Michael Flynn Calls for President Trump to Declare Martial Law
Former National Security Adviser has called for President Trump to suspend the Constitution and call for limited martial law in order to re-run the election that would be overseen by the military due to the massive election fraud.
Do you agree with General Flynn?
Clearly, President Trump believes there was massive election fraud. Shouldn't he, under those circumstances, declare martial law and have the military run a new election so that we can be assured it was fair?I have watched every hearing held for the benefit of legislators in each state. Many whistleblowers have provided their testimony as well as a computer specialist giving his educated testimony on the Dominion voter system. None of this information has been reported in any depth by the media. It is more than compelling, and it is very apparent fraud took place in many forms. Was it enough to change the outcome, who knows?
I do know one thing I don't trust the system anymore. And as a citizen's I demand a voting system I can trust, and you should too...
I would hope that we could just have a good look at the whistleblower's info, and let this computer forensic specialist have an on hands audit of the Dominion systems in the states in question. He claimed he could do this pretty quickly.
This cat is out of the bag, IMO we need to have a good look at all of this. Hopefully, we would not need to nullify an election, just audit and recount carefully especially if the Dominion system, it's been claimed in minutes one can dump hundreds of thousands of votes, and very simply done.
IMO logically if it is proved that dumps were perpetrated on these voter systems we may need to toss out dumps and recount, and yes possibly have a do-over if fraud is proved due to technology.What, exactly, would have to happen for there to be a do-over, sharlee?
It is no surprise that Trump uncovered some fraud in regard to Dead voting, and some info being filled in on ballots, etc. This type of fraud, as a rule, would not change an election. However, if numbers were changes due to technology, that added numbers need to change the outcome. IMO I would like to see the number rectified or the election nullified.
Rudy G. presented a witness Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron that gave testimony in regard to the Dominion voting machines he explained how the machine is faulty and easily and quickly can change votes by hundreds of thousands. This hearing was televised in a few places online, but the media did not cover the hearing. I took the time and watched it live. Col. Waldron claimed if he had access to the Dominion machines used he could detect vote dumps.
I would think none of the states involved should have a problem with him having a look at the machines that he felt were involved in dumps.
I certainly would be disappointed to find any such massive cheating. It certainly would be embarrassing for America. However, after watching these hearings, I am convinced I want these machines inspected. Otherwise, I am left mistrusting our voting system.My understanding is that the states in question compared paper ballots with the votes cast in the machines and found that they matched. Does this not satisfy you? My understanding is that they looked for discrepancies and found nothing to warrant further investigation. Do you have additional info that they do not?
I have been trying to confirm how the recount in Georga was conducted. I would appreciate it if you post your reference that explains or proved that paper ballots were compared to votes cast in the machines. I have not been able to find anything on what they do in a recount. And yes that would satisfy me.
The only new information I have is from these legislative hearings. And, I am not sure if any of these hearings will get these machines looked at.
This Waldron guy is not a witness to anything. He presented his theory in Arizona based on an anonymous email claiming there was fraud.
This one guy with a theory garbage is ridiculous. There are people all over the country, many of them Republicans, who ran these elections and know what they're talking about, who say it was the most secure and well-run election they've ever seen. But instead, you believe the word of one guy. One guy says he can prove fraud. Another one guy says that vaccines cause autism. Some other guy says that climate change is a hoax. And people believe them. It's just sad.I never claimed he was a court witness, as I stated he was a witness in a hearing before Legistrators giving testimony on his knowledge of the Dominican voter system. I certainly did not claim he could prove anything. I did say I did in another comment here say the Trump team is asking he be given the chance to examine the machines... I also stated---
"I would think none of the states involved should have a problem with him having a look at the machines that he felt were involved in dumps."
Your clearly taking all I say out of context. This is disturbing but understandable.
I suggest you have a look at his credentials. I believe he is credible and has a good history in this very field.
My comment was simple and gave a very good understanding of my view. I would think you have no right to insult this man without listening to his testimony in full.Anyone can make a claim about anything, but if you don't have evidence, it will not be taken seriously by a court of law. This is what is happening to Trump's claims of fraud, even by Trump-appointed judges, who aren't just tossing out the cases, but also taking time to remark about how baseless they are.
What evidence is there that this guy should be given the opportunity to examine the machines?
If I accuse you of some crime, should I be able to come into your house and look around just because I say you committed a crime?My Gosh --- If one sees something or has first knowledge due to being on the spot and see the actual fraud committed. Take my word that is evidence.
I am not going into the explanation of what this computer expert said, and what he felt may have happened, and why he thought it may have happened. He testified for over an hour... And why should he not have a look at the Dominion machines he felt committed dumping? He claimed it would take him a very short time to do an exam. He could certainly one way or the other prove if the machines dumped tons of Biden votes. And end this all one way or the other.
I can see some fear surfacing? Why?
Very poor analogy, this gentleman has really proposed a solution to help answer the question of massive voter fraud quickly. It will be up to the State Legislators to make the decisions to have the systems looked at.No, it's not evidence. If you look at the cases that are being thrown out, people "seeing something" is not accepted as evidence. Use your brain. Read the reports. These so-called witnesses are saying things like "I saw a guy rip up a piece of paper" and "I saw a truck pull up in an alley".
In Arizona, they traced the claims of widespread fraud to 9 ballots that were rescanned because they couldn't be read the first time and attributed the mistake to human error, not "widespread fraud".
Read the judges opinions of these cases and then explain how you can believe there was fraud. Many of these opinions come from Republican judges.Having nearly exhausted his legal options, Trump now appears to be going the illegal route by calling Georgia's governor and demanding he overturn the election.
Those are the actions of a dictator/tyrant, not a U.S. President.
None of this has held up in court. In fact, Trump's lawyers have not asserted fraud in court. If there are all these people who witnessed fraud, then it should be presented in court. However, what's been happening is that when they get to court, they have no proof of anything or don't really know what they saw or change their story or say they didn't see it themselves but heard it from somebody else. In most cases, they don't know what they saw, like that video in Georgia of the poll worker supposedly tearing up a Trump vote, but when it was researched, it wasn't a Trump vote at all. But, of course, Trump supporters called for this poll worker to be executed and he had to go into hiding.
Presumably, since you think there was fraud, then you believe Trump should declare martial law and we should revote and have the military watch it all?
All the stuff about Dominion is disinformation spread by Trump to confuse, just like everything else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/tech … votes.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 282157002/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/ … ion-fraud/
If there's a massive pile-up on the freeway, everyone sees it. If there's a massive snowstorm, everyone knows it. If there's massive fraud, then it would be impossible to cover-up. This simple fact seems to escape the average Trump supporter. What's happening here is that Trump is just repeating the same lie despite having never provided any evidence whatsoever and his supporters believe it without any proof.
And certainly we know, if Bill Barr says he can't find any fraud, there was no fraud. Even the National Review stepped up and denied it. Now it's just the crazies going on and on about it.
Really, he should just declare martial law and make himself the winner because democracy as we know it is over."If there's massive fraud, then it would be impossible to cover-up."
You're right...unless those in power manage to make it impossible to research. Which is what we're seeing happening. But you may be right in that democracy as we know it is over - when one political party has the power to cheat and then deny any investigation it is over.
But the reverse is also true - if a party tries and fails to prevent investigation then democracy is still alive, whether that investigation shows malfeasance or not. It is our choice as people of this country; do we allow (insist) that claims be followed up on or do we allow politics to prevent it. We allowed it when Republicans were accused; will we allow it when Democrats are accused or will we fold and allow a potential huge cover up?The Republicans have been allowed to investigate, but they keep going to court with nothing and their cases are tossed. In PA, that was by a Republican, Trump appointed judge who basically called the case a joke. In other cases, they're not even claiming fraud.
In fact, I agree that Trump should pursue fraud if he believes there was fraud, as should Democrats in the same situation. But if you can't provide evidence after 30 or so court cases, you probably should stop for the good of the nation.
The fact is, there is no proof of fraud. Trump made that claim without evidence and continues to make it without evidence. But his supporters believe whatever he says.
Bill Barr has said there's no fraud. The National Review has said there's no fraud. Republican election officials have said there wasn't any fraud. What exactly will it take for Trump supporters to believe it was a fair election? I'll answer that: nothing. They will never accept it and no proof of a fair election will ever be enough because so many of them believe in Pizzagate and a child sex-ring run by Democrats despite there not being any proof of those things.
So, if the election was rigged, should Trump declare martial law? I guess he should."those in power"
Who is this exactly? The Deep State? Just more conspiracy theories.Who are the power mongers of the Democratic party and the left in general? You can start with Pelosi and work your way down, but I do assure you that there are those that are VIP's, and have the most power, in the left. You can call it a "conspiracy theory" to recognize that powerful people are doing the most running of the Democrat Party (and the Republican as well) - I see it as reality.
Do you disagree? Do you view the entire party as simple homeowners without any political power?Explain how Nancy Pelosi has any control over how voting is conducted in Georgia or Arizona or Michigan or Nevada or anywhere else. Please do some research on how voting is run.
None of these witnesses have been brought to the courts as of yet. Have you updated yourself to actual court findings? I have, and I am not willing to list all the various reasons the cases did not proceed to the witness/evidence phase. They have not reached the evidential phase in any of the cases that were thrown out. As I said I watched the hearings these were just hearings before legislators of the given states involved. I did hear the witnesses giving their sworn testimony as to what fraud they saw committed. As I said I feel they should be listening to, and this matter needs investigating.
And no I did not express the view that Trump should declare
martial law...To repeat my opinion on what perhaps could be done.
"IMO logically if it is proved that dumps were perpetrated on these voter systems we may need to toss out dumps and recount, and yes possibly have a do-over if fraud is proved due to technology."They didn't get to the evidentiary phase because there wasn't any evidence.
Well, I disagree, I have heard some of the evidence. What sad, you have not. And really don't care to hear these people.
I listened to the drunk woman Giuliani had testify in Michigan. She was his star witness. She made unsubstantiated charges of fraud. He could have picked a better witness from off the street. It was embarrassing. And Giuliani farted while he was talking, so that was humorous.
What's sad is people can no longer differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate charges.
Let me provide an example. I have evidence that the hospital you work in reported 500 deaths in the past three months. This is probably data that is publicly available. Then I make the charge that this was higher than it should have been and that you were poisoning the patients and killing them. I make this charge and then demand that the hospital show me all of their records and allow me to look at their computers. I provide expert testimony from a friend I have who is a computer expert.
Should the hospital allow me to look at all the things I ask for?
The answer is: of course not. Just as nobody should give any credence to random people Giuliani pulls off the street unless they present evidence that there was fraud because, in any large, complex system, you're going to have human error. Human error is not fraud and using small sampling to suggest fraud when all it may explain is human error is not evidence.
The drunk woman claimed thousands of dead people voted and huge voting irregularities. Well, that should be very easy to prove. In the cases I'm familiar with regarding dead voters, they've found the people who voted. If this evidence exists, here's what you do: you provide a list of dead people, their death certificates, and then show that they voted in the election. This has not been done and likely won't be done because it's an unsubstantiated claim.
What we do know is that by claiming this fraud, Donald Trump has raised around $500 million dollars and moved it into a PAC so that he can potentially use it for other purposes. We know this because these are public filings.
Have you donated to Trump's voting fraud defense fund? Perhaps you should. You can pay off his debts. And did you contribute to Steve Bannon's wall-building fund? Bannon is charged with fraud on that one. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but is interesting. These appear to be excellent money-generating exercises.
I would assume you are leaning toward supporting Trump declaring martial law. If there was massive fraud and the election was stolen, shouldn't he?"Have you donated to Trump's voting fraud defense fund? Perhaps you should. You can pay off his debts."
Seems odd that you assume the defense fund will be used for private debts solely because it is possible. But when shown possible voter fraud it is assumed that it didn't happen, with one method of denying it to claim the eyewitness was drunk. Looks an awful lot like bias in operation to me.The money is not going to any defense fund. It's going to a PAC.
"What's sad is people can no longer differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate charges." Agree, however, this has been a real habit of some over the past four years.
"Let me provide an example. I have evidence that the hospital you work in reported 500 deaths in the past three months. This is probably data that is publicly available."
What if there was evidence some of the PTs that died, seem to die anywhere from twice to 10 times? And some bodies were just ignored not counted in the monthly stats?
" Then I make the charge that this was higher than it should have been and that you were poisoning the patients and killing them."
You are out and out calling over 250 people liars... What kind of mindset gives you the right to call these people liars? They are willing to stand up under oath and give supply to the state legislators as well as a judge if necessary. You watched one distraught woman who has experienced threats to herself and her family for stepping up. You saw the very one that the media wanted you to see, you ate it up as they hoped you would.
Need I repeat for the third time I am not in favor of Trump declaring martial law.
I am very much in favor of this entire mess being moved to the Supreme court, and every complaint looked at, people that committed fraud arrested, and charged for their efforts to commit voter fraud. I do not as it would appear you do want to sweep this crap under a carpet. I want total justice, tired of watching people break laws, and not be punished.
40,000 people voted in two states... Thousands of people double voted, these allegations have been proved. These are real people that chose to break the law!
Did you contribute to Biden's campaign? Do you know where most of his donations came from? This should be a more important subject than who I may have contributed to. Big business, wall street, and pharma own good old Joe...Something on the order of 38 cases have been dismissed because they don't have any evidence. Somebody saying they saw something is not evidence and has been proved wrong over and over again. Somebody saw a truck do this. Somebody saw a poll worker tear up a piece of paper. This is not evidence.
At what point will you be satisfied that this is not evidence? How many court cases does Trump have to lose? Is 38 enough? How about 100? How many Republican-appointed judges have to say their filings are ridiculous?
There is no crap to sweep under a carpet.
How about all those people who died in the hospital where you work? How do I know you didn't kill them? Can you prove it? An allegation is not proof and is not evidence. Somebody saying "dead people voted" is not evidence. You have thousands of Republican and Democratic poll workers across the country who have said over and over again that the election was fair. It's been a completely bipartisan response. But it's still not good enough. No, the conspiracy theories are to be believed.
Nobody has proved that any double-voted. That is completely made up. Who double-voted? Who broke the law? What real people? It's completely fabricated.
Again, you make this stuff up with no evidence. I sincerely hope this sort of thing isn't done to you, otherwise you may find yourself in jail for murdering patients in a hospital.
I mean, Jesus, if Bill Barr comes out and says he hasn't seen any evidence, that's about as clear as you can get. There's no bigger stooge for Trump than Bill Barr, but apparently there's a line even he won't cross.AS I said you need to acquaint yourself with the actual multiple court decisions. I am not about to list some 20 cases of final outcomes, and what the judge's final decisions were based on. None were due to a lack of evidence or that the evidence was not factual... You have picked up and run with media blurbs. Read just a few of the cases that were not heard, and you will see your statement is just not true of these lawsuits. His cases were not heard but found in many cases moot, and just not heard.
The Barr statement was reported out of context and quickly corrected by the DOJ.. Guess you did not see the statement giving an explanation to the media's dishonesty, and what the DOJ was continuing to do in regards to voter fraud.
"Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated," a DOJ spokesperson said. "The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- … p-n1249581
For example yesterday Trump presented a case to Wisconsin's Supreme Court. The case was declined a panel of judges decided that the case needed to be heard first in Circuit court. Actually, it was thought that the evidence was compelling.
"The court’s three liberal-backed justices didn’t include any written explanation of their decision to deny review of the case; however, Hagedorn did, writing that the court would do well to follow the state law that directs circuit courts to be the first to hear election challenges.
"Judge Hagedorn wrote. “It is following the law. We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high-profile cases. Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law.”
Hagedorn said "Trump’s court filings are heavy on fact-based allegations, something that circuit courts — not the Wisconsin Supreme Court — are designed to adjudicate. Once the facts are litigated in a lower court, the Supreme Court could step in to determine questions of law."
As you see the evidence was referred to as Fact-based...
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4164965
Each and every case has a court ruling. I did the research, just not willing to put in the time listing them. I look deeper, you prefer your news in bits and pieces. It would do no further good to continue this conversation. You are just not willing to look for facts or believe them when presented.
Time to agree to disagree.Oh no.
Another "not due a lack of evidence" court decision.
Russell said he would not make a decision on the case until he saw all the evidence, but after reviewing it, he said in his decision, “Based on this testimony, the Court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud."I'll reprint this for you Sharlee again. Here were the decisions on some cases just yesterday. They're not just being dismissed, but being dismissed with prejudice:
The string of losses, coming practically on top of one another, was the latest rebuke to the president, who has continued to make baseless claims that widespread fraud tainted the counting of votes across the country. In each of the failed lawsuits or petitions, Mr. Trump or his allies had sought to invalidate the certification of a statewide election but judges — some of them conservatives — held the line and often offered striking repudiations of the claims.
“Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election,” wrote Judge Brian Hagedorn in his decision for the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejecting a plea to toss election results in the state. “This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
Mr. Trump’s first defeat came around 4:30 p.m. when the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a Republican-led petition to stop certification of the state’s voting results because of what the plaintiffs said were improprieties with how elections officials handled absentee ballots. Minnesota certified its vote results on Nov. 24 and the state’s top court ruled that the effort to derail the process was untimely not only because the petition was filed just hours before certification occurred, but also because the state had set rules for handling absentee ballots more than two months earlier.
Then, a little after 5 p.m. on Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by Mr. Trump to appeal a loss last month in a lower court that had denied his effort to halt the certification of the vote in Wayne County, home to Detroit, after he questioned the validity of absentee ballots there, too. Michigan certified its statewide results on Nov. 23, which rendered Mr. Trump’s attempt to derail the process moot.
Within minutes, a state judge in Nevada dismissed a lawsuit filed in Carson City last month by several Republican presidential elector candidates who claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state and sought a court order to nullify the victory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the state and declare Mr. Trump to be the winner.
But after considering depositions from several witnesses, Judge James T. Russell rejected these arguments, writing in an order that he found “no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 general election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”
Not long after 6 p.m., the Wisconsin Supreme Court gave Republicans their fourth defeat of the evening. In a scathing order, written by Judge Hagedorn, the court dismissed an attempt by a conservative group, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, to overturn the state’s certified election results and have Wisconsin’s presidential elections be chosen by the state legislature instead.
“Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history,” Judge Hagedorn wrote for the court.
“One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes,” he added. “Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.”
In another setback, a little after 7 p.m., a judge in Phoenix denied a request by Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party, to invalidate the results of that state’s election.
Ms. Ward had claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state. But after a two-day hearing earlier this week Judge Randall H. Warner disagreed, writing in an order, “The court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election.”
"How many court cases does Trump have to lose? Is 38 enough?"
Still trying to put across that TRUMP (or his legal team) has filed 38 cases, are you? You have to know better, which means you keep repeating it for some other reason than to indicate Trump (and his legal team) are losing their battle. What is it, if you don't mind my asking?
"I mean, Jesus, if Bill Barr comes out and says he hasn't seen any evidence..."
Again, if you read Barr's statement, he hasn't seen any evidence of a federal crime, and isn't interested (or has the authority) to consider state voting laws. This, too, I suspect you know, so why repeat it as if it means something? If you don't mind my asking.Friday, December 4, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Legislative Leaders call for audit of Maricopa
County election software and equipment
https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/54LEG … NAUDIT.pdf
This should be interesting ...Actually, the total losses are up to near 50. This is from yesterday:
The string of losses, coming practically on top of one another, was the latest rebuke to the president, who has continued to make baseless claims that widespread fraud tainted the counting of votes across the country. In each of the failed lawsuits or petitions, Mr. Trump or his allies had sought to invalidate the certification of a statewide election but judges — some of them conservatives — held the line and often offered striking repudiations of the claims.
“Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election,” wrote Judge Brian Hagedorn in his decision for the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejecting a plea to toss election results in the state. “This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
Mr. Trump’s first defeat came around 4:30 p.m. when the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a Republican-led petition to stop certification of the state’s voting results because of what the plaintiffs said were improprieties with how elections officials handled absentee ballots. Minnesota certified its vote results on Nov. 24 and the state’s top court ruled that the effort to derail the process was untimely not only because the petition was filed just hours before certification occurred, but also because the state had set rules for handling absentee ballots more than two months earlier.
Then, a little after 5 p.m. on Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by Mr. Trump to appeal a loss last month in a lower court that had denied his effort to halt the certification of the vote in Wayne County, home to Detroit, after he questioned the validity of absentee ballots there, too. Michigan certified its statewide results on Nov. 23, which rendered Mr. Trump’s attempt to derail the process moot.
Within minutes, a state judge in Nevada dismissed a lawsuit filed in Carson City last month by several Republican presidential elector candidates who claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state and sought a court order to nullify the victory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the state and declare Mr. Trump to be the winner.
But after considering depositions from several witnesses, Judge James T. Russell rejected these arguments, writing in an order that he found “no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 general election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”
Not long after 6 p.m., the Wisconsin Supreme Court gave Republicans their fourth defeat of the evening. In a scathing order, written by Judge Hagedorn, the court dismissed an attempt by a conservative group, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, to overturn the state’s certified election results and have Wisconsin’s presidential elections be chosen by the state legislature instead.
“Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history,” Judge Hagedorn wrote for the court.
“One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes,” he added. “Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.”
In another setback, a little after 7 p.m., a judge in Phoenix denied a request by Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party, to invalidate the results of that state’s election.
Ms. Ward had claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state. But after a two-day hearing earlier this week Judge Randall H. Warner disagreed, writing in an order, “The court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election.”
If you read that and still believe that there was fraud, then you are insane.Here's a court tracker for you:
https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-541 … 18a2527931
Here's the AP article stating the 50 cases item:
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … 4deb7de15e
Here's Time's account:
https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/
Here's a more recent article on ABC:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/electio … d=74041748The first link offers only an opportunity to subscribe to a "news" source. Nothing about Trump's lawsuits.
The closest thing the second link gives is that Powell, kicked off the Trump legal team, has since filed lawsuits. It also (and I quote) says "In an Associated Press tally of roughly 50 cases brought by Trump’s campaign and his allies"
The third gives some examples from a vague "Trump campaign" of lawsuits. No indication of who actually filed them.
Same for the fourth; just references to the "Trump campaign" filing suits. No names, no accusers, nothing but the "Trump campaign", which could be any of 10,000 people, not a one of which is a part of his legal team addressing the alleged problem.
It seems that anyone filing a lawsuit over the election has suddenly been declared either a part of the Trump Campaign or an ally of Trump. This gives rise to 38 (or 50) lawsuits from the Trump campaign or his allies, but says nothing about what his legal team has filed.
So I repeat: where is the evidence that Trump, or his legal team, has filed 38 lawsuits? I'd even go so far as to include his family in that...but not thousands of unnamed people trying to keep him in office or simply seeing election fraud themselves and wanting it checked out.It's kind of scary that people arbitrarily assume if someone wants election integrity they are automatically working for Trump.
What does that mean? If you accept fraud you are automatically working for Biden?Well, that line of reasoning would seem to imply that...
That first link worked for me, but when I went to it again, I got what you got. Interesting.
LtoL - your comments don't make sense. The fraud is being perpetrated by Trump and his allies, but somehow you've twisted it to claim that Biden committed the fraud? Where's your evidence? Unlike you I can back up my claims of "no fraud" with evidence - the court cases and the rulings. The point of the links is that whether it's Trump's actually legal team, his affiliates, his supporters, or whatever, they haven't remotely proved fraud. In fact, they've so far proved the opposite, that the election was fair and well-run.
When you see "Stop the Steal", that should really be the Democrats slogan. So interesting that, at least it seems to me, that the Republicans perpetrate something like stealing the election and then claim that somebody else is stealing the election to cover up their own malfeasance.
Here are more links about Trump's failed court cases:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election … story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ … 425725002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 259980002/
https://theconversation.com/why-trumps- … lts-150505
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/p … suits.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-crie … 1605271267
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/11/21/d … -giuliani/
In fact, I can't find a single, reputable source that supports Trump's claims of voter fraud. All I've seen so far are his supporters parroting what he says without evidence. Or, if there's evidence, it's some drunk woman who claims to have seen something or something similar like that.
This link from Nov. 23 refers to cases filed by "Trump and other Republicans". Would it be more accurate and satisfying for you for people to refer to the almost 50 cases now filed by "Trump and other Republicans?" How about just "Republicans?" I can use whatever semantics you like to refer to the continued failures.
Trump is well within his rights to pursue his cases in court, but at what point should he stop? At what point should he accept the outcome if he can't prove his case? At what point will you believe the judges about lack of evidence? It's pretty overwhelming at this point that there wasn't any fraud.
And Wilderness, what difference does it make who filed the cases. The cases are filed on behalf of Trump. Are you wanting to differentiate between those filed by Giuliani and those filed by Trump supporters or those filed on behalf of Trump's concerns? You seem to be applying some very specific set of definitions to the almost 50 cases now that have failed.
But, you know, Benghazi!And let's remember the original question.
Both of you seem to believe there was fraud. Doesn't that justify a declaration of martial law? Trump should just invalidate the whole election under these circumstances.
Friday, December 4, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Legislative Leaders call for audit of Maricopa
County election software and equipment
https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/54LEG … NAUDIT.pdf
It will be interesting to see the outcome. These legislative hearings may prove to be very fruitful. Rudy is skirting his way around the courts to make an attempt to prove the fraud claims So pleased to see these machines will be investigated. It will put my mind to rest to know one way or the other if they were used to change the election outcome.
There has been election fraud for many years. I cannot imagine Trump attempting to call for martial law, in order to rerun the elections and I can't imagine a scenario where I'd support such.
But I do hope the lawsuits continue. We need the problems cleaned up once and for all. If we left it to the democrats, as long as they win they could care less how devious the outcome was gained.What's your evidence of election fraud? The cases I know about are on a very small scale and sometimes tip local elections.
In terms of national elections, the most notorious case of fraud occurred in 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon and, I believe, Mayor Daley in Chicago was accused of some shenanigans that benefitted Kennedy.
I think everybody is entitled to his opinion. Micheal Flynn is also entitled to his say but my point is can Trump order martial law? To order martial law there must be good reasons for it and the fraud that is alleged is too small to warrant imposing martial law. I wonder whether the military will accept this order if given.
Truth must prevail. Even if there is a whiff of fraud it must be investigated. Nobody should hide behind the margin of victory.
There is no whiff of fraud. First, there must be evidence, not baseless accusation. Just because somebody screams fraud doesn't mean there's fraud. That's what the courts are for. Furthermore, human error is not fraud. Massive fraud is something that requires evidence.
We have gone back and forth on this subject. I located a video of the hearing that was held in Maricopa County Arizona. If you are interested in the evidence please listen to Col Waldron a computer crime technician. I think you will understand why he hopes to be able to have the Dominion machine in this county audit by him and any other person that the state wants to accompany him for the audit.
This man has a wonderful Bio in his field and presented himself as a very well educated consultant, well associated with the Dominion system.
I would think it prudent the Legisslaters ask the Sec of State to let this man have a long look at these machines. If they have nothing to hide...
I suggest you watch this testimony in full to be educated on his testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXyOtzADUCU
Has anybody thought of the reaction of the military and the chiefs of staff? There is a good chance that if an order is given to the military why Trump that they may not be in the interest of democracy. You can't have an election supervised by the military under martial law I am not aware if there any provisions of the US Constitution which allow for the imposition of martial law.
Related Discussions
- 314
Trump indicted by grand jury for Jan. 6, effort to overturn election
by Mike Russo 14 months ago
The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against...
- 15
Can President Obama declare martial law is Trump wins.
by Norma Lawrence 8 years ago
Can President Obama declare martial law is Trump wins.There is a lot of talk where I live that if Trump is elected President or if it looks like he might be President Obama will declare martial law to stop it. Can he do this?
- 73
Should President Trump Invoke The Insurrection Act?
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
MAGA nation along with people like Michael Flynn are calling on President Trump to invoke The Insurrection Act to overturn the election and keep Trump in power.This would allow President Trump to use the military to keep Biden from becoming President and to put down and resulting protests.Do you...
- 29
When are Trump Supporters Going to Realize They've Been Conned?
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
It's no fun when somebody takes advantage of you. It's exceedingly hard to admit when somebody has sold you something that turns out not to work. It's also hard to admit when somebody tells you something, insisting it's true, and it turns out to be totally false.There are literally millions of...
- 206
Fraud Committed During 2020 Election Will Be Uncovered
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I said it before and I'll say it again. The intense fraud committed by the Democrats during the 2020 election will be revealed This isn't going away. It's too late to change the outcomes of the election, but it is a good time to reveal the total and complete disregard for the rule...
- 94
My advice for President Trump...
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
In light of recent events, here is my advice for President Trump moving forward.1. Focus like a laser beam on the economy.2. Start building the wall.3. Reframe from tweets and attacking the media.4. Act Presidential in all foreign affairs.5. Speak directly to the American people like Reagan did and...