Not according to affidavits signed under the penalty of perjury. Have those claiming there were watchers presented signed affidavits to that claim ? It’s easy to lie when there will be no consequences.
1 Like
Yes they did which is why SCOTPA threw the case out, reversing one of Trump’s two wins…lol.
2 Likes
Do you have a link to that effect?
What has that to do with Trump’s promises to declassify the Russian collusion investigations and related documents? You sure you are in the right conversation?
But people can make reasonable arguments for not declassifying documents at the present time. I would not be surprised if, once Trump is legally confirmed as president elect, as opposed to Biden’s legally irrelevant coronation by the fake media, in his second term he may well expose how the deep state has been abusing it’s delegated powers over the last few decades, as a political reset for state agencies and workers to be held henceforth accountable for abuses of power. I don’t think the last four years was a suitable time for that. There was a lot else to get done.
But fur will be flying in his second term.
There will be no second term.
2 Likes
The number of times you repeat the same false statement doesn’t increase it’s credibility.
The process has to be followed and that’s what he said would be done.
1 Like
Trump didn’t “reveal” anything, it’s been known publicly for more than 2 decades that we have sub 1 meter resolution capability with our satellites.
There was a major lawsuit more than a decade ago over restricting civilian satellite data to 3 meter resolution on national security grounds.
Google Earth and other platforms sued the gov’t wanting to be able to use the same levels of resolution on their published maps and photos.
Try again.
Much as many of us wish it were true there’s basically no chance Trump hangs on and pulls out a win no matter how many lawsuits he files.
He said no such thing.
If the legislatures of states with unreconciled ballot counts refuse to certify counts because they have irreconcilable anomalies. and fail to appoint electors, it is possible that neither Biden nor Trump will reach 270. In that case, each state in Congress gets one vote. Do you have a crystal ball confirming how that would play out?
You probably have a better chance of being struck twice with consecutive lightening strikes on a clear day.
No, affidavits are hearsay - and are actually inadmissible as evident.
They are evidence for an evidentiary hearing. If the evidentiary hearing agrees there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, the assignees to the affidavits are then called as witnesses in person to appear at that trial.
They are not hearsay. They are signed sworn testimony of eye-witnesses saying, “I saw or heard x, y, z.”
Hearsay is, "So-and-so told me that they saw or heard x, y, z.
They are hearsay until the eye witness testifies.
Keep spinning. Don"t get dizzy.
Affidavits – written statements of fact used as evidence . Affidavits are documents that contain information said to be true by the person who swears or affirms the affidavit . Affidavits are used to present evidence in written form.
Sworn affidavits are first person testimony and you are under penalty of perjury when you lie in them.
They are admissible in many circumstances particularly if the person deposed is dead or otherwise unavailable.
An affidavit that has been signed, witnessed, and notarized is also admissible.
Is that what CNN is telling you?
Affidavits are hearsay. They are plenty of exceptions, but as a rule, they are not themselves admissible as evidence - because affidavits can’t be cross-examined.
1 Like
