V256.420
Well-Known Member
Seems like this image fucked you up real bad. Nice pic Saltycracka.
AP: Fraud claims aimed in part at keeping Trump base loyal.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Its cute. I love that psychadelic froggo
V256.420
Well-Known Member
Cause he speaks truth and you can't handle the truth Saltycracka. The truth speaks to you Saltycracka. It whispers to you in your dreams.
S A L T Y......................S A L T Y.............................cracka
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Tbh there hasnt been an honest election since JFK. 2016 trump won and still said there was election fraud going on. 3m votes were found later to be fraudulant . All for Hillary. She thought she was going to win in a landslide. You shoukd see how many judges trump had to appoint..i think it was close to 200. It was all planned that she got in. And boy did it burst those bubbles when the ppl voted for trump in overwhelmingly numbers. This election he added like 4m more to that. Wowwee
V256.420
Well-Known Member
S A L T Y...........................................S A L T Y....................................................the truth will find you S A L T Y.........................................cracka
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Yeah, there was that guy down in the Carolina's that was taking mail in votes from minority communities on mass and dumping them. Pretty sure they are in prison now.
Did you also know that in 2016 Trump's criminal enterprise was going to pull the 'stop the steal' scam. They were not aware of how powerful of a weapon Snowden smuggled to the Russian military.
More bullshit lies being pushed by Trump's trolls. There were not millions of fraudulent voting.
Also it was Mitch that screwed the black man that was in office at the time is why Trump got to appoint all those judges. It had nothing to do with Obama setting it up for Clinton to appoint them.
And he still got smoked by another white man who got over 81 million votes.
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Not mathmatically possible. Its so obvious..its fiyyne everybody..nothing to see there -dems
Pretty sure if the shoe was on the other foot..it would be total chaos and even rep sities would be glowing with fire atm
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Because 2/3's of eligible voters is somehow not mathematically possible.
I think there is a word for you guys...
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voter-fraud-investigations-2020/2020/12/22/bdbe541c-42de-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html
In Pittsburgh, the local police department this year received 10 complaints of possible fraudulent voting in the November election. Eight of those cases have already been closed without charges or findings of wrongdoing.
Wisconsin officials have charged one woman with voter fraud — a resident of suburban Milwaukee accused of attempting to cast a ballot in the name of her partner, who died in July.
In Michigan, two people have been charged with fraud, both accused of forging the names of their own daughters to obtain or cast a ballot.
After an intense hunt by President Trump’s allies to surface voting irregularities in this year’s election, law enforcement agencies in six key swing states targeted by the president have found just a modest number of complaints that have merited investigation, according to cases tracked by state officials.
So far, only a handful of cases have resulted in actual criminal charges alleging wrongdoing — some of them against Republican voters aiming to help Trump, according to officials, including a man charged Monday with trying to cast a ballot in Pennsylvania for the president in the name of his deceased mother.
The tiny number of incidents further undercut Trump’s barrage of false allegations that there was widespread manipulation of the vote — claims that continue to be echoed by many Republican officials, including some who acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, but assert that fraud was prevalent.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Monday wrote in a tweet that there was “mounting evidence of voter fraud” and members of Congress were preparing to “fight back” against it.
Election results under attack: Here are the facts
In fact, such allegations have been rejected by dozens of judges across the country, a number of whom noted in their decisions that Trump and his allies failed to put forward evidence to support such claims.
The minimal number of criminal investigations that have so far come out of the November vote further reinforce the absence of sweeping vote fraud schemes.
Officials note that the full picture is not yet known — as is routine, many states conduct exhaustive audits in the months after an election, which sometimes identify cases of double voting or ballots cast by ineligible voters.
Still, they said such cases in the past have been sporadic and in such small numbers that they have not come close to altering the results — and they see no indications that this year’s election will be any different.
Instead, the alleged voter fraud cases, mostly spotted by astute local election officials, were identified as a result of the kinds of safeguards in place in states and counties across the nation specifically designed to catch problems.
Most of those so far charged with illegally voting in the presidential race sought to cast one or two additional ballots and appear to have been driven less by a desire to actually swing the election than to cut corners on behalf of a friend or relative or, even, merely to test the system — an illegal act that had been encouraged before Election Day by Trump himself.
In Pennsylvania, where Biden won by more than 80,500 votes, three voters have been charged with voting illegally this year — all Republicans.
Police have alleged that Ralph H. Thurman, 71, voted in Chester County on Election Day — then returned to his polling place wearing sunglasses and attempted to cast a second ballot in the name of his son. He faces four charges, including repeat voting, a felony.
In Wilkes-Barre, Robert R. Lynn, 67, has been charged with requesting an absentee ballot in the name of his mother, who died in 2015, and then attempting to vote in her name by forging her signature. He is charged with forgery and interference with an election, both felonies.
Jeff Oster, a lawyer for Thurman, said in an email that he was “a war hero, philanthropist, family man, and one of the most kind-hearted, honest people that anyone could know — a long-standing pillar of the community.”
Fetterman requested that his reward money be paid in gift cards to Sheetz gas stations. Patrick, he said, has so far “stiffed” him on the offer.
Sherry Sylvester, a spokeswoman for Patrick, said the offer was for tips that lead to an arrest and conviction. “Fetterman should actually read Lt. Governor Patrick’s offer before calling reporters,” she said in a statement.
How Trump drove the lie that the election was stolen, undermining voter trust in the outcome
A third case in Pennsylvania surfaced Monday, when the district attorney of Delaware County, outside Philadelphia, announced a 70-year-old man had been charged with requesting and casting a ballot in the name of his mother, who died in 2008. In a statement, District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said the man has admitted voting in his mother’s name — for Trump.
Officials in Pennsylvania’s two largest cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — where Trump’s team alleged without evidence that widespread corruption tipped the state to Biden — said that no one has been charged with voter fraud in connection to this year’s election.
In one case, it appeared a woman had used her deceased father’s absentee ballot instead of her own, Clark County spokesman Dan Kulin said. In another, a deceased woman’s ballot was cast with a signature that matched hers, suggesting someone had forged it.
And in a third, a woman named Jill Stokke claimed someone had stolen her vote by forging her signature on a mail ballot.
Republicans featured Jill Stokke as a star plaintiff in one of their unsuccessful lawsuits over ballot-counting in Clark County.
But it turned out that Stokke had been offered a chance to vote with a new ballot if she signed a statement swearing that the mail-ballot signature was not hers. She refused to do so.
A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske declined to comment on the three cases last week, as did a spokesman for Attorney General Aaron Ford, who also declined to comment on the existence of or status of ongoing investigations.
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Its no hunt , even democrats came forward and signed sworn affidavits under penalty and purgory.
Thats alot of ppl willing to go to prison to testify against the fraud.
injinji
Well-Known Member
History is a wonderful thing. You can actually go back and read what happened. (you should try it sometime)
The reason there were so many open judge seats is because the Senate refused to confirm 44's picks. (44 had that pigmentation problem you know. he couldn't be trusted to pick judges)
About 1 in 15 of the judges confirmed during the Trump administration were first nominated by Obama, a CQ Roll Call analysis found. Several more Obama nominees who were renominated by Trump are still awaiting a Senate vote.
The pace of judicial confirmations picked up dramatically after the 2016 election — but not enough to satisfy McConnell. When he deployed the “nuclear option” to slash debate time on district judicial nominees in April, he partly justified it by saying the pace of confirmations was too slow.
“We need to make more headway on the backlog of qualified judicial nominees who are waiting for confirmation,” McConnell said in July. But that backlog may not have been as large if confirmation votes had happened in Obama’s final years at the same rate they did at the end of President George W. Bush’s term.
The GOP is confirming Trump judicial nominees it stalled under Obama - Roll Call
At least 10 judicial nominees who couldn’t even get a confirmation vote in the final years of President Barack Obama’s administration ended up on the bench after Donald Trump’s election. Those nominees, blocked by Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans while Obama was in...
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Don't you mean 'plenty of perjury'?
I call bullshit on what you are pretending is legitimate. Im not going to chase my tail to try to find whatever crazy shit it is you might have seen on some propaganda troll's website.
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
What Is an Affidavit?
An affidavit is a legal document that is very similar to a witness’s sworn testimony in a court of law. Prior to giving testimony, a witness in a court trial must swear that what they are about to say is true and correct under penalty of perjury. An affidavit is a written version of this same form of sworn testimony and carries the same penalty of perjury, only it is used to attest to things outside of the courtroom. The key element of an affidavit is that it must be witnessed and signed by a notary public or by someone who has the authority to witness an oath and attest to its authenticity.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
How is this showing "Democrats" are signing them too?
Also:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/20/affidavit-giuliani-vote-fraud/
At their news conference Thursday, President Trump’s lawyers implored reporters to take their thus-far-baseless allegations of massive voter fraud more seriously. And in the course of doing so, they repeatedly referred to the hundreds of affidavits they had assembled as genuine evidence of fraud.
“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence,” said Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.
“We have evidence that we will present to the court,” Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said.
“These people are under penalty of perjury,” Giuliani assured again about the affidavits. “Their names are on an affidavit.”
But how much weight do these affidavits carry? And what is their true reliability?
The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)
But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.
As the Trump campaign will remind you, these are sworn statements. But according to legal experts, the jeopardy faced by those behind them is relatively minimal.
“There is a remote chance that sworn statements (if they are actually sworn statements — most documents that appear to be ‘sworn’ don’t count within the meaning of the statute) could subject the declarant to some exposure under the perjury statutes,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert on evidence at Duke University, in an email. “But perjury prosecutions are rare and almost never arise from statements outside of the context of proceedings in which oaths are formally administered — such as depositions, congressional testimony, grand jury proceedings, or trial testimony.”
A key issue is whether the affidavit is filed in court, as most filed by the Trump team haven’t been. Beyond that, any false statements would need to be deemed to be “material” to the proceedings — i.e. relevant to the actual claims. And from there, any legal jeopardy would require that the statements made were knowingly false.
In the case of affidavits from election observers, for example, it would be difficult to prove that what they were saying was false, especially in instances in which they alleged other people involved in the ballot-counting process said something to them. In addition, statements from those like the Texas security consultant who mistook data from Minnesota to be from Michigancould be understood as an honest mistake or resulting from a lack of expertise in the subject matter — rather than an outright lie.
The Trump campaign’s affidavits also have a checkered history, to put it kindly. When they have been used in court, they’ve often been cast aside.
One Michigan judge noted that the evidence wasn’t direct evidence, despite the Trump campaign’s contention that it was:
The judge later dismissed the complaint as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”
Other witnesses signed affidavits that said, “I believe my vote for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence was not counted.” But when pressed by judges, they admitted they didn’t have any actual evidence to support that.
A similar thing happened in Chatham County, Ga., where the GOP called two witnesses as part of its allegation that 53 ballots received after Election Day were predated to make them appear valid. But under questioning, the witnesses acknowledged they didn’t know whether the ballots were actually received after the deadline, while witnesses for the local elections board testified under oath that they were received on time.
Another issue is just what the affidavits allege. Many filed by the Trump campaign don’t actually allege wrongdoing, but rather refer to alleged issues in the vote-counting process. And as The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, Emma Brown and Hannah Knowles reported this week, many of them have been rather thin:
In another case, the Trump campaign’s affidavit was described by a judge as being “rife with speculation and guesswork about sinister motives.” The judge said the allegations were “not credible” and found that the people behind them were simply unfamiliar with how the ballot-counting process was conducted in Detroit.
“Perhaps if Plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCF Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day,”
Judge Timothy M. Kenny wrote. “Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, Plaintiffs’ affiants did not have a full understanding of the TCF absent ballot tabulation process.”
“If he is talking about affidavits that the swearers will submit or that Giuliani will submit as their authorized agent in a judicial proceeding, they would be at risk of a perjury prosecution,” said Julia Simon-Kerr, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. “If he’s talking about affidavits he’s collected to wave in front of reporters, but that won’t be submitted in a judicial proceeding, they would not subject the swearers to a perjury prosecution.
“Given the disjunction between what is actually happening in the courts and what he is talking about,” Simon-Kerr continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the latter.”
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Woah your so fkn brainwashed..do you ever have thoughts of your own or....
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Ive never heard the term plenty of purgery when responding to affidavits.
It doesnt say..it doesnt denote who signed them..id say..witnesses that saw fraud.
Whos trolling who ? You pull weird shit out of thin air after i had to explain what an affidavit entails. How does plenty of purgery even make sense?
It doesnt say..it doesnt denote who signed them..id say..witnesses that saw fraud.
Whos trolling who ? You pull weird shit out of thin air after i had to explain what an affidavit entails. How does plenty of purgery even make sense?
SaltyCracker
Well-Known Member
Legally audit the signatures if there was no fraud..seems democrats are bypassing checks n balances at extreme rates in this. It screams guilt with that alone.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Says the person pushing Giuliani's 'truth isn't the truth' nonsensical lies to trick Trump's cult and linking Russian propaganda websites.
Nice Pee Wee Herman troll though. It is almost convincing.
Trump/Giuliani/Russian/etc are manufacturing the trolls that you are pushing.
I can go find some crackhead to sign something saying they saw Elvis, it doesn't make that shit true.
And the 'plenty of perjury' is what Trump's idiot troll lawyers 'affidavits' typed instead of 'penalty of perjury'. I wouldn't be as confident if every court (even Trump appointed judges) haven't laughed these idiots out of court about what 50 times now?