SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts.

Edit- To help, here is the definition of "Evidence" from the legal dictionary:

Quote:

---

every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.

---

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts

---

Do you think evidence is evidence before it's presented to a court?

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts

---

Do you think evidence is evidence before it's presented to a court?

---

Until it is introduced and approved by a judge at a trial, it is not legal evidence. See the definition I posted above, that should help you out.

Weird how they say he's a data scientist.

I looked up this guys company, and its a 3 person operation with a bunch of weird technobabble. Not to mention he doesn't say what his previous companies were. No degree in that field either.

But then again, any evidence at all would be nice. Previous affidavits were dismissed after it turned out they had skipped orientation/training and didn't know how the counting process worked.

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

An audit should be done because of the missing evidence that would either validate Biden win or voter fraud.

thirdcoast said:

---

1) there is no evidence of fraud
2) there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud
3) the fraud would not change outcome
4) the evidence has not been presented to courts yet

---

Honestly considering how the thousands of 'evidence' from twitter clickbait scammers and affidavits that turned out they didn't even attend the trainings, folded faster than a cheap paper at court, it's reasonable to ask for evidence?

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts

---

Do you think evidence is evidence before it's presented to a court?

---

Until it is introduced and approved by a judge at a trial, it is not legal evidence. See the definition I posted above, that should help you out.

---

Pretty sure I know what constitutes legal evidence. Learned that in Evidence long ago. Perhaps you should read my post and discern what I was saying based on the context.

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Weird how they say he's a data scientist.

I looked up this guys company, and its a 3 person operation with a bunch of weird technobabble. Not to mention he doesn't say what his previous companies were. No degree in that field either.

But then again, any evidence at all would be nice. Previous affidavits were dismissed after it turned out they had skipped orientation/training and didn't know how the counting process worked.

---

This is a lie, they were not informed of an orientation, no emails or calls went out informing of orientation. This fact is part of the case.

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.

thirdcoast said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Weird how they say he's a data scientist.

I looked up this guys company, and its a 3 person operation with a bunch of weird technobabble. Not to mention he doesn't say what his previous companies were. No degree in that field either.

But then again, any evidence at all would be nice. Previous affidavits were dismissed after it turned out they had skipped orientation/training and didn't know how the counting process worked.

---

This is a lie, they were not informed if an orientation no emails or calls went out informing of orientation.

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.

---

Those witnesses were sworn in?

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts

---

Do you think evidence is evidence before it's presented to a court?

---

Until it is introduced and approved by a judge at a trial, it is not legal evidence. See the definition I posted above, that should help you out.

---

Pretty sure I know what constitutes legal evidence. Learned that in Evidence long ago. Perhaps you should read my post and discern what I was saying based on the context.

---

So we agree. No legal evidence has been presented.

Let's try an easier question for you. Has any evidence of voter fraud been presented to any judge in the United States in regards to the 2020 Presidential election?

Yes, sworn affidavits. Pretty much everything presented was backed by sworn affidavits, as it was mentioned several times.

affidavit
/afdvit/
Learn to pronounce
nounLAW
a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court

thirdcoast said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Weird how they say he's a data scientist.

I looked up this guys company, and its a 3 person operation with a bunch of weird technobabble. Not to mention he doesn't say what his previous companies were. No degree in that field either.

But then again, any evidence at all would be nice. Previous affidavits were dismissed after it turned out they had skipped orientation/training and didn't know how the counting process worked.

---

This is a lie, they were not informed if an orientation no emails or calls went out informing of orientation.

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.

---

Even if the no emails/calls went out was true, they still did not attend. In any case those affidavits were contradicted by long time election poll workers who had to explain it was actually part of the process, which is why they were thrown out of courts. Not to mention trumps campaign themselves had to throw out a bunch of them themselves, all of which was 'sworn testimony'

But again, he does not provide any evidence at all. And I was just curious why they labeled him 'data scientist'

thirdcoast said:

---

Yes, sworn affidavits. Pretty much everything prevented was backed by sworn affidavits, as it was mentioned several times.

affidavit
/afdvit/
Learn to pronounce
nounLAW
a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court

---

Nice. Who was the affiant for the claim that Pennsylvania only sent out 1.82 million mail in ballots? Haven't found that anywhere. Could you point me to it?

Looking for the Affidavit from Gregory Stenstrom that data expert in the OP video. Could you post that one as well?

unmade bed said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Yes, sworn affidavits. Pretty much everything prevented was backed by sworn affidavits, as it was mentioned several times.

affidavit
/afdvit/
Learn to pronounce
nounLAW
a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court

---

Nice. Who was the affiant for the claim that Pennsylvania only sent out 1.82 million mail in ballots? Haven't found that anywhere. Could you point me to it?

Looking for the Affidavit from Gregory Stenstrom that data expert in the OP video. Could you post that one as well?

---

Do your own homework. You tried to claim the PA hearing was a bunch of hearsay not under oath. Now you are back tracking asking for docs. This thread lists 4 key findings you completely ignore. Why? Do you think Stenstrom is lying about below? You know this is troubling which is why you completely skipped over it.


1) Where did the 60-70k PA ballots go that both a GOP and Dem observer witnessed in a back room?

2) Why would harvested or unenveloped mail in ballots be anywhere near a vote counting facility?

3) How did the 120k vote count go to 200k at that same location after the vote counting ended?

4) What was going on with the USB drives and where are they now?


*Stenstrom mentioned he sent in affidavits outlining what he was saying, as did others. Just search the word "affidavit" and it comes up 16 times. So you have to assume they are lying....why?

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/pennsylvania-senate-republican-lawmaker-hearing-transcript-on-2020-election

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Conservative Ag said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Exactly - full forensic audits.

Why should elections be treated with LESS scrutiny than a corporation? It's absurd.

---

If the courts think it's warranted. But it's all political talkie talkie.

---

There's more than enough evidence that YOU should want it.

---

Link to the evidence of voter fraud presented to the courts, please?

---

Is it your contention that if that evidence hasn't been presented to a court, it's not competent evidence of fraud?

---

You said there was "evidence". Please post a link to where that evidence was presented to the courts

---

Do you think evidence is evidence before it's presented to a court?

---

Until it is introduced and approved by a judge at a trial, it is not legal evidence. See the definition I posted above, that should help you out.

---

Pretty sure I know what constitutes legal evidence. Learned that in Evidence long ago. Perhaps you should read my post and discern what I was saying based on the context.

---

So we agree. No legal evidence has been presented.

Let's try an easier question for you. Has any evidence of voter fraud been presented to any judge in the United States in regards to the 2020 Presidential election?

---

Why is that an easier question for me? Are you assuming I don't understand what's going on in this context? Really?

Why don't you address my statement first?

thirdcoast said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Yes, sworn affidavits. Pretty much everything prevented was backed by sworn affidavits, as it was mentioned several times.

affidavit
/afdvit/
Learn to pronounce
nounLAW
a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court

---

Nice. Who was the affiant for the claim that Pennsylvania only sent out 1.82 million mail in ballots? Haven't found that anywhere. Could you point me to it?

Looking for the Affidavit from Gregory Stenstrom that data expert in the OP video. Could you post that one as well?

---

Do your own homework. You tried to claim the PA hearing was a bunch of hearsay not under oath. Now you are back tracking asking for docs. This thread lists 4 key findings you completely ignore. Why? Do you think Stenstrom is lying about below? You know this is troubling which is why you completely skipped over it.


1) Where did the 60-70k PA ballots go that both a GOP and Dem observer witnessed in a back room?

2) Why would harvested or unenveloped mail in ballots be anywhere near a vote counting facility?

3) How did the 120k vote count go to 200k at that same location after the vote counting ended?

4) What was going on with the USB drives and where are they now?

---

I am not back tracking at all. You raised issues that are definitely concerning if true so I am trying to get to the evidence that establishes these claims.

You said the data scientist guy from the video was testifying under oath under penalty of perjury but I never saw him sworn in. Then you told me it's all in the affidavits, so I'm just looking for them.

I will keep looking on my own I guess. Haven't found a single sworn statement from the Stenstrom guy, but if you are saying it's out there, I'll certainly keep searching. Surely you wouldn't be lying about something so silly. Didn't mean to ask you to do my homework.

Yes, libs are science deniers. They are also math deniers. It's beyond their understanding so they label it racist. And don't even try and explain statistics to them.

When the affidavits are presented to you, what is next? Will you accept the hearing as legit and credible? No. No, you will not.

Its a waste of time, as you people always find another excuse. Its just like the whole "Trump was not spied on". That evidence was provided and it just generated more excuses, denial, and red herings. You probably still won't admit the Russia collusion nonsense was part of the "insurance policy" to remove a duly elected POTUS.

Not sure why anyone would lie about submitting affidavits, something that can so easily be proven wrong.

Hey. I'm not a lib.

You should just ignore Rook posters.

Science Denier said:

---

Hey. I'm not a lib.

---

You know who else started sentences with "Hey....!"?

Hitler.

thirdcoast said:

---

When the affidavits are presented to you, what is next? Will you accept the hearing as legit and credible? No. No, you will not.

Its a waste of time, as you people always find another excuse. Its just like the whole "Trump was not spied on". That evidence was provided and it just generated more excuses, denial, and red herings. You probably still won't admit the Russia collusion nonsense was part of the "insurance policy" to remove a duly elected POTUS.

---

Well I would have to read the affidavit(s) first to see what they say. Not really trying to get into your Russian spying derail attempt.

Where I am at now is trying to look at the claims you have made on your OP.

Later in the post you said this about the guy in the video:

Quote:

---

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.

---

I wasn't aware that those witnesses were sworn in. You then told me the guy had signed an affidavit. That is all I'm asking about.

It's not a trick question.

unmade bed said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

When the affidavits are presented to you, what is next? Will you accept the hearing as legit and credible? No. No, you will not.

Its a waste of time, as you people always find another excuse. Its just like the whole "Trump was not spied on". That evidence was provided and it just generated more excuses, denial, and red herings. You probably still won't admit the Russia collusion nonsense was part of the "insurance policy" to remove a duly elected POTUS.

---

Well I would have to read the affidavit(s) first to see what they say. Not really trying to get into your Russian spying derail attempt.

Where I am at now is trying to look at the claims you have made on your OP.

Later in the post you said this about the guy in the video:

Quote:

---

Also, when you focus on the person's credentials instead of the merit of the arguments being made, its a huge indication you have nothing to counter those arguments. Either he is telling the truth, or he is lying under penalty of perjury.

---

I wasn't aware that those witnesses were sworn in. You then told me the guy had signed an affidavit. That is all I'm asking about.

It's not a trick question.

---

Not a derail. You wouldn't acknowledge evidence against those pushing a BS Russia narrative to undermine Trump, so why would you acknowledge evidence of Stenstrom claims?

Again. He specifically mentioned his allegations were backed by the affidavits he submitted. I provided the transcript. Just because I don't have access to those docs doesn't mean they don't exist. The bigger question if those affidavits were provided to you, would it change your opinion on the legitimacy and credibility of the PA hearing? Your answer is- Mmm I dunno I haven't seen them.

We all know you will disappear and move on to something else. Just like we saw with Russia collusion BS and Trump spying , proven in black and white.

If a guy repeats his sworn affidavit in a hearing that he wasn't sworn into, he is subject to penalty of perjury tied to that affidavit. How is that so hard for you to understand? I NEVER said he was sworn in to the hearing. More BS.

Okay. A simple "I haven't seen his affidavit" would have sufficed. I thought you had the way you were so confident about it. Don't think an affidavit from him is out there fwiw, at least I haven't been able to find one through google machine.

Also, per his testimony he says "we" have "submitted"affidavits which could (and most likely does) mean they provided affidavits signed by others to the senators, not necessarily that he himself signed an affidavit.

So when he references in his hearing unsworn testimony these things ARE in the "affidavits submitted", you think he is just pulling that out of his azz? Great argument!

When he says "our" affidavits submitted, its a pronoun that references himself and anyone else who witnessed the allegations. If he used "their" affidavits, it would refer to others than himself.

So this is now the 3rd time I have quoted him, and you still refuse to acknowledge.

Greg S transcript, he uses "our" and "I".... ignoring it, doesn't change it.

Quote:

---

he's walking in with baggies, which we have pictures of, and it was submitted in our affidavits. And he was sticking these USBs into the machines. So, I personally witnessed, that happened 24 times, over 24 times. We have multiple other witnesses that saw it, including Democrat poll watchers.

---

You only need evidence of process problems, failings, and security holes to require they be fixed in the future.

thirdcoast said:

---

So when he references in his hearing unsworn testimony these things ARE in the "affidavits submitted", you think he is just pulling that out of his azz? Great argument!

---

Well he wouldn't be submitting himself to perjury if he was doing that (referring to others affidavits during unsworn testimony) which is what you initially said which started the whole damn line of questioning.

I am not questioning the existence of affidavits or even the accuracy of the information in the affidavits. I haven't even seen the damn things as they apparently arent available.

Someone questioned the witness's credentials on this thread and you responded with the assertion that his credentials shouldn't be questioned because he was subjecting himself to perjury. That is when I started asking you things. Go look back.