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

[ChouDoufu]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

 

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

 

 

yes, it's a show, but isn't that the point of all this?

 

schedule performance art, free of evidence or witnesses under oath, masquerading as "hearings" that can then be cut-n-pasted into campaign flyers and appeals for donations. 

 

eyewitness affidavits are nothing more than individual interpretations of what someone may have thought they saw or heard.  despite the claimed penalties for lying, nobody ever does time for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.

 

they aren't exactly providing hard facts, just allegations and rumors and hearsay.  gives them something to point to where they can claim "winning!"  because referencing dozens of losing court cases won't rake in the big bucks unless appealing to the ultra hardcore deep-state conspiracy fanatics.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

 

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 is not accepted in court so the GOP has organized fake hearing to promote their fake claims.

 

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

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 hearing was not so official, as witnesses were not under oath. It was also only for the show

 

 

 

Fox News or any news is fine as long as it's not fake.

 

The official hearing in Michigan was matched by two in Arizona (Senate Government Oversight Committee and Senate Judiciary subcommittee) and the same again in Georgia.

 

The quotes you cite? Well the first had not been deemed un-credible in the courts because it had not been offered in court and the second from Cynthia Johnson was just because the oath is not taken in these kind of hearing in Michigan.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Affidavits are not evidence. They are an uncontested version of what someone thinks they saw.

 

Evidence is when they swear an oath and are questioned. Its adversarial. Affidavits are not evidence of truth or fact.

 

There is nothing in the hearings under oath. When they go to court and swear an oath it has fallen apart 40 times.

 

Now think to yourself. When under oath they are debunked or simply dont even present the affidavits, no evidence.

 

When not under oath they say what they want.

 

Up to you what side of the coin you want to land. I know where i do.

 

In the US affidavits are allowed as a form of evidence to back up similar testimony.

 

I know where you do too. 

[nauseus]

40 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'?

 

How do you know / No she hasn't / Yes.

[ChouDoufu]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

These 'facts' certainly disagree with what I've seen said and presented in these hearings. Did the US News sign any affidavits?

 

now you get it!  "affidavit" is a really, really scary legal term lawyers like to throw around to confuse the gullible.

 

you've been confused, and are aping ms. carone's schtick, where she asked the state rep if he signed an affidavit. 

 

did you ask whether the fox or oan or other fringe media reporters signed affidavits?

[candide]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Fox News or any news is fine as long as it's not fake.

 

The official hearing in Michigan was matched by two in Arizona (Senate Government Oversight Committee and Senate Judiciary subcommittee) and the same again in Georgia.

 

The quotes you cite? Well the first had not been deemed un-credible in the courts because it had not been offered in court and the second from Cynthia Johnson was just because the oath is not taken in these kind of hearing in Michigan.

Yet the testimonies you referred to as being under oath were not under oath.

+ how do you know oath is not taken in Senate committee hearings in Michigan?

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

now you get it!  "affidavit" is a really, really scary legal term lawyers like to throw around to confuse the gullible.

 

you've been confused, and are aping ms. carone's schtick, where she asked the state rep if he signed an affidavit. 

 

did you ask whether the fox or oan or other fringe media reporters signed affidavits?

 

What I have said has come from watching these hearings, including testimonies backed up by affidavits, evidence offered by specialist experts and now VDO footage. I agree that all of this would have to be all demonstrated and proven in court, which is the place that these people are having a hard time accessing so far. 

 

 

[Susco]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

My countries Presidential election is still being contested in the courts!

 

Which courts are that?

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What I have said has come from watching these hearings, including testimonies backed up by affidavits, evidence offered by specialist experts and now VDO footage. I agree that all of this would have to be all demonstrated and proven in court, which is the place that these people are having a hard time accessing so far. 

 

 

Again, no.

They don't have a hard time accessing courts, they have a hard time proving their allegations.

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

In the US affidavits are allowed as a form of evidence to back up similar testimony.

 

I know where you do too. 

No they are not. They are only alllowed if both sides agree to accept them without testimony. Such as a statement by someone who died before a hearing and the statement is not contested.

 

Something like a person swearing they are the father of a baby.

 

Btw, there is no similar testimony to the affidavit. Plus she is just out of probation for computer crimes and already found not reliable.

 

But you stick to your conspiracy sites.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What I have said has come from watching these hearings, including testimonies backed up by affidavits, evidence offered by specialist experts and now VDO footage. I agree that all of this would have to be all demonstrated and proven in court, which is the place that these people are having a hard time accessing so far. 

 

 

They can present that evidence as much as they like. But they refuse to do so. You cannot comprehend that. When called on under oath they fold.

[ChouDoufu]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What I have said has come from watching these hearings, including testimonies backed up by affidavits, evidence offered by specialist experts and now VDO footage. I agree that all of this would have to be all demonstrated and proven in court, which is the place that these people are having a hard time accessing so far. 

 

 

 

oooooh!  so close!

 

"testimonies backed up by affidavits" is where they write down what they think they might have seen, notarize it, then verbally repeat it in front of others.

 

so the claim is backed up by the written claim?

 

no physical, tangible evidence required.  it's all for show.  as for "having a hard time" accessing the courts, are you seriously claiming that trump and/or his campaign and/or his legal team have NOT had their days in court?  would you be willing to sign an affidavit testifying to that?

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Yet the testimonies you referred to as being under oath were not under oath.

+ how do you know oath is not taken in Senate committee hearings in Michigan?

 

I didn't say that any testimonies were under oath.

 

Because the Chair said so (there were 2 hearings in MI but this one was the Michigan House Oversight Committee).

 

 

[ChouDoufu]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No they are not. They are only alllowed if both sides agree to accept them without testimony. Such as a statement by someone who died before a hearing and the statement is not contested.

 

Something like a person swearing they are the father of a baby.

 

Btw, there is no similar testimony to the affidavit. Plus she is just out of probation for computer crimes and already found not reliable.

 

But you stick to your conspiracy sites.

 

let's not get carried away!  computer crimes is pretty broad. 

 

the police tracked her down for sending a sex tape of herself with her current lover to his ex-wife.  doesn't mean she's lying, but her credibility and common sense take a hit.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What I have said has come from watching these hearings, including testimonies backed up by affidavits, evidence offered by specialist experts and now VDO footage. I agree that all of this would have to be all demonstrated and proven in court, which is the place that these people are having a hard time accessing so far. 

 

 

What do judges know about ascertaining the quality and relevance of evidence? It's not like that's part of their job...oh wait a minute...

[candide]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I didn't say that any testimonies were under oath.

 

Because the Chair said so (there were 2 hearings in MI but this one was the Michigan House Oversight Committee).

 

 

So we agree they were not under oath.

[Tie Dye Samurai]

1 hour 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? 

You know....if there is evidence, it should not take a senate hearing for the Republicans to go ahead and present said evidence (really lame excuse by the way)...here is what is going on....when you are not under oath, you say whatever BS you want...when you are under oath, suddenly the truth actually means something because your butt is on the line. These glorified cos play hearings in hotel ball rooms do not mean doo doo other than to fool the weak minded and easily deceived that they are anything than what they are....glorified MAGA grifting sessions.

 

Why don't you man up and present the links to your evidence of WIDESPREAD ELECTION CHANGING VOTER FRAUD ON A NATIONAL LEVEL since MAGA cant seem to get that done and let the good and hard working moderators of Thai Visa decide if the links are worthy news sources. In other words.....have the courage of your convictions and change our minds that Trump is a liar, a grifter and basically a crook.or...in the words of a future convicted tax fraud "Stand Back and Stand By" for the Biden inauguration in January 2021. 

[Mavideol]

the guy lost the election, still keeps claiming fraud and yet has any proof of any wrong doing, just the usual BS as a balloon full of hot air. All this non sense is the media's fault, they give him too much air time thus to much attention, all of the media always looking for anything sensational news or one of his "bursts" if and I say IF with caps the media ignored him by not covering his travels, his non sense speech/comments/claims he would be alone and whatever he would say would be forgotten then ignored but  by doing so the Media (all of them) wouldn't sell their air time/magazines/news paper and so forth

[candide]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Because the Chair said so (there were 2 hearings in MI but this one was the Michigan House Oversight Committee).

Source?

[Mavideol]

6 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Can't they find someone better to campaign for them than this loser?

did you mean SOUR loser ? do you prefer double face Graham or a no face McConnell, same same but different  555

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Source?

Trump is just using rope a dope.

[Mavideol]

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"They cheated and rigged our presidential election but we'll still win it. And they are going to try to rig this election too,"

this is like a pile of smelly poop, at the beginning it smells bad but the more one touches it the worse it smells 555

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They can present that evidence as much as they like. But they refuse to do so. You cannot comprehend that. When called on under oath they fold.

 

They are not refusing to present evidence. That's what they want to do. The judges haven't let them get that far yet.

 

Who folded????

[Jonnapat]

People in Georgia should take a good look at the very dubious histories of both Perdue and Loeffler and then vote for Osoff and Warnock.

[Mavideol]

7 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Psychopath. 

and egocentric as well but 3 more words come to mind  "Lock Him Up"

Edited December 6, 2020 by Mavideol

[robblok]

2 hours 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. 

Let me ask you this, do you really think all those judges are bias anti Trump. I mean its either that or there is no evidence.

 

I would say with everything under a magnifying glass judges would be 100% sure to uphold the law so there is no proof at all otherwise cases would have been won.

 

We are talking about multiple states multiple judges all doing the same thing. Unless its a country wide conspiracy against Trump (highly unlikely but then again Trump supporters do not like facts) there is just no grounds for his cases.

 

[Mavideol]

4 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

sworn in on Jan 21 at the local county or state jail

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Let me ask you this, do you really think all those judges are bias anti Trump. I mean its either that or there is no evidence.

 

I would say with everything under a magnifying glass judges would be 100% sure to uphold the law so there is no proof at all otherwise cases would have been won.

 

We are talking about multiple states multiple judges all doing the same thing. Unless its a country wide conspiracy against Trump (highly unlikely but then again Trump supporters do not like facts) there is just no grounds for his cases.

 

 

I don't know how the judges feel or how much material they were offered or whether or not there is a conspiracy. And I bet you don't either. 

[Lacessit]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

They are not refusing to present evidence. That's what they want to do. The judges haven't let them get that far yet.

 

Who folded????

If I recall correctly, Judge Matthew Brann tossed out an observer claim when the Trump counsel, claiming an absence of observers, admitted there was a "non-zero" number of Republican observers for ballot counting.

The judges are asking them to present evidence. The plaintiffs are not forthcoming. As far as a BS meter goes, your posts are off the scale.

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

They are not refusing to present evidence. That's what they want to do. The judges haven't let them get that far yet.

 

Who folded????

You do realize judges actually want evidence, they ask for it.

 

So when asked for evidence in over 40 cases trumps lawyers have presented nothing

 Why are they refusing to present their evidence.