They may not be false but They are hearsay. The guy with the droids was walking next to the droids. Well standing. It was his personal expression. Now if the droids had told him that they were not the droids they were looking for then that would be hearsay. Okie?
Actually, if the guy standing next to the droids signed an affidavit claiming “I saw the droids”, that is not hearsay. If the guy standing next to the guy who saw the droids said “I heard him say he saw the droids”, THAT would be hearsay. Now, if the guy receiving the affidavit from the guy who claimed “I saw the droids” decided to ignore the affidavit and instead said " These are not the droids you are looking for, move along", that does not make the affidavit hearsay, that’s called a cover-up. Clear?
Besides, if an entire impeachment can be based on hearsay, it seems rather petty to try and impose rules now…
I didn’t say they were all hearsay. I simply expounded on your reference. Some of the affidavits are in fact hearsay.
The entire impeachment is not subject to FRCP or local rules guiding hearsay unlike the lawsuits at hand. “besides” does not apply.
Besides the 234 pages and not the 234 affidavits do not aver that they saw any fraud nor are they all about mail in ballots nor are they all about the droids. May be read them?
Evidently you didn’t see any of Rudy’s press conference today.
I did. It was super crazy.
He has no evidence.
Got a “Soros hearts ANTIFA” in there though.
And had spray on hair running down both sides of his face.
3 Likes
What part of Rudy’s presser did you find most compelling?
The shoe polish hair dye?
I saw every second of it. I also have listened to or watched virtually all of the legal cases in court.
Can you explain to us why the legal arguments from Rudy and Trump in court are so, so, SO, vastly different from the claims they make in their press conferences and on television?
Please explain. I genuinely want to know your take here. Why do they refuse to allege fraud in front of a a judge who can sanction them, but wax poetically about a nationwide conspiracy of fraud when it is in front of the cameras? Is this some sort of brilliant fake-out or something?
Why do you think this is happening?
Having press conferences where they claim to have such incredible evidence of fraud and never using it in a court of law where there would be consequences for presenting false evidence is never brought up.
Odd that.
1 Like
Holy ■■■■■ Is that a real photo?
It’s one of the most baffling things ever. Almost like they are only doing it as performance art propaganda to keep their gullible marks on the hook for more. 
1 Like
And as expected, the Kraken was turned to stone.
Trump appointed Judge, mind you. Poor, poor Lin Wood.
He will live in infamy for that!
There are different ways to cheat. When we hear the word fraud, what comes to mind is an individual deliberately trying to somehow vote more than once. So when we see Biden ahead by thousands of votes it seems incredulous to believe tens of thousands of people, in multiple states would attempt to risk committing such a crime, and even more so to think any type of coordinated conspiracy was going on. But that’s not what was going on. What has allowed the fraud, and what has made it so difficult to produce irrefutable proof is the way this election was carried out, namely using mail in ballots.
There is a difference between mail in ballots and absentee ballots. An absentee ballot is one where a voter specifically requested one. There is a signed paper trail on those. It can be easily verified that an absentee ballot was sent to a proper, legal address, received by the proper, legal voter, was first requested by the voter, and received by the election board. The chain of custody verified the intent of our election process was properly and legally
carried out, which is one person- one vote. I have no objection to this system. There are states that have have been using broad mail in voting for years and have addressed these identification of voter and address issues and have done so successfully. Florida for example.
But this was not done in other states. Covid was used as an excuse for other states to go to, for the first time, mail in voting. The difference is that these other states did not bother with verifying that ballots sent out were going only to legal residents. There was no verification of addresses and IDs of voters. They simply sent out millions of ballots, with no paper trail and no way to verify if the ballots received back were filled out and mailed back by the voter at the address the ballot was sent to.
As a result of this, thousands of people in at least three states that I’ve heard of ( Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada), are claiming that when they showed up in person to vote they were told they had already voted by mail. Another result of this is claims that at least in one state, more ballots were received back than the number of voters in a given area.
To avoid multi pages of text, I have only addressed one specific issue, not the dozens that have been alleged.
Here’s part of the problem, and I don’t know the answer because I’m not a lawyer or judge: Can a judge in one specific state, who has one specific jurisdiction and one specific allegation brought to their court, take into consideration all such similar allegations in other states, consider other irregularities that have been alleged and then rule that due to ALL the allegations, that there is a case, or is a judge limited to considering ONLY the specifics of the case brought to their court and therefore the case is dismissed? I suspect the latter, which explains why so many if Trump’s cases have been dismissed, but also why over 70% of Trump supporters believe he’s being robbed of the election, because we see the totality of irregularities in all the states and we know massive fraud was committed.
Those dudes gave Alex Jones a run for his money.
1 Like
What dudes?
Are they making any of these claims in court?
