Trump stumps in Georgia for two Republican candidates while pressing vote fraud claims

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I don't know if she has reported any abuse threats. In the hearing it was announced that she has a a sworn affidavit w.r.t vote counting irregularities and that she is aware of the penalties which also include jail in the USA. 

Maybe it has not occurred to you like Trump, she is not aware she is lying.

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, no evidence has been provided for large scale fraud, none at all. Even stronger, in front of the courts the claim 'large scale voter fraud' has not been made.

 

This stuff is not widely reported so you may not have seen it.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

This stuff is not widely reported so you may not have seen it.

 

 

Sorry, are you really claiming the court proceedings of the Trump campaign are not widely reported?

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Maybe it has not occurred to you like Trump, she is not aware she is lying.

 

I don't think that a mother of two would risk singing an affidavit if she knew she was going to lie. So no, that not occurred to me.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Sorry, are you really claiming the court proceedings of the Trump campaign are not widely reported?

 

I am referring to the recent state senate committee hearings, which have not been widely reported or televised live on what most people call MSM.

[cycolista]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

This stuff is not widely reported so you may not have seen it.

 

 

Why not provide a link then?

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, no evidence has been provided for large scale fraud, none at all. Even stronger, in front of the courts the claim 'large scale voter fraud' has not been made.

 

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

This stuff is not widely reported so you may not have seen it.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I am referring to the recent state senate committee hearings, which have not been widely reported or televised live on what most people call MSM.

We were talking court proceedings, where unfortunately this presidential election will be decided. The senate hearings will not affect this.

 

It is really easy: on camera out of court the campaign is claiming widespread voter fraud, in court they are staying far away from that claim. So your claim 'evidence is there but not widely reported' is simply not true.

Edited December 6, 2020 by stevenl

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There is plenty of evidence. It seems that the problem is finding judges with the inclination and will to give it a fair hearing.

Do you think allegations and evidence are the same thing?  Do you think judges, some appointed by Trump, would ignore credible evidence?

 

If you believe these things, please provide the evidence, not videos of allegations.

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I don't think that a mother of two would risk singing an affidavit if she knew she was going to lie. So no, that not occurred to me.

 

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

You're assuming that a Trump supporter is a rational person, from what I have seen and heard that is not a given. Thanks for an admission you were probably unaware you were making.

Again from what I have seen and heard, it seems to be the more extreme Trump supporters who have been making threats of violence. AFAIK there have not been any Democrat supporters who have attempted intimidation at polling stations and during vote counting.

[ChouDoufu]

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Maybe it has not occurred to you like Trump, she is not aware she is lying.

 

she probably is being truthful, in that she saw something and interpreted it in a way that matches her twisted version of reality.  same as with trump, he honestly believes his batsoup crazy conspiracy theories.

 

this is probably the main reason why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable and most inaccurate form of evidence.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

 

We were talking court proceedings, where unfortunately this presidential election will be decided. The senate hearings will not affect this.

 

It is really easy: on camera out of court the campaign is claiming widespread voter fraud, in court they are staying far away from that claim. So your claim 'evidence is there but not widely reported' is simply not true.

 

The outcome of senate hearings may affect and influence whether or not this evidence is presented and heard in courts. I don't really understand the rest of your post - if they can't get access to the courts for full hearings, then how can they get the evidence heard and judged? 

Edited December 6, 2020 by nauseus

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

The POTUS hasn't conceded !My countries Presidential election is still being contested in the courts!  Mr. Trump is very confident that he will  have another 4 years !  Looking forward to the gop senators winning !Looking forward to Mr. Trump being sworn in on Jan,21

Just let's stop and think for a minute..........perhaps this poster is just repeating this nonsense because he likes trolling and getting responses to his ridiculous posts.

 

Either that or..........no, I can't say that otherwise I will get into trouble!!

[ChouDoufu]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The outcome of senate hearings may affect and influence whether or not this evidence is presented and heard in courts. I don't really understand the rest of your post - if they can't get access to the courts for full hearings, then how can they get the evidence heard and judged? 

 

they've had multiple opportunities to make their case in court.

so far they've been thrown out of court for lack of evidence 39 out of 40 times.

google the actual number if you like, gets bigger by the day.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The outcome of senate hearings may affect and influence whether or not this evidence is presented and heard in courts. I don't really understand the rest of your post - if they can't get access to the courts for full hearings, then how can they get the evidence heard and judged? 

One has to present evidence in court, the Trump campaign has had plenty of access to the courts. But claims of widespread voter fraud have not been made in court.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The outcome of senate hearings may affect and influence whether or not this evidence is presented and heard in courts. I don't really understand the rest of your post - if they can't get access to the courts for full hearings, then how can they get the evidence heard and judged? 

The republican only hearing in Pa was not an official hearing. It was a republican town hall with no swearing in.

 

The video of suitcases and late nite counting has already been debunked.

 

The witness you love has just finished probation for computer crimes. She signed an affidavit for what she believed occurred, not what did occur.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

they've had multiple opportunities to make their case in court.

so far they've been thrown out of court for lack of evidence 39 out of 40 times.

google the actual number if you like, gets bigger by the day.

 

This number is disputed by the Trump team, there have been cases requested by other parties. 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Well the only ones I have seen these hearings on are OAN, Newsmax and a couple of others I can't remember. Fill yer boots but I won't use them here. That CNN clip of the blond woman was selected part of the Michigan hearing I think. Most of the 'evidence' is in the forms of testimony followed by answers to questions from state legislators on the hearing committees. 

Ah, you're referring to the Senate hearings that were not hearings at all, more rallies.

[stevenl]

Just now, nauseus said:

 

This number is disputed by the Trump team, there have been cases requested by other parties. 

Doesn't matter, Trump team has made widespread voter fraud claims only off camera. None in the courts. 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't matter, Trump team has made widespread voter fraud claims only off camera. None in the courts. 

 

As I have explained. But the claims are made at these state hearings.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ah, you're referring to the Senate hearings that were not hearings at all, more rallies.

 

They are state legislature committee hearings, with a board of state senators and representatives, not rallies.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

They are state legislature committee hearings, with a board of state senators and representatives, not rallies.

Republicans only.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

As I have explained. But the claims are made at these state hearings.

No, far from 'as I have explained'.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

They are state legislature committee hearings, with a board of state senators and representatives, not rallies.

Here is the fact check on the claims. Note none of the claims have been made in court.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-12-05/ap-fact-check-trump-floods-rally-with-groundless-grievances

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There you have it. You want to post conspiracy theories.

Am I missing something here? Why don't the Democrats have them too? Oh yes, the Mueller Report in its redacted form was a conspiracy, according to Trump.

Naughty Democrats, conspiring to end the pandemic and rob Trump of his kudos in fast-tracking a vaccine.

[ChouDoufu]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

As I have explained. But the claims are made at these state hearings.

 

well, there's the problem.

 

they should make those claims in court instead of telling the judge..... "This is not a fraud case.”

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The republican only hearing in Pa was not an official hearing. It was a republican town hall with no swearing in.

 

The video of suitcases and late nite counting has already been debunked.

 

The witness you love has just finished probation for computer crimes. She signed an affidavit for what she believed occurred, not what did occur.

 

The first one was a republican only hearing in PA, yes. The others were not. There is no swearing in some of these hearings - one reason for the affidavits I suppose.

 

The video of suitcases and late night counting may have been denied by some but has certainly not been debunked. 

 

Not aware of any probation for computer crimes that the witness may have served but she is still entitled to swear as to what she saw.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

The first one was a republican only hearing in PA, yes. The others were not. There is no swearing in some of these hearings - one reason for the affidavits I suppose.

 

The video of suitcases and late night counting may have been denied by some but has certainly not been debunked. 

 

Not aware of any probation for computer crimes that the witness may have served but she is still entitled to swear as to what she saw.

Yes, she can swear to what she saw, but the conclusion is simply incorrect.

Yes, has been debunked.

Any Democrats present in those 'Senate hearings'?

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The first one was a republican only hearing in PA, yes. The others were not. There is no swearing in some of these hearings - one reason for the affidavits I suppose.

 

The video of suitcases and late night counting may have been denied by some but has certainly not been debunked. 

 

Not aware of any probation for computer crimes that the witness may have served but she is still entitled to swear as to what she saw.

The suitcase story was debunked by state legislators, republicans. There were reptesentatives there who watched, and it wasnt a suitcase, it was an official ballot box.

 

She is entitled to swear on what she saw, not what she thinks she saw. She has already been found unreliable.

 

You really need to lay off the conspiracy sites that you complain you cannot link to here. That should tell you something about what you are believing.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, she can swear to what she saw, but the conclusion is simply incorrect.

Yes, has been debunked.

Any Democrats present in those 'Senate hearings'?

To be fair i think the very latest hearing was an official hearing but she was making crazy accusations that even repubs couldnt understand and the facts didnt confirm her story.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

They are state legislature committee hearings, with a board of state senators and representatives, not rallies.

 

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Republicans only.

Actually, one of them only was official, in Michigan. The others, such as in PA, were fake hearings. They were just Republican meetings. I could organize such hearings in my kitchen and it would be as valid. Their so-called evidence was not accepted in the courts so the GOP has organized fake hearings to promote their fake claims.

 

Now what's interesting is Fox News account about the official hearings in Michigan (I guess Fox News would be acceptable for Nauseus)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-michigan-oversight-committee-hearing

 

First quote shows several testimonies had already been rejected in the courts

"Committee members who were growing frustrated with the testimonies, several of which had already been deemed un-credible in the courts, also repeatedly interrupted proceedings."

 

Second quote confirming that testimonies were not made under oath

."....though none of the “witnesses” were under oath – a circumstance that Rep. Cynthia Johnson, a Democrat, took issue with, repeatedly calling for them to be under oath.

Hall told Fox News that the reason they were not under sworn testimony is because the hearing was meant as “informational working sessions” and not as “legal proceedings.” ????

 

So even the "official" hearings were not so official, as witnesses were not under oath. It was also only for the show

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by candide