Stupid people trying to prove voter fraud

[Fun For All]

Yes, stupid people trying to prove stupid things can act stupidly...

Former Houston police captain charged with pointing gun at repairman, believing he was a voter fraud 'mastermind'

A former captain with the Houston Police Department who was part of a private citizens group trying to investigate 2020 election fraud claims was arrested Tuesday after allegedly running a man off the road and pointing a gun to his head, the Harris County district attorney said.

www.cnn.com

 

[squeezer]

LMAO, a lot of dumbass delusional people and the scary part is that this delusional dementia is crossing over into Canada as well.

 

[anon1]

LMAO, a lot of dumbass delusional people and the scary part is that this delusional dementia is crossing over into Canada as well.

They have guns and are prone to violence in their deluded frustrations.

 

[Valcazar]

I think there are a lot of people that would do what he did for $200,000 or more.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I think there are a lot of people that would do what he did for $200,000 or more.

Get arrested and charged? Couldn't he have collected the money without doing any of the things that resulted in getting charged? It's going to cost him a fair portion of the 200K to defend himself.

If you meant "investigate fraud" instead, why wouldn't someone do that for 200K? Shouldn't both parties have watchdogs ensuring there is no fraud?

I'm not sure I see the point of your comment.

 

[bver_hunter]

Get arrested and charged? Couldn't he have collected the money without doing any of the things that resulted in getting charged? It's going to cost him a fair portion of the 200K to defend himself.

If you meant "investigate fraud" instead, why wouldn't someone do that for 200K? Shouldn't both parties have watchdogs ensuring there is no fraud?

I'm not sure I see the point of your comment.

Both parties did have watch dog observers at all the counting stations. No voter fraud. Period!!

Well you will be there to defend Mark Aguirre. After all he is "innocent". LOL!!

 

[Dutch Oven]

Both parties did have watch dog observers at all the counting stations. No voter fraud. Period!!

Beaver, fraudulent activities can happen outside of counting stations, especially in connection with mail in ballots. Exclamation point. (LOL!)

 

[Frankfooter]

Beaver, fraudulent activities can happen outside of counting stations, especially in connection with mail in ballots. Exclamation point. (LOL!)

Wow, well they are going to need more than $260,000 USD if they're going to investigate everywhere.
Its not cheap ramming vans, that's going to cost.

How much did you donate?
2 vans worth, or did you do enough to ram a school bus?

Former Houston police captain accused of violent attempt to prove election conspiracy was hired by GOP activist's group

Mark Aguirre is accused of running a man off the road and threatening him at gunpoint. The ex-cop was hired as a private investigator by a group whose CEO is GOP activist Steven Hotze.

www.texastribune.org

 

[Dutch Oven]

Wow, well they are going to need more than $260,000 USD if they're going to investigate everywhere.
Its not cheap ramming vans, that's going to cost.

How much did you donate?
2 vans worth, or did you do enough to ram a school bus?

Former Houston police captain accused of violent attempt to prove election conspiracy was hired by GOP activist's group

Mark Aguirre is accused of running a man off the road and threatening him at gunpoint. The ex-cop was hired as a private investigator by a group whose CEO is GOP activist Steven Hotze.

www.texastribune.org

S

 

[bver_hunter]

Beaver, fraudulent activities can happen outside of counting stations, especially in connection with mail in ballots. Exclamation point. (LOL!)

Hey Oven, what "can happen" has not been proven. Period!! No evidence in any of the 40+ cases in Courts and even The Supreme Court Judges think that it is not even worth their time of the day. More Exclamation Marks.......LOL!!!!!!!!!

 

[jalimon]

And back in 2016 Trump's cult accused us to be sore looser when we saw Trump win. Look at them now!

 

[Fun For All]

Get arrested and charged? Couldn't he have collected the money without doing any of the things that resulted in getting charged? It's going to cost him a fair portion of the 200K to defend himself.

If you meant "investigate fraud" instead, why wouldn't someone do that for 200K? Shouldn't both parties have watchdogs ensuring there is no fraud?

I'm not sure I see the point of your comment.

My God...the victim was an AC repairman and had nothing to do with the election...he ran him off the road and pointed a gun at his head.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Hey Oven, what "can happen" has not been proven. Period!! No evidence in any of the 40+ cases in Courts and even The Supreme Court Judges think that it is not even worth their time of the day. More Exclamation Marks.......LOL!!!!!!!!!

Lots of evidence submitted with these cases. Most of the cases were dismissed based on a lack of standing with no consideration of the evidence submitted. Many cases were dismissed based on insufficient evidence to support signficant pre-trial relief sought (not "no evidence"). There are no cases (that I am aware of) where there was a judicial determination of the facts asserted in these suits. There is a special and difficult standard of proof applied to motions for emergency relief in advance of trial.

If you think that these court rulings mean that the evidence being advanced will never be fully considered, either by courts or by legislative committees, you're going to be frustrated for quite a while. The hearings on the merits of these claims will go on, whether before the courts or before committee hearings.

 

[Dutch Oven]

My God...the victim was an AC repairman and had nothing to do with the election...he ran him off the road and pointed a gun at his head.

So, what's your point? Your post seems to a non-sequitur.

Oh, and bear in mind the defendant completely denies the driver's account of their confrontation. The only thing he agrees to is that he was investigating information that the driver was transporting illegal ballots. No ballots were found when the vehicle was later searched.

 

[Fun For All]

So, what's your point? Your post seems to a non-sequitur.

Oh, and bear in mind the defendant completely denies the driver's account of their confrontation. The only thing he agrees to is that he was investigating information that the driver was transporting illegal ballots. No ballots were found when the vehicle was later searched.

Forget it...you really are a difficult human and it’s not fun anymore.

 

[Valcazar]

My God...the victim was an AC repairman and had nothing to do with the election...he ran him off the road and pointed a gun at his head.

You used to be able to buy a hit for way less than $200,000.

But I guess "trying to make up the fraud evidence" costs more.

 

[Fun For All]

You used to be able to buy a hit for way less than $200,000.

But I guess "trying to make up the fraud evidence" costs more.

You still can I’m sure...

 

[Valcazar]

Lots of evidence submitted with these cases. Most of the cases were dismissed based on a lack of standing with no consideration of the evidence submitted. Many cases were dismissed based on insufficient evidence to support signficant pre-trial relief sought (not "no evidence"). There are no cases (that I am aware of) where there was a judicial determination of the facts asserted in these suits. There is a special and difficult standard of proof applied to motions for emergency relief in advance of trial.

If you think that these court rulings mean that the evidence being advanced will never be fully considered, either by courts or by legislative committees, you're going to be frustrated for quite a while. The hearings on the merits of these claims will go on, whether before the courts or before committee hearings.

You don't go to court to submit that then, if you know you can't reach those standards for the relief.
You put together an investigation.
The Wisconsin court did consider the evidence and was not kind in its appraisal.

Now, your argument that they are also submitting (separately) a request to the SC for an advisory opinion so that they can rule that state courts can't judge election law (therefore allowing the state legislature to suppress voting at will) is of course true. The SC isn't supposed to do advisory opinions like that, but it has got to be hard for this crew to not get in some support for voter suppression.

 

[Frankfooter]

Lots of evidence submitted with these cases. Most of the cases were dismissed based on a lack of standing with no consideration of the evidence submitted. Many cases were dismissed based on insufficient evidence to support signficant pre-trial relief sought (not "no evidence"). There are no cases (that I am aware of) where there was a judicial determination of the facts asserted in these suits. There is a special and difficult standard of proof applied to motions for emergency relief in advance of trial.

If you think that these court rulings mean that the evidence being advanced will never be fully considered, either by courts or by legislative committees, you're going to be frustrated for quite a while. The hearings on the merits of these claims will go on, whether before the courts or before committee hearings.

Wrong, bud.

The 'affidavits' were rejected multiple times by judges as hearsay, spam or just opinions.
There is zero legit evidence period.

The easiest way to prove this is to just to ask you to show us all what legit evidence was never considered by any court.
You'll just respond 's' because you don't have any.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Forget it...you really are a difficult human and it’s not fun anymore.

FFA, I apply a light hand to you, because you genuinely seem quite distraught that not everyone shares your perspective on these issues, and I don't think you are here to troll anyone or throw gas on any fires. You probably would benefit from taking a break. You seem, honestly, to get a little confused about the point that is being discussed. Unlike Frank, I think that your confusion is genuine.

You clearly are horrified by the ALLEGATION that someone would run another driver off the road to confront them at the end a gun with their claim of election fraud. You have to recognize: 1) it's an allegation, and 2) I haven't commented to defend such conduct, either hypothetically or otherwise. My post was about the insinuation that it would be wrong to take paid employment to investigate fraud claims on behalf of one of the parties. That's entirely different point. If you didn't appreciate that nuance, I'd suggest that your emotions are getting in the way. If the discussions that take place here are that upsetting, take a break.