The enlightened ones: Where's the fact checker? Was he under oath? I thought election fraud was debooonked!? Why isnt YT deleting this video gawwwd! Im gonna downvote this video in oblivian. Biden has won the office of the president elect, get over it! Im gonna go back to burying my head in the sand because this video hurts my feelings!
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood (Long Spike)
he signed an affidavit saying the machines were connected to the internet. judge was like "no evidence" to support that claim. why isn't he going to jail? dude ran for re-election and only got 13% of the vote, thats got to hurt
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Can you post some links or tell me which lawsuit this happened on. I have no problem with taking the time to read the motions and findings but I dont feel like taking the time to search for it since you seem to have that knowledge anyway. Its a fucking needle in a haystack at this point!
One problem I have with this is that the court is being tasked with the job of being an investigator in a "he said she said" shit show. That is not the job of the courts. An allegation is brought forth, law enforcement investigates, prosecutors file the charges, defendant and plaintiff duke it out and the court/judge is the referee, then a jury decides whose facts or stories are to be believed.
The judge here slams the affiants with being "speculative" and biased when she herself is being speculative and biased when she herself makes the very same claim against the affiants! LOL. This is why judges are supposed to be the unaffiliated party acting as the referee. Im not saying she is wrong, but that it was wrong to put her in that position to begin with. What a shitshow!
Again, in regards to her assessment of the credibility of Mr. Colbecks affidavit she points to his facebook postings prior to the election as if she knows for a fact what his motives and intentions are and dismisses him entirely. A hell of a lot more then what she stated is needed to impeach a fucking witness! Which is what she did. In her entire paragraph summary of Mr.Colbecks claims she basically said it was "he said, she said" and she will side with the government, who ever the fuck David Nathan is(I looked a few times and cannot find were else he is mentioned). This is the type of BS crap the "fact checkers" use, The claim was that computers were connected to the internet, so instead of addressing that claim they simple make it about something else to claim it was false, "only the essential tables had connectivity" but not the workers. WTF? So you admit the computers were connected but claim its false because it was not connected for the workers? The only claim she said was not supported in Mr. Colbecks affidavit was that there was no wifi! But ignores the fact that there was a connection for the "essentail tables" whatever the fuck that means.
Just read the part about Ms. Carone. Imagine if you see a bank robbery and call the police and they say "well, we dont see any other reports of a bank robbery in your area so we dont believe you!" WTF?
A judge should not be put in that position to investigate a "he said she said" scenario but it is what it is. Unless you ask for a bench trial or in this case an injunctive relief, in which case you get this! But dont be foolish in thinking that a judge can remain impartial to a party that also receives their paychecks from the same employer!
I did not read it as "judge was like "no evidence" to support that claim" the machines were connected to the internet, she said there was no evidence to support the claim there was wifi "for the workers", and that his claim of the machines was proven (that there was a connection for the "essentail tables") but denied at the same time in a "he said she said" round about way. This is "fact checking" fuckery at its best! Open ended to leave it to the subjective interpretations of the reader.
+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
"Patrick Colbeck's affidavit centered around concern about whether any of the computers at the absent voter counting board were connected to the internet. The answer given by a David Nathan indicated the computers were not connected to the internet. Mr. Colbeck implies that there was internet connectivity because of an icon that appeared on one of the computers. Christopher Thomas indicated computers were not connected for workers, only the essential tables had computer connectivity. Mr Colbeck, in his affidavit, speculates that there was in fact Wi-Fi connectin for workers use at the TCF Center. No evidence supports Mr. Colbeck's position."
i know it doesn't apply to this but i'm guessing at some point, what people do, how they act, what they say becomes something like fruit of the poisonous tree
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
The problem is there is no mechanism in place to investigate the government. Government protects government, you will not find people in the government willing to rock the boat and look into wrong doing of other government workers! You find this at all levels of government, what do you think happens when someone files a police complaint? The police themselves "investigate" it and do their best to cover for their buddies. Even when the FBI "investigates" the police they usually are looking for ways to limit the liability of the government and they "hold on to" evidence right up unitl the statute of limitations expires and the person who was wronged cannot sue any longer. When someone does get fired it is usually because THEY rocked the boat or otherwise pissed off the wrong people. Ever hear of a prosecutor getting fired? Or a judge? They give themselves immunity! What recourse is there to fire an elected official? Impeachment or resignation. Very rarely do you hear of them actually being charged or held liable. What happened to those Senators or Congress members that got insider information that things were going into lockdown and they sold off their stocks? Nothing! How about all the democraps violating their own rules of lockdown? Nothing! The corporate world is the same, you hardly ever hear of CEO's being charged criminally for their companies illegal activates. What happened to Hunter Biden? Nothing! What happened to those that fabricated the Russiagate crap within the FBI? Nothing!
Rules for thee but not for me! They are the ruling class, they are above the law!
Did you know that the government argued for and won protections from liability from being mandated to protect YOU by the police. There have been quite a few cases were police failed to act to protect citizens from being harmed when the police were standing there watching the murder happen and did nothing about it. The government argued and the courts agreed that the government has no obligation to protect any single individual but they only have an obligation to the citizenry as a whole. This happened: A cop can stand there and watch you get murdered, do nothing to help you or stop the crime, and they are completely free from liability! But yet you will be charged in most states if you carry a gun and/or try to defend yourself (duty to retreat laws).
Comments
(sounds retarded)
The enlightened ones: Where's the fact checker? Was he under oath? I thought election fraud was debooonked!? Why isnt YT deleting this video gawwwd! Im gonna downvote this video in oblivian. Biden has won the office of the president elect, get over it! Im gonna go back to burying my head in the sand because this video hurts my feelings!
(Long Spike)
he signed an affidavit saying the machines were connected to the internet. judge was like "no evidence" to support that claim. why isn't he going to jail? dude ran for re-election and only got 13% of the vote, thats got to hurt
(sounds retarded)
Can you post some links or tell me which lawsuit this happened on. I have no problem with taking the time to read the motions and findings but I dont feel like taking the time to search for it since you seem to have that knowledge anyway. Its a fucking needle in a haystack at this point!
(Long Spike)
his name is patrick colbeck
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf
(sounds retarded)
Thank you for the link!
One problem I have with this is that the court is being tasked with the job of being an investigator in a "he said she said" shit show. That is not the job of the courts. An allegation is brought forth, law enforcement investigates, prosecutors file the charges, defendant and plaintiff duke it out and the court/judge is the referee, then a jury decides whose facts or stories are to be believed.
The judge here slams the affiants with being "speculative" and biased when she herself is being speculative and biased when she herself makes the very same claim against the affiants! LOL. This is why judges are supposed to be the unaffiliated party acting as the referee. Im not saying she is wrong, but that it was wrong to put her in that position to begin with. What a shitshow!
Again, in regards to her assessment of the credibility of Mr. Colbecks affidavit she points to his facebook postings prior to the election as if she knows for a fact what his motives and intentions are and dismisses him entirely. A hell of a lot more then what she stated is needed to impeach a fucking witness! Which is what she did. In her entire paragraph summary of Mr.Colbecks claims she basically said it was "he said, she said" and she will side with the government, who ever the fuck David Nathan is(I looked a few times and cannot find were else he is mentioned). This is the type of BS crap the "fact checkers" use, The claim was that computers were connected to the internet, so instead of addressing that claim they simple make it about something else to claim it was false, "only the essential tables had connectivity" but not the workers. WTF? So you admit the computers were connected but claim its false because it was not connected for the workers? The only claim she said was not supported in Mr. Colbecks affidavit was that there was no wifi! But ignores the fact that there was a connection for the "essentail tables" whatever the fuck that means.
Just read the part about Ms. Carone. Imagine if you see a bank robbery and call the police and they say "well, we dont see any other reports of a bank robbery in your area so we dont believe you!" WTF?
A judge should not be put in that position to investigate a "he said she said" scenario but it is what it is. Unless you ask for a bench trial or in this case an injunctive relief, in which case you get this! But dont be foolish in thinking that a judge can remain impartial to a party that also receives their paychecks from the same employer!
I did not read it as "judge was like "no evidence" to support that claim" the machines were connected to the internet, she said there was no evidence to support the claim there was wifi "for the workers", and that his claim of the machines was proven (that there was a connection for the "essentail tables") but denied at the same time in a "he said she said" round about way. This is "fact checking" fuckery at its best! Open ended to leave it to the subjective interpretations of the reader.
(Long Spike)
"Patrick Colbeck's affidavit centered around concern about whether any of the computers at the absent voter counting board were connected to the internet. The answer given by a David Nathan indicated the computers were not connected to the internet. Mr. Colbeck implies that there was internet connectivity because of an icon that appeared on one of the computers. Christopher Thomas indicated computers were not connected for workers, only the essential tables had computer connectivity. Mr Colbeck, in his affidavit, speculates that there was in fact Wi-Fi connectin for workers use at the TCF Center. No evidence supports Mr. Colbeck's position."
i know it doesn't apply to this but i'm guessing at some point, what people do, how they act, what they say becomes something like fruit of the poisonous tree
(sounds retarded)
The problem is there is no mechanism in place to investigate the government. Government protects government, you will not find people in the government willing to rock the boat and look into wrong doing of other government workers! You find this at all levels of government, what do you think happens when someone files a police complaint? The police themselves "investigate" it and do their best to cover for their buddies. Even when the FBI "investigates" the police they usually are looking for ways to limit the liability of the government and they "hold on to" evidence right up unitl the statute of limitations expires and the person who was wronged cannot sue any longer. When someone does get fired it is usually because THEY rocked the boat or otherwise pissed off the wrong people. Ever hear of a prosecutor getting fired? Or a judge? They give themselves immunity! What recourse is there to fire an elected official? Impeachment or resignation. Very rarely do you hear of them actually being charged or held liable. What happened to those Senators or Congress members that got insider information that things were going into lockdown and they sold off their stocks? Nothing! How about all the democraps violating their own rules of lockdown? Nothing! The corporate world is the same, you hardly ever hear of CEO's being charged criminally for their companies illegal activates. What happened to Hunter Biden? Nothing! What happened to those that fabricated the Russiagate crap within the FBI? Nothing!
Rules for thee but not for me! They are the ruling class, they are above the law!
Did you know that the government argued for and won protections from liability from being mandated to protect YOU by the police. There have been quite a few cases were police failed to act to protect citizens from being harmed when the police were standing there watching the murder happen and did nothing about it. The government argued and the courts agreed that the government has no obligation to protect any single individual but they only have an obligation to the citizenry as a whole. This happened: A cop can stand there and watch you get murdered, do nothing to help you or stop the crime, and they are completely free from liability! But yet you will be charged in most states if you carry a gun and/or try to defend yourself (duty to retreat laws).