Arizona Election Audit

#577
#577
LouderVol said:
The brown were dismissed cases, a lot. More than all the others combined.

Green were successful. Hard to read but 4. Looks like one says extended poll hours.

Blue were voluntary withdraws, also 4.

And then 4 red, whatever those are.

What do you think this chart
Click to expand...



To date since the November election there have been approximately 85 election fraud cases brought. Judges have thrown out a couple dozen cases on technicalities. About 35 to 40 cases are still making their way through the system. 22 cases have been decided. Of those 22 the courts have decided, "Yes there was election fraud!" In 68% of those cases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY
#578
#578
Are you counting cases like the PA date cut off as fraud? Even when it was caught before results were in? There is a pretty big gap in a disagreement on terms settled by court, and election fraud.
 
#579
#579
It is findings like this that the left is fighting so hard to stop the Maricopa County Audit. You can not honestly explain these anamolies can happen in any other way other then the machines.

This is not about Donal Trump. This is about the integrity of our elections. Democrats have complained about these machines in the past and now suddenly it's not a problem


Mathematician: Election numbers don’t add up
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#580
#580
LouderVol said:
Are you counting cases like the PA date cut off as fraud? Even when it was caught before results were in? There is a pretty big gap in a disagreement on terms settled by court, and election fraud.
Click to expand...


That list of 85 cases is all of the cases with Trump listed as the plaintiff. I feel like a lot of the judges simply just did not want to go there.
 
#582
#582
ClearwaterVol said:
My argument is that lying about screwing around on your wife really isn't an impeachable offense in my book. I didn't think trump was shown to have done was impeachable either. The argument here was from weezer who said he'd never seen anything like the trump impeachments. I was merely pointing out that Rs had done some similar before.
Click to expand...

Actually if your wife is Hiliary, looking elsewhere should be considered reasonable. However, we have all kinds of rules about sexual harassment in the workplace, and one of the biggest blunders is for a person to fool around with someone in the his (or her) chain of command. The hint of "command influence" means the act is not necessarily consensual - or that with the act may imply favoritism is implied. Either way, Billy Boy was wrong, and lying under oath was the simplest course of action. Could be that if he wasn't president he might realize he married a Lorena Bobbit clone instead of an overambitious power grabber.
 
#585
#585
hog88 said:
It should if they are dumb enough to do it under oath and if your state BAR would not disbar a lawyer for committing perjury the organization is corrupt.
Click to expand...

Think about it though. Every lawyer basically lies by omission in every case. They make a living presenting one side, and do their best to prevent the other side from presenting harmful testimony. It's exactly what people pay them to do - represent them by knowing the law and how to use it. Most of us (not involved in a legal proceeding) believe the goal should be to find the truth, but that's never what the judicial system has been about. It's like expecting fact checkers to find the real story rather than debunk part of something and prove it false. Or in math where a counter proof shows one concept to be false while it does not show what is correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#586
#586
n_huffhines said:
I looked. It's impossible to find proof of something that isn't true. I'm not the one making big claims. Back it up or don't. I bet you can't.
Click to expand...
And I bet you’re not going to bait me into looking it up. I know it’s true. You’re the one with a problem, not me.
 
#588
#588
BowlBrother85 said:
You left out an essential component of Donald Trump's scheme:

It was wrong for Trump to withhold Congressionally-authorized military aid to the Ukraine, so he could use it as leverage against Ukrainian President Zelensky's willingness to make an appearance on CNN near the end of August in 2019, and announce that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens - at a time when Joe Biden was the clear front runner for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination for President.

Such conduct should not be allowed to stand as a precedent for future presidents to follow. There is just no way that Republicans in Congress would approve of a Democrat doing the exact same thing.

But once again, this was discussed enough on here in 2019... I don't really want to bring it up again. It's been beaten into the ground.
Click to expand...

Both sides use the same tactics but only scream when it's the other side using them. Case in point, how many Dems screamed over Hillary helping to fund the Steele Dossier? I don't recall any, and I certainly don't recall any liberal posters on this board complaining. All that did is launch an unfounded Russia collusion probe. How much of that dossier was even verified? It's the same damn thing. Trump should have been censured. That made sense. Impeachment was a failed political ploy on the part of the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#589
#589
ClearwaterVol said:
My argument is that lying about screwing around on your wife really isn't an impeachable offense in my book. I didn't think trump was shown to have done was impeachable either. The argument here was from weezer who said he'd never seen anything like the trump impeachments. I was merely pointing out that Rs had done some similar before.
Click to expand...
This is as dumb as the people who think Pearl got fired for having a cook out. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about cheating on his wife. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction. Good Lord, you're a lawyer, and normally a reasonable poster. Those are two actual crimes, on the book, and you know that.

As far as Trump goes, as I recall, he actually met the deadline for releasing the aide. Censure his ass, but not impeachable. And the second impeachment was just ridiculous. And the Russia collusion witch hunt was just as stupid as the Whitewater witch hunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#590
#590
ClearwaterVol said:
Welp, I have learned that people really will support their tribe without regard to the facts. Clinton was testifying about Whitewater and was questioned about an affair with Monica Lewinsky. I quoted Clinton's statement about the affair. It actually wasn't a lie. He didn't commit perjury. He certainly wasn't convicted, but anyone thinking that was a worthwhile endeavor and not entirely politically motivated... just like Trump's two impeachments is nothing more than a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Clinton wasn't testifying on Whitewater when he committed perjury. He was being deposed for the Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit she had filed against him. It was a relevant question given the subject matter of the case at hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#592
#592
AM64 said:
Think about it though. Every lawyer basically lies by omission in every case. They make a living presenting one side, and do their best to prevent the other side from presenting harmful testimony. It's exactly what people pay them to do - represent them by knowing the law and how to use it. Most of us (not involved in a legal proceeding) believe the goal should be to find the truth, but that's never what the judicial system has been about. It's like expecting fact checkers to find the real story rather than debunk part of something and prove it false. Or in math where a counter proof shows one concept to be false while it does not show what is correct.
Click to expand...
Lawyers aren't under oath though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#593
#593
Weezer said:
Both sides use the same tactics but only scream when it's the other side using them. Case in point, how many Dems screamed over Hillary helping to fund the Steele Dossier? I don't recall any, and I certainly don't recall any liberal posters on this board complaining. All that did is launch an unfounded Russia collusion probe. How much of that dossier was even verified? It's the same damn thing. Trump should have been censured. That made sense. Impeachment was a failed political ploy on the part of the left.
Click to expand...
Those are not the same damn things at all, as using foreign aid to an important strategic ally as leverage against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for you. I also have a problem with your characterization of the Russian probe as "unfounded".

The June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign (Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner), and agents representing the Russian government did take place. Trump Sr. and Jr. both told lies to the media regarding who was in attendance at this meeting and what its true purpose was. At first, Trump Jr. said the meeting was to discuss Russian adoptions. It later came to light that he wanted to take the meeting to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting and those lies by themselves justified a collusion probe. Why lie if there was nothing wrong with the meeting? Those lies represented a consciousness of guilt.

Also, two weeks ago, the United States Treasury Department revealed that Paul Manafort's top aide, Rick Gates, passed along sensitive campaign polling data to Russian intelligence in 2016 by way of a Manafort associate in Russia named Konstantin Kilimnik:

"During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy," the Treasury Department wrote while announcing a new batch of sanctions against both Russia and Kilimnik.

Once again, this revelation does prove that senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign and people working on behalf of Russian Intelligence, did collaborate with each other for the purpose of collecting and disseminating opposition research to be used against Hillary Clinton. Not only does that justify the probe, but had this been known during Robert Mueller's probe... I'm not so sure that his report's conclusion wouldn't have been much different - he didn't exonerate the 2016 Trump Campaign of colluding with the Russian government as it was. The report basically just said that it could not be proven at that time - but things have obviously changed.
 
Last edited:
#594
#594
BowlBrother85 said:
Those are not the same damn things at all, as using foreign aid to an important strategic ally as leverage against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for you. I also have a problem with your characterization of the Russian probe as "unfounded".

The June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign (Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner), and agents representing the Russian government did take place. Trump Sr. and Jr. both told lies to the media regarding who was in attendance at this meeting and what its true purpose was. At first, Trump Jr. said the meeting was to discuss Russian adoptions. It later came to light that he wanted to take the meeting to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting and those lies by themselves justified a collusion probe. Why lie if there was nothing wrong with the meeting? Those lies represented a consciousness of guilt.

Also, two weeks ago, the United States Treasury Department revealed that Paul Manafort's top aide, Rick Gates, passed along sensitive campaign polling data to Russian intelligence in 2016 by way of a Manafort associate in Russia named Konstantin Kilimnik:

"During the 2016 U.S. presidents election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy," the Treasury Department wrote while announcing a new batch of sanctions against both Russia and Kilimnik.

Once again, this revelation does prove that senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign and people working on behalf of Russian Intelligence, did collaborate with each other for the purpose of collecting and disseminating opposition research to be used against Hillary Clinton. Not only does the justify the probe, but had this been known during Robert Mueller's probe... I'm not so sure that his report's conclusion wouldn't have been much different - he didn't exonerate the 2016 Trump Campaign of collusion as it was. The report basically just said that it could not be proven at that time - but things have changed since.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah....

You're gonna buy the Dem party line just like Republicans buy the party line that Hunter and Joe got paid by China. Russia collusion was never proven, and the Steele Dossier that launched the investigation was mostly unverified. It's all bull ****. Both parties are slinging it, and the partisans are buying it. All over it like horse flies.


It really is a simple truth that neither Trump nor Biden should ever have been President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#595
#595
Weezer said:
Blah, blah, blah....

You're gonna buy the Dem party line just like Republicans buy the party line that Hunter and Joe got paid by China. Russia collusion was never proven, and the Steele Dossier that launched the investigation was mostly unverified. It's all bull ****. Both parties are slinging it, and the partisans are buying it. All over it like horse flies.


It really is a simple truth that neither Trump nor Biden should ever have been President.
Click to expand...
That is not the Dem party line... those are established facts. The 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was verified... and I just explained how the recent revelation by the Treasury Department proved that collusion between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian Intelligence did take place. Konstantin Kilimnik has been sanctioned for his role in this collusion.
 
#596
#596
BowlBrother85 said:
Those are not the same damn things at all, as using foreign aid to an important strategic ally as leverage against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for you. I also have a problem with your characterization of the Russian probe as "unfounded".

The June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign (Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner), and agents representing the Russian government did take place. Trump Sr. and Jr. both told lies to the media regarding who was in attendance at this meeting and what its true purpose was. At first, Trump Jr. said the meeting was to discuss Russian adoptions. It later came to light that he wanted to take the meeting to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting and those lies by themselves justified a collusion probe. Why lie if there was nothing wrong with the meeting? Those lies represented a consciousness of guilt.

Also, two weeks ago, the United States Treasury Department revealed that Paul Manafort's top aide, Rick Gates, passed along sensitive campaign polling data to Russian intelligence in 2016 by way of a Manafort associate in Russia named Konstantin Kilimnik:

"During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy," the Treasury Department wrote while announcing a new batch of sanctions against both Russia and Kilimnik.

Once again, this revelation does prove that senior members of the 2016 Trump Campaign and people working on behalf of Russian Intelligence, did collaborate with each other for the purpose of collecting and disseminating opposition research to be used against Hillary Clinton. Not only does that justify the probe, but had this been known during Robert Mueller's probe... I'm not so sure that his report's conclusion wouldn't have been much different - he didn't exonerate the 2016 Trump Campaign of colluding with the Russian government as it was. The report basically just said that it could not be proven at that time - but things have obviously changed.
Click to expand...

You do more plagiarizing.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#597
#597
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not the Dem party line... those are established facts. The 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was verified... and I just explained how the recent revelation by the Treasury Department proved that collusion between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian Intelligence did take place. Konstantin Kilimnik has been sanctioned for his role in this collusion.
Click to expand...
If the Dems came out and said "the Earth is flat", I bet you'd believe that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, hog88 and AM64
#598
#598
Weezer said:
Blah, blah, blah....

You're gonna buy the Dem party line just like Republicans buy the party line that Hunter and Joe got paid by China. Russia collusion was never proven, and the Steele Dossier that launched the investigation was mostly unverified. It's all bull ****. Both parties are slinging it, and the partisans are buying it. All over it like horse flies.


It really is a simple truth that neither Trump nor Biden should ever have been President.
Click to expand...

Trump had two good attributes that Biden doesn't. Trump was an outsider, and he didn't do what most do when they get to DC - turn into an insider overnight. The other biggie was that Trump was perfectly willing to get in the mud and wrestle with opponents - one thing that has been lacking in republican presidents for a very long time. Biden is just another insider playing the dem game - and not very convincingly or well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NCFisher, TNVOLNAVY and 1 other person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top