Crickets

Troll

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160390

None of the above

The answer is no.

Quote:

---

Do you believe Sidney Powell's allegations are false?

---

I don't have an opinion on their veracity. At this point, they are just allegations.

Quote:

---

Do you think she doesn't have evidence to prove the allegations?

---

I don't have an opinion on that. Why would I guess at what evidence she has?

Quote:

---

Do you think the allegations are true but don't involve enough votes to change the election?

---

I don't have an opinion on that.

Quote:

---

Do you just want Biden to be president?

---

Not at all. I voted for Trump.

About half of the board's commies outed themselves as lawyers last night on the other thread. So about 3/4 of the lawyers on here have severe TDS, keep that in mind when asking their opinions.

Or you could just go read the thread I posted yesterday.

This lawyer is giving Kayleigh Mac a run for her money. Just watch how hard this lib hack reporter tries to control the narrative, only to get owned and have to mute her mic.

Hey man, just wanted to make sure you saw my mea culpa on the Science Denier thread. I had the wrong witness in mind yesterday afternoon. Didn't get chance to watch the whole video until last night and realized my mistake.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160365/2#discussion

Anyway my post was definitely TLDR and you will probably interpret as me not accepting clear facts, but the important part of it was that I wanted to fess up that I was wrong and shouldn't have assumed the witness you were talking about was the guy I thought it was without watching the whole video.

aggieforester05 said:

---

About half of the board's commies outed themselves as lawyers last night on the other thread. So about 3/4 of the lawyers on here have severe TDS, keep that in mind when asking their opinions.

---

What I would say is that keep in mind lawyers are trained to look at the entire case removed from personal preference when analyzing the merits. Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it. I've found that most people assume your political affiliation based on your critique of the case and the way it's been handled and that's not always the case.

Quote:

---

Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it.

---

Credibility of the witnesses goes a long way towards proof, as does the number of witnesses all saying they witnessed much of the exact same behavior. These aren't homeless people off of the streets most of them have a long history working elections, being a poll watcher and a poll challenger.

Then you have all of the computer experts, statisticians, mathematicians saying there were very significant aberrations, abnormalities in the reporting of the results that corroborate what would happen if the conduct complained of by the witnesses had occurred.

On the other side you have a Jeb Bush flunky PR guy saying on behalf of Dominion, "Nuh uh!" And not much else.

We are not in a criminal setting. We are in a civil setting. Which sounds more likely than not given that evidence?

unmade bed said:

---

Hey man, just wanted to make sure you saw my mea culpa on the Science Denier thread. I had the wrong witness in mind yesterday afternoon. Didn't get chance to watch the whole video until last night and realized my mistake.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160365/2#discussion

Anyway my post was definitely TLDR and you will probably interpret as me not accepting clear facts, but the important part of it was that I wanted to fess up that I was wrong and shouldn't have assumed the witness you were talking about was the guy I thought it was without watching the whole video.

---

Yep, I read and responded. I started that thread because I found some of Stenstrom's allegations most troubling, and his delivery seemed more technical, bipartisan, and honest than some of the other GOP observers. Much of his allegations were witnessed in tandem with Dem observer who also submitted testimony in affidavit. No doubt some of the content in that PA hearing will prove to be misguided or mistaken, or based on engagement few incompetent election workers. However, I commend these witnesses for coming forward and strongly believe its all in good faith unlike Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Comey, etc.

thirdcoast said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Hey man, just wanted to make sure you saw my mea culpa on the Science Denier thread. I had the wrong witness in mind yesterday afternoon. Didn't get chance to watch the whole video until last night and realized my mistake.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160365/2#discussion

Anyway my post was definitely TLDR and you will probably interpret as me not accepting clear facts, but the important part of it was that I wanted to fess up that I was wrong and shouldn't have assumed the witness you were talking about was the guy I thought it was without watching the whole video.

---

Yep, I read and responded. I started that thread because I found some of Stenstrom's allegations most troubling, and his delivery seemed more technical, bipartisan, and honest than some of the other GOP observers. Much of his allegations were witnessed in tandem with Dem observer who also submitted testimony in affidavit. No doubt some of the content in that PA hearing will prove to be misguided or mistaken, or based on engagement few incompetent election workers. However, I commend these witnesses for coming forward and strongly believe its all in good faith unlike Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Comey, etc.

---

To be clear, I don't think most of the witnesses that Rudy has are lying or acting in bad faith. I think their statements, testimony and affidavits are accurate reflections of their impression of the events they witnessed. I just suggest being careful about accepting their impressions as being the final say in what the facts were (which I understand is not what you guys are doing- y'all are just saying these raise questions).

The "other side" has their own witnesses with affidavits that tell a completely different story (if interested go here and read the affidavits under Filing #38, just for some examples)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18632787/wood-v-raffensperger/

I don't think those people are lying either.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it.

---

Credibility of the witnesses goes a long way towards proof, as does the number of witnesses all saying they witnessed much of the exact same behavior. These aren't homeless people off of the streets most of them have a long history working elections, being a poll watcher and a poll challenger.

Then you have all of the computer experts, statisticians, mathematicians saying there were very significant aberrations, abnormalities in the reporting of the results that corroborate what would happen if the conduct complained of by the witnesses had occurred.

On the other side you have a Jeb Bush flunky PR guy saying on behalf of Dominion, "Nuh uh!" And not much else.

We are not in a criminal setting. We are in a civil setting. Which sounds more likely than not given that evidence?

---

I don't disagree with anything you stated. And I agree this election has a ton of things that just don't look right. But proving fraud typically requires establishing intent and the elements to succeed are, perhaps not surprisingly, very difficult (otherwise you would see a lot more cases brought and succeeding).

Without going into a legal discussion, I can say they are fighting an uphill battle. The rules in many states are such that the potential for fraud are high and yet proving that fraud is exceedingly difficult. Thus the need for election reform.

Aglaw97 said:

---

Without going into a legal discussion, I can say they are fighting an uphill battle. The rules in many states are such that the potential for fraud are high and yet proving that fraud is exceedingly difficult. Thus the need for election reform.

---

In other words, it's time to lock and load. There are no peaceful legal remedies, so the next step is...

Aglaw97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it.

---

Credibility of the witnesses goes a long way towards proof, as does the number of witnesses all saying they witnessed much of the exact same behavior. These aren't homeless people off of the streets most of them have a long history working elections, being a poll watcher and a poll challenger.

Then you have all of the computer experts, statisticians, mathematicians saying there were very significant aberrations, abnormalities in the reporting of the results that corroborate what would happen if the conduct complained of by the witnesses had occurred.

On the other side you have a Jeb Bush flunky PR guy saying on behalf of Dominion, "Nuh uh!" And not much else.

We are not in a criminal setting. We are in a civil setting. Which sounds more likely than not given that evidence?

---

I don't disagree with anything you stated. And I agree this election has a ton of things that just don't look right. But proving fraud typically requires establishing intent and the elements to succeed are, perhaps not surprisingly, very difficult (otherwise you would see a lot more cases brought and succeeding).

Without going into a legal discussion, I can say they are fighting an uphill battle. The rules in many states are such that the potential for fraud are high and yet proving that fraud is exceedingly difficult. Thus the need for election reform.

---

THIS

I'm 99% sure fraud was committed, even enough to flip the election.

But I'm only 1% confident it can be proven in a suitable timeframe in all the courts needed to make a difference.

I hope otherwise, but I think a lot of you are overly optimistic and will be disappointed. I hope I'm wrong - I would be ecstatic if Trump prevails somehow.

What a punk, and absolute leftist a-hole.
I admire her ability to keep that smile in place.

Aglaw97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it.

---

Credibility of the witnesses goes a long way towards proof, as does the number of witnesses all saying they witnessed much of the exact same behavior. These aren't homeless people off of the streets most of them have a long history working elections, being a poll watcher and a poll challenger.

Then you have all of the computer experts, statisticians, mathematicians saying there were very significant aberrations, abnormalities in the reporting of the results that corroborate what would happen if the conduct complained of by the witnesses had occurred.

On the other side you have a Jeb Bush flunky PR guy saying on behalf of Dominion, "Nuh uh!" And not much else.

We are not in a criminal setting. We are in a civil setting. Which sounds more likely than not given that evidence?

---

I don't disagree with anything you stated. And I agree this election has a ton of things that just don't look right. But proving fraud typically requires establishing intent and the elements to succeed are, perhaps not surprisingly, very difficult (otherwise you would see a lot more cases brought and succeeding).

Without going into a legal discussion, I can say they are fighting an uphill battle. The rules in many states are such that the potential for fraud are high and yet proving that fraud is exceedingly difficult. Thus the need for election reform.

---

Stop focusing solely on "election fraud" and focus instead on election integrity and the ability to certify the results with rectitude.

Or to put it another way, if it were your signature under oath that was required to certify, as an officer of the court, would you sign it? I know I wouldn't.

Aglaw97 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

About half of the board's commies outed themselves as lawyers last night on the other thread. So about 3/4 of the lawyers on here have severe TDS, keep that in mind when asking their opinions.

---

What I would say is that keep in mind lawyers are trained to look at the entire case removed from personal preference when analyzing the merits. Lawyers have to argue for and against cases they disagree with all the time. As the quote goes in A Few Good Men "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove". So when you ask a lawyer his or her opinion, that's often the way they look at it. I've found that most people assume your political affiliation based on your critique of the case and the way it's been handled and that's not always the case.

---

I'm basing this off of their reputation on other threads. Their opinions on that thread were representative of their political ideology.

I think it depends on what is meant by "fraud". I do not think it is difficult at all to prove, to any objective reviewer, that many ballots were invalid and generated and cast by other than legal voters; and vote tabulations were manipulated by manual and programmed computer intervention; and in total more than sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. Proving "who" is responsible for that , their intent and premeditation is much more difficult, particularly within the time frame to prevent an illegitimate inauguration. However, if the election results are not legitimate then they should be thrown out regardless of the details of and parties involved in producing the illegitimate results. The constitutional republic and government of, by, and for the people depend on it.

I heard an analogy with the bending of light. Paraphrased it said that astronomical observation of the bending of light infers the presence of a black hole (infinite mass). in fact the bending of light confirms the presence of infinite mass or its energy equivalent. In the case of the subject election, mathematically improbable (to the level of practical impossibility) vote totals and tabulation irregularities (subtraction, fractional, vertical "curves", 100k + vote dumps for one candidate) prove that the current vote totals are invalid in quantity more than enough to reverse the election.

Our founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. In short order we shall find out what we pledge.

_mpaul said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe Sidney Powell's allegations are false?

---

I don't have an opinion on their veracity. At this point, they are just allegations.

Quote:

---

Do you think she doesn't have evidence to prove the allegations?

---

I don't have an opinion on that. Why would I guess at what evidence she has?

Quote:

---

Do you think the allegations are true but don't involve enough votes to change the election?

---

I don't have an opinion on that.

Quote:

---

Do you just want Biden to be president?

---

Not at all. I voted for Trump.

---

Same. I trust the system (hearings, trials, and appeals; you know, "the rule of law") to work through the issues to figure out the truth. I'm not going to try to reach my own worthless opinions based upon bits and pieces of information conveyed and/or misconstrued by intermediaries.

These aren't serious lawsuits. I assume they're being used to raise money. Trump has a lot of bills to pay, and he won't be able to line his pockets with federal tax dollars at Mar a Lago any longer.

Pato said:

---

These aren't serious lawsuits. I assume they're being used to raise money. Trump has a lot of bills to pay, and he won't be able to line his pockets with federal tax dollars at Mar a Lago any longer.

---

Lol nice conspiracy theory. Prob believed the 4 yr "OMGZ RUSSIAN COLLUSION!" hoax (coup attempt) as well.

Same. I trust the system (hearings, trials, and appeals; you know, "the rule of law") to work through the issues to figure out the truth. I'm not going to try to reach my own worthless opinions based upon bits and pieces of information conveyed and/or misconstrued by intermediaries.

If the rule of law indeed prevails, Trump will win.

Pato said:

---

These aren't serious lawsuits. I assume they're being used to raise money. Trump has a lot of bills to pay, and he won't be able to line his pockets with federal tax dollars at Mar a Lago any longer.

---

Powell does represent Trump, so whatever this is isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Same. I trust the system (hearings, trials, and appeals; you know, "the rule of law") to work through the issues to figure out the truth. I'm not going to try to reach my own worthless opinions based upon bits and pieces of information conveyed and/or misconstrued by intermediaries.

If the rule of law indeed prevails, Trump will win.

---

There's no way you can know that with knowing what both sides' evidence is.