Excellent response. Well thought out.

I bet you were screaming hillary won the popular vote

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/swing-state-counties-that-used-dominion-voting-machines-mostly-voted-trump/

How would you respond to analysis such as this article outlining the case that accusations thus far against Dominion are not credible?

---

In what way does that logically act as a counter argument.

The dominion voting systems are susceptible to manipulation. Yeah but look some counties that used the system voted for Trump. Well that's probably because those counties always vote heavy R. It is a game of small changes to win. Which is obvious.

---

Plus Runbeck printed all of the mail in ballots for Fulton County GA using an already compromised voter roll list that Judge Totenberg had expressed serous concerns about.

---

Unless a case can be made in court, isnt this all no better than speculation? You have message board and media driven entities on both sides saying things, but our courts are supposed to be where stuff gets resolved, and if Trump's lawyers were not able to make a compelling case in any court in any state then how am I as a voter supposed to completely buy in that significant enough fraud that turned an election actually occurred?

I am not just going to believe in conspiracy theories by either side. I'd like to see a compelling case made in a court of law. Am I correct that Trump has yet been able to successfully do that?

---

What are some conspiracy theories you do believe in?
Do you believe Jan 6th was an insurrection?
Do you think that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election?
Do you think that China launched the Covid virus?
Do you think Pelosi and co knew that China was the origination of the covid virus but purposefully prevented the isolation of China?
Do you think that Faucii and Birx knew covid wasn't as deadly and that the vaccine was less effective than they claimed?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Excellent response. Well thought out.

I bet you were screaming hillary won the popular vote

---

306

Barnyard96 said:

---

Excellent response. Well thought out.

I bet you were screaming hillary won the popular vote

---

only hard core America-hating government worshiping communists who are enjoying the destruction of this country and wanted more division, open borders, new forever wars, massive government spending to devalue our currency and create poverty, and need to be governed harder respond to corrupted ez fraud elections with things like, "get over it".

Right, bc of swing states with Dark Blue cities that were gamed after a pandemic was shoved down our throats and mail in ballots were mass produced at record levels.

Its nothing to get over, just a talking point for a message board headed into election season.

But you hang onto that Biden victory, he's been amazing.

texagbeliever said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/swing-state-counties-that-used-dominion-voting-machines-mostly-voted-trump/

How would you respond to analysis such as this article outlining the case that accusations thus far against Dominion are not credible?

---

In what way does that logically act as a counter argument.

The dominion voting systems are susceptible to manipulation. Yeah but look some counties that used the system voted for Trump. Well that's probably because those counties always vote heavy R. It is a game of small changes to win. Which is obvious.

---

Plus Runbeck printed all of the mail in ballots for Fulton County GA using an already compromised voter roll list that Judge Totenberg had expressed serous concerns about.

---

Unless a case can be made in court, isnt this all no better than speculation? You have message board and media driven entities on both sides saying things, but our courts are supposed to be where stuff gets resolved, and if Trump's lawyers were not able to make a compelling case in any court in any state then how am I as a voter supposed to completely buy in that significant enough fraud that turned an election actually occurred?

I am not just going to believe in conspiracy theories by either side. I'd like to see a compelling case made in a court of law. Am I correct that Trump has yet been able to successfully do that?

---

What are some conspiracy theories you do believe in? Epstein didn't kill himself. Rs and Ds both had dirty linen here. Maxwell was convicted of trafficking to: NO ONE. WTF?

Do you believe Jan 6th was an insurrection? Yes. If the case goes to trial, Trump will be convicted.

Do you think that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Yes, Trump would do anything to get elected. It wasn't as widespread as thought, but it was there. It still is. Putin would LOVE for Trump to get reelected.

Do you think that China launched the Covid virus? The virus came from release from the lab in Wuhan. I think it was error but everyone tried to cover it up.

Do you think Pelosi and co knew that China was the origination of the covid virus but purposefully prevented the isolation of China? No idea

Do you think that Faucii and Birx knew covid wasn't as deadly and that the vaccine was less effective than they claimed? No, I think they were pretending to be super smart when they didn't really know WTF was happening. They were just doing "fake it 'til you make it" and enjoying the fame and notoriety.

---

I know this wasn't directed at me, but those are my thoughts.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/swing-state-counties-that-used-dominion-voting-machines-mostly-voted-trump/

How would you respond to analysis such as this article outlining the case that accusations thus far against Dominion are not credible?

---

In what way does that logically act as a counter argument.

The dominion voting systems are susceptible to manipulation. Yeah but look some counties that used the system voted for Trump. Well that's probably because those counties always vote heavy R. It is a game of small changes to win. Which is obvious.

---

Plus Runbeck printed all of the mail in ballots for Fulton County GA using an already compromised voter roll list that Judge Totenberg had expressed serous concerns about.

---

Unless a case can be made in court, isnt this all no better than speculation? You have message board and media driven entities on both sides saying things, but our courts are supposed to be where stuff gets resolved, and if Trump's lawyers were not able to make a compelling case in any court in any state then how am I as a voter supposed to completely buy in that significant enough fraud that turned an election actually occurred?

I am not just going to believe in conspiracy theories by either side. I'd like to see a compelling case made in a court of law. Am I correct that Trump has yet been able to successfully do that?

---

Well you could have started three years ago, as I did, watching witnesses testify before state legislative hearings, some court hearings that were live streamed, watch the films and documentaries I have posted throughout the years.

Start with all of the statistical abnomalities that multiple people detected on election night. How did vote totals and I mean the total number of votes not just for one candidate or the other, decrease over time? In an accretive count? That was a machine to machine to machine transfer such as Edison Reserach's feed?

Explain how highly abnormal vote spikes only for Biden happen in multiple states all at the same time, late at night?

So start with those facts. Then add the layer of the eye witnesses' affidavits of what they saw. Keep building the case by consulting with computer and electronic voting machine experts, paper and ink experts, experts in questioned document examiners. Then you are building a case, but a case for what exactly?

Can any one person be pointed out as one who committed fraud? Very hard to do.But the real question was should those very problematic counts be legally certified under state and federal laws without further examination and investigation to resolve those critical issues and answer those questions?

Quote:

---

Do you believe Jan 6th was an insurrection? Yes.


Do you think that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Yes,

---

how do you think they were going to execute the coup d'etat and commit an insurrection of the government with zero guns and zero shots fired? is there no difference between an angry mob mad about an obviously ****ed up and contentious election and an "insurrection"?

was it the steele dossier that the clinton campaign funded that convinced you? do the twitter files released that confirmed even people inside twitter didn't find influential russian accounts or bots mean nothing? ...and if a trump attorney talking to a russian could influence our election, how? and if you think that's bad, do you not care about government pressuring twitter and facebook to censor all mention of REAL proof of biden's corruption (laptop) before the election and the letter written by biden camp and signed by 50 current and former intel officials so the MSM could perform fellatio on it to the masses claiming that REAL proof of biden's corruption was actually all the earmarkings of russian disinformation? How is THAT not far worse election interference than whatever you think actually happened with russia russia russia four years prior?

Quote:

---

Do you believe Jan 6th was an insurrection? Yes. If the case goes to trial, Trump will be convicted.

---

Trump hasn't been charged with committing an insurrection as far as I know

captkirk said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe Jan 6th was an insurrection? Yes. If the case goes to trial, Trump will be convicted.

---

Trump hasn't been charged with committing an insurrection as far as I know

---

He hasn't but that's not how the media will describe the charges, unless SCOTUS strikes down 1512(c)(2) as too vague as applied to the Jan 6th Fischer case to be heard and decided this term.

Actually, there's a lot of truth to the standing argument as it related to certification and the immediate court cases. If you noticed there are cases now being heard on election fraud as they're working their way through the court system. The ones where they didn't have standing were where they were asking for immediate hold on the election results.

Barnyard96 said:

---

Right, bc of swing states with Dark Blue cities that were gamed after a pandemic was shoved down our throats and mail in ballots were mass produced at record levels.

Its nothing to get over, just a talking point for a message board headed into election season.

But you hang onto that Biden victory, he's been amazing.

---

Blah, blah, blah You don't like democracy and you hate to make it easier to vote. We get it. What is it that you dislike about low unemployment and high stock markets?

2040huck said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Right, bc of swing states with Dark Blue cities that were gamed after a pandemic was shoved down our throats and mail in ballots were mass produced at record levels.

Its nothing to get over, just a talking point for a message board headed into election season.

But you hang onto that Biden victory, he's been amazing.

---

Blah, blah, blah You don't like democracy and you hate to make it easier to vote. We get it. What is it that you dislike about low unemployment and high stock markets?

---

LOL, lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years.

What?

the marxist talking point is that if you want secure, transparent elections that are trustworthy and free from fraud so the citizens aren't disenfranchised with a corrupt system, then you blah blah blah don't like muh "democracy"

Logos Stick said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Right, bc of swing states with Dark Blue cities that were gamed after a pandemic was shoved down our throats and mail in ballots were mass produced at record levels.

Its nothing to get over, just a talking point for a message board headed into election season.

But you hang onto that Biden victory, he's been amazing.

---

Blah, blah, blah You don't like democracy and you hate to make it easier to vote. We get it. What is it that you dislike about low unemployment and high stock markets?

---

LOL, lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years.

---

Excepting the Trump years, you might be right lol

Barnyard96 said:

---

What?

---

This is a reasoned response, folks

oh no said:

---

the marxist talking point is that if you want secure, transparent elections that are trustworthy and free from fraud so the citizens aren't disenfranchised with a corrupt system, then you blah blah blah don't like muh "democracy"

---

Would go a long way towards transparency if private entities being subcontracted out to perform election functions waive their privacy rights on their processes during every election. Should be in their contracts. And that includes electronic voting machine companies.

EAC cannot be trusted. Pro V&V and SLI cannot be trusted at all ever. CISA cannot be trusted at all.

2040huck said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

What?

---

This is a reasoned response, folks

---

You mean like kicking people off the ballot to make it easier to vote?

Barnyard96 said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

What?

---

This is a reasoned response, folks

---

You mean like kicking people off the ballot to make it easier to vote?

---

The plaintiff in the Colorado case, CREW is Soros funded, BTW. There are others, but Open Society Foundation is the largest.

But is there any active case currently in a court of law against Dominion etc. that is charging fraud, which is moving through the court system? I've read there are defamation lawsuits filed by Dominion some which have been settled such as the one against Fox News, but has anyone yet managed to legally land a notable blow on Dominion?

Because if in the actual court system all I read about is Dominion is winning it's defamation lawsuits, then how can I as an objective voter buy into internet conspiracy theories and message board opinions that fraud was committed?

That wasnt her point.

She was responding to something else.

The game is on btw

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

That wasnt her point.

---

But that was my original point.

If in the courts what I see is only Dominion winning defamation lawsuits, I see the Georgia Secretary of State easily winning re-election vs the Trump candidate in 2022 etc.

If I see no case in a court of law that is establishing legally accepted evidence of fraud, then how am I objectively going to side with any conspiracy theories that fraud legitimately happened?

---

You have pumpkin between your ears. Just mush.

Vote for Biden like you want to anyway and don't pretend you care about free and fair elections.

You do not.

And you refuse to do any research, even when spoon fed to you.

Watch the videos I posts for years on end. Since you cannot be bothered to click and watch, your opinion is completely worthless. Too uninformed.

2040huck said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Right, bc of swing states with Dark Blue cities that were gamed after a pandemic was shoved down our throats and mail in ballots were mass produced at record levels.

Its nothing to get over, just a talking point for a message board headed into election season.

But you hang onto that Biden victory, he's been amazing.

---

Blah, blah, blah You don't like democracy and you hate to make it easier to vote. We get it. What is it that you dislike about low unemployment and high stock markets?

---

Ok…with this post the troll's new sock has just let his mask slip. Pretty obvious who this is now.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

That wasnt her point.

---

But that was my original point.

If in the courts what I see is only Dominion winning defamation lawsuits, I see the Georgia Secretary of State easily winning re-election vs the Trump candidate in 2022 etc.

If I see no case in a court of law that is establishing legally accepted evidence of fraud, then how am I objectively going to side with any conspiracy theories that fraud legitimately happened?

---

Mind-numbing.

Good grief.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

That wasnt her point.

---

But that was my original point.

If in the courts what I see is only Dominion winning defamation lawsuits, I see the Georgia Secretary of State easily winning re-election vs the Trump candidate in 2022 etc.

If I see no case in a court of law that is establishing legally accepted evidence of fraud, then how am I objectively going to side with any conspiracy theories that fraud legitimately happened?

---

You have pumpkin between your ears. Just mush.

Vote for Biden like you want to anyway and don't pretend you care about free and fair elections.

You do not.

---

You mention Dominion as a problem but if Dominion is the one winning the defamation court cases then the other stuff you posted is relegated to the right wing conspiracy bucket that The majority of Americans will not buy into. That is the way it is.

Raffensperger did appeal Judge Totenberg's November order wherein she directed him to testify to the 11the Circuit. What a chode! Trying to delay the Jan 9th bench trial.

🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀🐀
The plaintiffs in Curling v. Raffensperger filed their response to Raffy's appeal to the 11th Circuit where he asked them to overturn Judge Totenberg's order requiring him to testify.

The plaintiffs response was an EPIC troll. They quoted his book… pic.twitter.com/tBfM6sw9V2

— Debbie Dooley (@Crimsontider) December 30, 2023

Quote:

---

Mandamus petitioner, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, falls far
short of establishing the clear and indisputable entitlement to relief required for
mandamus. He seeks this Court's emergency intervention to avoid testifying for
only 75 minutes (plus limited redirect) at a January trial on the security and reliability
of Georgia's voting system that he administers. And he does so even though, as the
district court found, he has "direct personal factual information pertaining to material
issues" that will be contested at trial. Pet. Ex. 9 at 3. Indeed, defendants' witnesses
repeatedly testified in depositions that they did not possess highly relevant factual
information and that only Secretary Raffensperger did. That evidentiary gap was
foundational to the district court's order, yet the Secretary's mandamus petition
misleadingly ignores it.

---

Quote:

---

Given the centrality of Secretary Raffensperger's testimony to the issues at
trial and Plaintiffs' inability to secure the needed information from any other
witness, the district court acted well within its broad trial-management discretion
when ordering him to testify. At the same time, the court showed appropriate
awareness of Secretary Raffensperger's position and the demands on his time by
imposing a significant time limit on his testimony.

---

Pretty cheeky of a state Sec of State to tell a federal judge he's too busy to be bothered to attend and testify when he is a party to the lawsuit.

Quote:

---

The Secretary himself has recognized the necessity of courtroom testimony to the fact-finding process. As he wrote in his recent book Integrity Counts, "the ultimate fact-check in the United States [], occurs in courts of law, where witnesses
swear to tell the truth or risk imprisonment and where lawyers must also tell the truth
or risk disbarment. If you want to know the truth, watch what happens in court."

Brad Raffensperger, Integrity Counts 143 (2021).

---

ZING!

Quote:

---

Secretary Raffensperger, the lead defendant in this case, has ultimate responsibility for the actions (or inactions) of his Office and directed activities central to this litigation. E.g., Resp. Ex. 8 (Raffensperger press release discussing the Secretary's involvement in implementing the BMD system).3

---

Quote:

---

In 2022, the district court "defer(ed)" a decision on whether to allow plaintiffs
to depose Secretary Raffensperger. Pet. Ex. 5 at 44:25.

The court explained that the question was premature because the parties did not yet know what other witnesses were "going to say" in their depositions and thus whether Secretary Raffensperger's
testimony would be necessary to fill any gaps. Pet. Ex. 5 at 44:18-45:4.

The court explained that a decision on his testimony should come "last," i.e., after other
witnesses had been deposed, and that the court would have to be "persuaded" at that
time to require his testimony. Pet. Ex. 5 at 44:19, 45:1.

Plaintiffs proceeded with deposing other state witnesses pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Despite their obligation to educate themselves before providing testimony on behalf of the Secretary's Office, none of these witnesses indicated they contacted the Secretary for his knowledge on the noticed topics, and he apparently made no efforts to communicate his knowledge to these designees.

---

That's actually fairly common but it is generally when suit has been filed against a large company and that company "designates" their corporate representative for depositions, which routinely have only tangential involvement and little actual knowledge about the facts of the case. Still, not a good look for a Sec of State who constantly goes around touting how secure his voting policies, procedures and systems are to duck testifying.

Quote:

---

Instead, witness after witness testified that only Secretary Raffensperger could speak to matters central to this case, including (i) the purported 2021 investigation into the Coffee County breaches; (ii) his own factual assertions on core issues; and (iii) his own decisions about what, if anything, the State is doing to maintain and secure its voting system.

---

Quote:

---

Gabriel Sterling, the chief operations officer for the Secretary's Office (Curling, 2023 WL 7463462, at *3), testified that he did not know whether Secretary Raffensperger had even read a report canvasing security vulnerabilities in Georgia's BMD system:

Q. So the Secretary himself has not read it?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, you're testifying on behalf of the Secretary's office today as a corporate representative. So I'm asking
A. Yes, I am.
Q. I'm asking you as a corporate representative, has the Secretary himself read this report?
A. And my answer remains the same, that I don't know.
Q. Okay. And how would you find that out?
A. I guess I would probably have to call him and ask him. It didn't occur to me to ask him beforehand.

---

Yeah, right Gabe. You have attached at the hip to Raffensperger and you were the guy assigned to install Dominion's systems but you never discussed Halderman's report from 2021 with your boss?

Brief is HERE

Now the 11th Circuit's in on it!!!

Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger cannot be compelled to testify at upcoming trial regarding the security of Georgia voting machines, 11th Cir. rules.

Raffensperger was expected to answer questions about the state’s response to the Coffee County voting breach, among other topics. pic.twitter.com/f9YgMjYTrm

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) January 5, 2024

GeorgiAg said:

---

Now the 11th Circuit's in on it!!!

Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger cannot be compelled to testify at upcoming trial regarding the security of Georgia voting machines, 11th Cir. rules.

Raffensperger was expected to answer questions about the state’s response to the Coffee County voting breach, among other topics. pic.twitter.com/f9YgMjYTrm

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) January 5, 2024

---

Anyone who doesn't render a decision in favor of the conspiracy is in on it. You can be the most conservative judge and receive all kinds of praise for past decisions...but screw this one up and your a RINO or a shill for the Dems.

Unreal. He's a named party to the lawsuit. His subordinates have all been deposed and kept pointing to him as the person who could answer plaintiffs' counsels questions. Judge limited the amount of time in which he would be testifying since his claimed excuse was that he was "too busy."

Soo, do plaintiff's appeal to SCOTUS? Does Judge Totenberg delay the trial?

This isn't the "own" you think it is.

The plaintiffs allege that Raffensperger didn't adequately respond when a gaggle of horny Trumpers breached voting machines in Coffee County after the 2020 election. Several were later indicted., no thanks to the SOS and GBI who were very slow to respond.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-report-highlights-new-players-in-coffee-county-election-breach.amp

This is one of the plaintiffs in Curling v Raffensperger. Consistently critical of the fake Keystone Cops that illegally breached voting data in Coffee County.

I'm just about to read this and I'm sure that I can highly recommend it before I even open the link. Sure to be important reporting by @AnnaBower about Coffee County breaches and the failed investigations. https://t.co/JooTFe15u2

— Marilyn Marks (@MarilynRMarks1) November 28, 2023

But Giuliani wasn’t the only top Trump ally with whom Latham met in D.C.

A newly unearthed photo shows Latham w/ Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell at the Trump Hotel around that time.

Weeks later, Latham escorted a computer forensics team into the Coffee County elections office. pic.twitter.com/sudSAgWKYT

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 28, 2023