If its all untrue and just lies then it should be very easy to disprove, like as in actual data, show the numbers and the ballots. Attacking the character of a witness instead of disproving them with actual evidence does not look very good.
+1
-7
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
listen you cry baby, pick a lane, you're either innocent until proven guilty or guilty till proven innocent. you could be a pedo, proove to me your not
+1
+5
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence (or at least sufficient pointers) supporting their claims, not on everybody else to disprove their claims.
Up to now there has been provided nothing that would make a court case, the drunk (hopefully) chick from the 2nd video included.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Nothing to make a court case? What? Most court cases involve an allegation you committed a crime, evidence comes later at trial. There are PLENTY of allegations of crimes going on here. As for providing evidence, it is the government being accused of wrong doing, this is not a single person or entity being accused of a crime, so fuck off with you arm chair lawyer courtroom bs. There are claims, allegations, that the government and its actors were not following proper procedures and that there was possible criminal activity going on, it is on the DOJ to perform an investigations based on these allegations. If the governmental body wishes to refute these claims then they can do so, very easily, by providing the ballots to be inspected and/or show the data! You two dummies are trying to stich together random bits of the justice system and making statements out of context on how things are done. I've explained this many many times to you two dummies but you either chose to ignore what I say or are just too fucking dumb to comprehend!
There is no system in place or any entity set up to handle governmental fraud on this scale. Most governmental agencies are there to protect ONLY the government and the DOJ, again, protects the government. So, who watches over the watchers? No one! That's why I think nothing is going to be done and nothing will be done.
+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
boldfart (Long Spike)
https://youtu.be/mODvEcX3KmQ
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood (Long Spike)
who watches the watchers that watch the watchers?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
A few years ago there was a state Attorney General that violated an open records law that he himself wrote into law when he was a legislator. I called the US AG and asked them what to do and they said it is up to the voters and there is nothing they or anyone else can do about it(If the Governor did not want to fire him). Not only that but it is a misdemeanor to fail to perform your duties as a governmental agent. Most states if not all at this point has done away with private prosecution powers. If someone commits a crime against me the only recourse you or I have is to sue in civil court, if the state does not wish to prosecute. So if it is the state that commits the crime and are unwilling to do anything about it, then nothing gets done about it, just like what we are witnessing here.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood (Long Spike)
if they get watchers that watch the watchers and the vote still doesn't come out you're way, do we then hire watchers to watch the watchers that watch the watchers?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
oh boy, like every other comparable court case they went before several judges, the judges heard their cases, looked at the "evidence" and told them where to go.
Oh, but I forgot, it's a C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, trump is
+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Most if not all of these cases were dismissed BEFORE evidence was shown. Come on, keep up!
+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
boldfart (Long Spike)
Why did the trumptards not show the evidence?
Would that be because they had just invented it?
+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Because it doesnt work that way! Evidence is for trials. All criminal court cases, and probably civil court cases as well, START with an affidavit alleging you committed a crime or that you were harmed. Then you file a complaint if it is crinal or a case if it is civil. Depending on the state and the laws, you might get a preliminarily hearing where the judge has to hear some evidence that you may have committed the crime, or, they will simply set a trial date, then you file motions and work things out, possibly regarding evidence, THEN a jury hears ALL the evidence and arguments and decide the case. In civil it is different, you make the claim you were harmed, make the argument you have standing in the case, you have an outcome the court can remedy to you, and that the court has jurisdiction over the case. THEN you battle for evidence where you can ask for discovery from the other party and they have to provide that information or evidence to you. Many motions later, months to years later, you get to a trial where the judge or a jury hears all the evidence and arguments.
Most of these cases were dismissed right at the start for various reasons, filed to late, filed too soon, no stnading, no remedy, etc... I dont think any were dismissed due to lack of evidence because none got that far. Most civil claims you just have to show you were harmed and who did it, evidence they did it comes later, evidence of how they did it may not ever come and most of the time is not nessacary. Criminal is way different then Civil cases.
Also, you never, EVER, show the other party all your evidence BEFORE you have to, depending on the rules of evidence and disclosure of the states and the laws that dictate when you must. If you are playing poker would you show your hand BEFORE placing a bet? NO!
+1
-4
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I wonder what that half-asian Crowder lawyer guy thinks of this outrage:
Comments
(Long Spike)
Most amusing except for the raceism.
(sounds retarded)
If its all untrue and just lies then it should be very easy to disprove, like as in actual data, show the numbers and the ballots. Attacking the character of a witness instead of disproving them with actual evidence does not look very good.
(Long Spike)
listen you cry baby, pick a lane, you're either innocent until proven guilty or guilty till proven innocent. you could be a pedo, proove to me your not
(Old Spike)
The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence (or at least sufficient pointers) supporting their claims, not on everybody else to disprove their claims.
Up to now there has been provided nothing that would make a court case, the drunk (hopefully) chick from the 2nd video included.
(sounds retarded)
Nothing to make a court case? What? Most court cases involve an allegation you committed a crime, evidence comes later at trial. There are PLENTY of allegations of crimes going on here. As for providing evidence, it is the government being accused of wrong doing, this is not a single person or entity being accused of a crime, so fuck off with you arm chair lawyer courtroom bs. There are claims, allegations, that the government and its actors were not following proper procedures and that there was possible criminal activity going on, it is on the DOJ to perform an investigations based on these allegations. If the governmental body wishes to refute these claims then they can do so, very easily, by providing the ballots to be inspected and/or show the data! You two dummies are trying to stich together random bits of the justice system and making statements out of context on how things are done. I've explained this many many times to you two dummies but you either chose to ignore what I say or are just too fucking dumb to comprehend!
There is no system in place or any entity set up to handle governmental fraud on this scale. Most governmental agencies are there to protect ONLY the government and the DOJ, again, protects the government. So, who watches over the watchers? No one! That's why I think nothing is going to be done and nothing will be done.
(Long Spike)
https://youtu.be/mODvEcX3KmQ
(Long Spike)
who watches the watchers that watch the watchers?
(sounds retarded)
A few years ago there was a state Attorney General that violated an open records law that he himself wrote into law when he was a legislator. I called the US AG and asked them what to do and they said it is up to the voters and there is nothing they or anyone else can do about it(If the Governor did not want to fire him). Not only that but it is a misdemeanor to fail to perform your duties as a governmental agent. Most states if not all at this point has done away with private prosecution powers. If someone commits a crime against me the only recourse you or I have is to sue in civil court, if the state does not wish to prosecute. So if it is the state that commits the crime and are unwilling to do anything about it, then nothing gets done about it, just like what we are witnessing here.
(Long Spike)
if they get watchers that watch the watchers and the vote still doesn't come out you're way, do we then hire watchers to watch the watchers that watch the watchers?
(Old Spike)
oh boy, like every other comparable court case they went before several judges, the judges heard their cases, looked at the "evidence" and told them where to go.
Oh, but I forgot, it's a C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, trump is
(sounds retarded)
Most if not all of these cases were dismissed BEFORE evidence was shown. Come on, keep up!
(Long Spike)
Why did the trumptards not show the evidence?
Would that be because they had just invented it?
(sounds retarded)
Because it doesnt work that way! Evidence is for trials. All criminal court cases, and probably civil court cases as well, START with an affidavit alleging you committed a crime or that you were harmed. Then you file a complaint if it is crinal or a case if it is civil. Depending on the state and the laws, you might get a preliminarily hearing where the judge has to hear some evidence that you may have committed the crime, or, they will simply set a trial date, then you file motions and work things out, possibly regarding evidence, THEN a jury hears ALL the evidence and arguments and decide the case. In civil it is different, you make the claim you were harmed, make the argument you have standing in the case, you have an outcome the court can remedy to you, and that the court has jurisdiction over the case. THEN you battle for evidence where you can ask for discovery from the other party and they have to provide that information or evidence to you. Many motions later, months to years later, you get to a trial where the judge or a jury hears all the evidence and arguments.
Most of these cases were dismissed right at the start for various reasons, filed to late, filed too soon, no stnading, no remedy, etc... I dont think any were dismissed due to lack of evidence because none got that far. Most civil claims you just have to show you were harmed and who did it, evidence they did it comes later, evidence of how they did it may not ever come and most of the time is not nessacary. Criminal is way different then Civil cases.
Also, you never, EVER, show the other party all your evidence BEFORE you have to, depending on the rules of evidence and disclosure of the states and the laws that dictate when you must. If you are playing poker would you show your hand BEFORE placing a bet? NO!
(Old Spike)
I wonder what that half-asian Crowder lawyer guy thinks of this outrage: