process that I'm aware of.

Yeah, you do. It has nothing to do with whether Clinton was cheated or not.

 

[easy rider]

Yeah, you do. It has nothing to do with whether Clinton was cheated or not.

Then what's your point? One side may think it was cheated, but actually it wasn't. The other side may actually have been cheated, not both.

 

[plinkr]

plinkr,

PARDON ME for pointing (I'm a LONG-SERVING Election Judge in Bexar County, TX & formerly in Northern NY & Northern VA.) out that NONE of the court cases has ACTUALLY been heard & thus NO evidence has been presented to a JURY to evaluate.=The CROOKED/HATE-FILLED/FAR LEFT DIMocRATS want NO JURY to see what they did & are doing EVERY possible DIRTY TRICK to try to STOP any inquiry into their UTTER DISHONESTY.
(In at least 2 precincts in Philadelphia, EVERY registered voter "voted" & in ALPHABETICAL order in 2020.)

In some areas of ATLANTA, MORE votes were cast on 03NOV20 than the TOTAL NUMBER of persons who live in those areas, including the DEAD, babies, non-residents, non-citizens & people who also voted in other precincts. = Everyone on the voter & tax rolls.

yours, satx

Sir, I respect your service and experience. You are correct, most cases have been thrown out of court or dropped by the musical chairs team of legal eagles employed by the President's campaign. This has happened in courts run by Democrat and Republican judges, all for the same reasons - lack of real evidence and/or a coherent legal argument. The fraud, if that is what it is, seems to be bipartisan.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

Sir, I respect your service and experience. You are correct, most cases have been thrown out of court or dropped by the musical chairs team of legal eagles employed by the President's campaign. This has happened in courts run by Democrat and Republican judges, all for the same reasons - lack of real evidence and/or a coherent legal argument. The fraud, if that is what it is, seems to be bipartisan.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

plinkr,

There is a GREAT DEAL of ACTUAL EVIDENCE of REAL ELECTION FRAUD but (mostly) OBAMA or CLINTON-appointed District Judges have used every possible excuse to NOT HEAR any of that evidence. - For example there are over 150 cases of SWORN STATEMENTS that were NOT even considered by uber-partisan LEFTIST judges by Election Officials that have been "discounted" as UNIMPORTANT & therefore IGNORED.

yours, satx

 

[sidebite252]

If you won't invest the time to read it Cliff Notes won't help you. It's pretty deep and plenty wide. Covers a lot of topics with what seems enough details to make it believable.

Touché ...... lol

 

[satx78247]

Is that true? I am under the impression that there are multiple layers of security, including observers from both parties in the counting room. Even so, I tend to agree with you. How can we know? Our system has one primary mechanism to find the truth, and that is in court. So let's present the evidence, in court and under oath, and then we will know. Whomever winds up as the winner will be my President. Whatever happens, I don't want to be a whiner like all the Dems who claimed (hilariously) that Trump wasn't their President.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

plinkr,

In at least EIGHT STATES (ALL of which supposedly "voted BRIGHT BLUE") Republican AND Democrat Party observers were LOCKED OUT of the tabulation sites so that they could NOT observe the COUNTING of votes, as is REQUIRED by law. - That is FACT.
(Since BOTH party's observers were LOCKED OUT, it is my OPINION that the CROOKS/CREEPS/THUGS were "taking no chances" that their antics would be observed.)

IF there was "no intent to commit fraud" WHY lock-out GOP/DP poll watchers??

yours, satx

 

[plinkr]

plinkr,

In at least EIGHT STATES (ALL of which supposedly "voted BRIGHT BLUE) Republican observers were LOCKED OUT of the tabulation sites so that they could NOT observe the COUNTING of votes, as is REQUIRED by law. - That is FACT.

IF there was "no intent to commit fraud" WHY lock-out GOP poll watchers??

yours, satx

That's terrible! I'm sure that when those FACTS are proven in court, under oath, there will be remedies.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

That's terrible! I'm sure that when those FACTS are proven in court, under oath, there will be remedies.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

plinkr,

Don't "bet the farm" on that, IF the judge is a FAR LEFT "Obama or Clinton appointed judge". = ONLY what a particular judge is WILLING TO HEAR "gets into the record".

yours, satx

 

[Charlie]

Secession is the only answer.

 

[plinkr]

plinkr,

Don't "bet the farm" on that, IF the judge is a FAR LEFT "Obama or Clinton appointed judge". = ONLY what a particular judge is WILLING TO HEAR "gets into the record".

yours, satx

I don't know about that. Sure, we have all seen the crazy crap partisan judges can do. But, in this election it seems that Republican judges are ruling the same way. Not to mention, when under oath the President's lawyers decline to claim that there was widespread fraud, after yelling it to the rooftops on tv. That makes me think there is a possibility the flaw lies in the "facts" being brought before the courts, not in the judges.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoji]

I don't know about that. Sure, we have all seen the crazy crap partisan judges can do. But, in this election it seems that Republican judges are ruling the same way. Not to mention, when under oath the President's lawyers decline to claim that there was widespread fraud, after yelling it to the rooftops on tv. That makes me think there is a possibility the flaw lies in the "facts" being brought before the courts, not in the judges.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Jesustittyfuckingchrist. They did not claim fraud because the legal definition of the word does not fit what they are claiming.

 

[plinkr]

Jesustittyfuckingchrist. They did not claim fraud because the legal definition of the word does not fit what they are claiming.

Ok then. Claim whatever the legal term is for whatever tampering was done, and present the facts. But get on with it please. So far the legal strategy has been a complete failure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in an alternate universe. I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have seen the phrase "time is of the essence".

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

I don't know about that. Sure, we have all seen the crazy crap partisan judges can do. But, in this election it seems that Republican judges are ruling the same way. Not to mention, when under oath the President's lawyers decline to claim that there was widespread fraud, after yelling it to the rooftops on tv. That makes me think there is a possibility the flaw lies in the "facts" being brought before the courts, not in the judges.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

plikkr,

WHICH Republican judges? =Can you NAME those GOP judges?

FYI, lawyers do NOT give testimony in their cases. NOR do they make statements under oath. - Thus, your comment in post # 72 is contrary to established federal judicial practice & is therefore "suspect" at best..

yours, satx

 

[plinkr]

plikkr,

WHICH Republican judges? =Can you NAME those GOP judges?

FYI, lawyers do NOT give testimony in their cases. NOR do they make statements under oath. - Thus, your comment in post # 72 is contrary to established federal judicial practice & is therefore "suspect" at best..

yours, satx

Judge Brann in PA. I have stated clearly that I am not a lawyer, so please forgive my ignorance of the correct legal terms. I stand by my observations that the lawyers say one thing on tv and another in court, and that so far their efforts have been a failure. If my lawyers acted like this I'd fire them. Just like the President seems to be doing, just about every day.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

Judge Brann in PA. I have stated clearly that I am not a lawyer, so please forgive my ignorance of the correct legal terms. I stand by my observations that the lawyers say one thing on tv and another in court, and that so far their efforts have been a failure. If my lawyers acted like this I'd fire them. Just like the President seems to be doing, just about every day.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

plinkr,

FYI, I'm also NOT a lawyer (NOR do I play one on TV) BUT I was a SDUSM for over 4 years & spent much of that time as what TX courts call a "BAILIFF", for a Senior US District Judge, so I know a little about proper judicial procedures & "what is acceptable practice" to the AOUSC.

WHERE exactly are you getting your information??

yours, satx

 

[Charlie]

What the hell is a "SDUSM" ? And why must a great deal of folks have to use initials for something rather than actually use the word or phrase? Is it laziness or just trying to be "cool"?

 

[plinkr]

plinkr,

FYI, I'm also NOT a lawyer (NOR do I play one on TV) BUT I was a SDUSM for over 4 years & spent much of that time as what TX courts call a "BAILIFF", for a Senior US District Judge, so I know a little about proper judicial procedures & "what is acceptable practice" to the AOUSC.

WHERE exactly are you getting your information??

yours, satx

Why, is my information factually incorrect? Also, this entire thread is confusing. I have stated repeatedly that the President's legal team should get the facts into court. Seems like that concept is not acceptable? What alternatives are you all proposing (besides secession)?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

It's my belief too many people get their so called facts from tv. I, myself find it very dubious if someone claims "it was plastered all over tv". That triggers my "what agenda are they pushing now" spidey sense.