Wait a minute...hold on...you mean to tell me that something went wrong with a Rudy witness?
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
So you're judging Trump's actions based on an assumption you can't possibly prove? Hope Leimonis doesn't read this. He thinks that makes you a liar!
Predicting fraud in connection with mail-in ballots was no leap. Politicians on both sides of the aisle, and election experts had been saying the same for years. The only question really was - how much fraud would there be, and would it be enough to affect the outcome of the election? Predicting it would be widespread didn't seem to be an outrageous estimate to me. However, it was impossible to predict where it would occur the most, and what difference that would make to electoral college votes.
No...I'm judging your opinion on something that everyone can prove...Trump lost the election, by a mile...and Biden won.
You counted the ballots? You checked the signatures? You audited the voting machines?
My assumption is that you've just decided to trust people that you don't know. Yikes!
Yes I have, I counted every ballot and double checked every signature... I can make unreasonable expectations too.
And do you then automatically assume those people are lying? All of them? Everywhere? And a renown, documented liar and conman is to be believed instead?
Here is the decision by Judge Kenny that pertains to the affidavit provided by Carone:
To correct some of the misleading posts in this thread, the accuracy of her online CV was not considered by the court at all. That was just part of the doxxing effort by Democrats to discredit and intimidate her online.
The Court declined to rely on her affidavit because:
1. Her affidavit did not "square" with any of the other affadavits.
This is odd reasoning on its face. One, often affiants are the ONLY witness to an event, particularly if the event is fraudulent. Two, affiants might be contradicted by other affiants supporting the responding party, but if that occurs, the conflict needs to be resolved - the plaintiffs affiant is not thereby "neutralized". Further, it is not necessary to submit multiple affidavits to support the same assertion if there are no contradictory affidavits. Hard to know what he meant here, given his loose language. Lastly, at the Michigan House hearing, further affidivits were submitted that expressly support her account on its most salient points.
2. There were no other reports to corroberate her statements concerning the frequency of machine jams, et cetera.
The fact that there are no reports (which would have to be produced by the responding parties) to confirm her observations is hardly conclusive in the context of an allegation of fraud. Does this mean the judge would only believe her if the responding party also created records to confirm its fraud? That would not be rational.
That's his entire reasoning (expressed in a single short paragraph), which even if it were entirely sound, is effectively rebutted by addtional evidence submitted to the Michigan House.
I'd hate to have the job of fact checker here on TERB!
To correct some of the misleading posts in this thread, the accuracy of her online CV was not considered by the court at all. That was just part of the doxxing effort by Democrats to discredit and intimidate her online.
The Court declined to rely on her affidavit because:
1. Her affidavit did not "square" with any of the other affadavits.
This is odd reasoning on its face. One, often affiants are the ONLY witness to an event, particularly if the event is fraudulent. Two, affiants might be contradicted by other affiants supporting the responding party, but if that occurs, the conflict needs to be resolved - the plaintiffs affiant is not thereby "neutralized". Further, it is not necessary to submit multiple affidavits to support the same assertion if there are no contradictory affidavits. Hard to know what he meant here, given his loose language. Lastly, at the Michigan House hearing, further affidivits were submitted that expressly support her account on its most salient points.
2. There were no other reports to corroberate her statements concerning the frequency of machine jams, et cetera.
The fact that there are no reports (which would have to be produced by the responding parties) to confirm her observations is hardly conclusive in the context of an allegation of fraud. Does this mean the judge would only believe her if the responding party also created records to confirm its fraud? That would not be rational.
That's his entire reasoning (expressed in a single short paragraph), which even if it were entirely sound, is effectively rebutted by addtional evidence submitted to the Michigan House.
I'd hate to have the job of fact checker here on TERB!
Last edited:
I've answered this many times before. When something is disputed based on a theory of fact and law that appears rational to me, I choose not to decide what to believe until that conflict is properly investigated and/or litigated, and resolved. I have no more reason to "trust" Democrat election officials, or even incompetent Republican officials, than I have to trust Trump or the witnesses his counsel are relying upon.
Right now, it appears to me that the states at issue are doing just about everything possible to avoid a thorough forensic audit, and that sets off flags for me.
Last edited:
1 - If there are number of affidavits showing someone ran a car into a crowd and only one by bud plug that says it was the crowd that ran into the car, they'll say the affidavit isn't trustworthy.
2 - There were lots of other people who worked at that and other election sites and nobody else reported similar problems, which means either she made it up or the entire election system is rigged and even the GOP observers who were there were in on the scam.
New case filed in Wisconsin:
abcnews.go.com
Trump files new case in lawsuit barrage, looking to Wisconsin's legislature to flip outcome
President Donald Trump late Wednesday filed a new federal lawsuit contesting the vote in Wisconsin, the latest in a blizzard of suits around the country.
abcnews.go.com
Might as well start calling the Trump legal team the Washington Generals.New case filed in Wisconsin:
Trump files new case in lawsuit barrage, looking to Wisconsin's legislature to flip outcome
President Donald Trump late Wednesday filed a new federal lawsuit contesting the vote in Wisconsin, the latest in a blizzard of suits around the country.
oh finally! this will change everything!New case filed in Wisconsin:
Trump files new case in lawsuit barrage, looking to Wisconsin's legislature to flip outcome
President Donald Trump late Wednesday filed a new federal lawsuit contesting the vote in Wisconsin, the latest in a blizzard of suits around the country.
Is it filled with 'theories of fact that appear rational', S?New case filed in Wisconsin:
Trump files new case in lawsuit barrage, looking to Wisconsin's legislature to flip outcome
President Donald Trump late Wednesday filed a new federal lawsuit contesting the vote in Wisconsin, the latest in a blizzard of suits around the country.
The suit argues that voters were afforded access to absentee ballots beyond what the law allowed, saying that the global coronavirus pandemic was not sufficient reason.
That does sound like a dutch oven 'theory of fact that appears rationale'.
Essentially they have the feelies that they should retroactively change the voting rules because people voted.
