And still, they have an audit going on that the democrat party is trying to stop. And why is that? Why are they trying to stop it if they have nothing to hide?


Not a single court decision has had a hearing yet. They haven’t heard from a single witness. They haven’t looked at a single tape. They haven’t listened to a single recording.’

The baffling question to neutral observers is: Why don’t they want to know?

If you really want to know the answer to that question, go to Google and type in, "why are the democrats trying to stop the arizona election audit"  And you will find many articles on the subject.

And you're wrong when you say not a single court has had a hearing.  Dozens of courts have had hearings, and the judges have asked, what evidence do you have?  If you have any solid evidence, then we can go forward with this case.  And the judges always wound up ruling, you have not presented any solid evidence, so we cannot go forward.  

You don't get to just go to court and have a case.  You have to meet a certain standard or your case will get thrown out.  And that's what happened every time.  Even judges appointed by Trump threw these cases out, because there was no solid evidence.

No, they don't want to hear from the thousands of witnesses or thousands of videos or thousands of documents that support fraud. Because they DON'T want to be the court that decides an election. Everyone knows they Democrats CHEATED, its not even up for debate. Its just that our system has NO SPINE and taste for these cases. I assure you this though, its not over and we will never forget. The Biden admin is a JOKE an illegitimate joke and it will be exposed.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Okay, there you go.  That must be it.  Even judges that Trump appointed wanted to get rid of him.  Right?

Oh look what happens when a COURT DOES HEAR THE CASE. We get an audit...


https://welovetrump.com/2020/12/08/amid-...n-lawsuit/

When it comes from “WeLoveTrump.com”..... you know it’s true.

---

That's not what's happening in the courts. I've said it many times. The courts have largely done what they were supposed to do. Marty and his ilk continually misrepresent the role of the courts in this manner. They aren't hearing the cases because there is no hard evidence the election was stolen from Trump. Since there is nothing concrete, they can't take the case.

Think of it like this: you heard about a cop that wants to kill his girlfriend. He's talked about how much he hates her, and says he needs to get rid of her at any cost. He and other officers believe she has compromised the police department. She goes missing, they find her blood in his car, when they confronted the dude, he was in her room cleaning it. Witnesses say they saw him leave with her and return without her. He has a weak alibi, that's only corroborated by other police. The cops say they investigated, and when asked how, they say they asked if he did it and he said no. All signs point to foul play, but there's no body.

Her family takes it to the courts, but every single judge dismisses the case. They say they can't try someone for murder without a body. Which makes sense, right?

One day, you're talking to your two neighbors. One says they believe the courts are in on it because they don't want the police department to be exposed. Your other neighbor says the cop couldn't have killed her, and, as proof cites the "evidence" of the courts dismissing the case. Which of those two guys is dumber, Marty? Sure, the first neighbor is overzealous, but he's not wrong to be suspicious of something happening. The second neighbor CLEARLY doesn't understand the role of the courts if he is using that as PROOF she wasn't murdered. He's an idiot.

Again, I think the courts have ruled appropriately. There is no body as far a this election is concerned. They can't overturn an election without some kind of hard proof that SHOWS Trump would have won. Literally none of the evidence they have can prove Trump would have won. It only suggests that to be the case. So, people who think this should have been heard in the courts are misunderstanding their role in this process. However, people who are using this as PROOF that Trump didn't have the election stolen are equally, if not more, in the wrong. There is plenty of evidence that something shady occurred. We just are not looking into it with any kind of diligence. To make it worse, any attempt to find the body is being shut down.

Where judges have ruled for further investigations, they are being impeded by democrats and Brad freaking Raffensberger. Seriously, do you really believe this dude doesn't want an audit of Fulton county to protect its residents? Are you that naive? This dude should not be filing an amicus brief to prevent an audit from taking place in that county.

---

Oh, and before one of you yahoos says a person can be convicted without a body, I already know that. It's exceedingly rare, though. Almost never happens. Trump was never going to win this in the courts without hard proof. I am following the audit in AZ pretty closely. I am curious what's going to happen in GA. It's very, very strange that Raffensperger is trying to stop the audit in Fulton county. Just lots of shadiness all around, and there are too many people that just want to bury their heads in the sand. We went through 4 years of investigations into Russiagate because the left claimed that's how Trump got elected.... we investigated your BS claims, only to find out that the whole thing was pretty much staged. You guys aren't even looking into this mess.

---

That's not what's happening in the courts. I've said it many times. The courts have largely done what they were supposed to do. Marty and his ilk continually misrepresent the role of the courts in this manner. They aren't hearing the cases because there is no hard evidence the election was stolen from Trump. Since there is nothing concrete, they can't take the case.

Think of it like this: you heard about a cop that wants to kill his girlfriend. He's talked about how much he hates her, and says he needs to get rid of her at any cost. He and other officers believe she has compromised the police department. She goes missing, they find her blood in his car, when they confronted the dude, he was in her room cleaning it. He has a weak alibi. The cops say they investigated, and when asked how, they say they asked if he did it and he said no. All signs point to foul play, but there's no body.

Her family takes it to the courts, but every single judge dismisses the case. They say they can't try someone without a body. Which makes sense, right?

One day, you're talking to your two neighbors. One says they believe the courts are in on it because they don't want the police department to be exposed. Your other neighbor says the cop couldn't have killed her, and, as proof cites the "evidence" of the courts dismissing the case. Which of those two guys is dumber, Marty?

Again, I think the courts have ruled appropriately. There is no body as far a this election is concerned. However, there is plenty of evidence that something shady occurred.

To make it worse, any attempt to find the body is being shut down. This is a no-brainer, dude.

That has to be the best explanation of what actually happened that I've seen.  Almost every sane person knows that there was most likely fraud that occurred and that most likely Trump was re-elected.  The hard evidence was covered up quickly.

I don't know of any sane person that thinks that the current administration regime is doing a better job than Trump did.  Inflation is here and it's going to get worse.  So what exactly is causing it?

1.  Shutting down businesses due to the China virus started it.  More specifically the interruption of the supply chain.

2.  Extended unemployment benefits and stimulus checks being thrown out to everyone.  People are making just as much if not more sitting at home on the couch as they were working.  Again this hurts the supply chain for raw goods.

3.  Wide open border with THOUSANDS of "immigrants" coming into the country.  As a result crime is going to continue increasing, the drug problem is increasing and the homeless problem is increasing.

4.  Weak national policy and a weak look by "The President" (wearing a mask on a zoom call with other world leaders) has emboldened adversaries.  Look at what is happening in the Middle East, Russia, China, etc.

5.  The threat of massive tax hikes to the innovators and creators of jobs.  The big corporations will be able to get through it and survive, but small businesses and franchise owners are having to close their doors.

6.  People being installed in positions because of the "woke" culture rather than ability and merit.

I could go on and on.  I suspect that many people on this board probably didn't live through the '70s during Jimmy Carter's presidency, but soon the then familiar "misery index" is going to be back.  Ammunition and lumber were the first couple of things to spike in price, but now gas, eggs, corn and pretty much any other commodity is seeing a huge climb in price.

I can see the 2022 elections go in a major landslide towards the right and depending on the candidate I can see a Republican being elected as the next President.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

jagibelieve wrote: I could go on and on.  I suspect that many people on this board probably didn't live through the '70s during Jimmy Carter's presidency, but soon the then familiar "misery index" is going to be back.  Ammunition and lumber were the first couple of things to spike in price, but now gas, eggs, corn and pretty much any other commodity is seeing a huge climb in price.

I was a college student during the Carter Administration. We experienced High interest rates, High inflation, high unemployment , and widespread shortages all at the same time. Not to mention the failed hostage crisis rescue. Carter was a good man, but not a very good politician. Didn't delegate well, and suffered from paralysis by analysis. He was pretty much responsible single-handedly for the Reagan landslide in 1980.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

And still, they have an audit going on that the democrat party is trying to stop. And why is that? Why are they trying to stop it if they have nothing to hide?


Not a single court decision has had a hearing yet. They haven’t heard from a single witness. They haven’t looked at a single tape. They haven’t listened to a single recording.’

The baffling question to neutral observers is: Why don’t they want to know?

If you really want to know the answer to that question, go to Google and type in, "why are the democrats trying to stop the arizona election audit"  And you will find many articles on the subject.

And you're wrong when you say not a single court has had a hearing.  Dozens of courts have had hearings, and the judges have asked, what evidence do you have?  If you have any solid evidence, then we can go forward with this case.  And the judges always wound up ruling, you have not presented any solid evidence, so we cannot go forward.  

You don't get to just go to court and have a case.  You have to meet a certain standard or your case will get thrown out.  And that's what happened every time.  Even judges appointed by Trump threw these cases out, because there was no solid evidence.

The judges didn't even review the evidence. They issued rulings within hours usually when they had thousands of pages of evidence. They never looked at anything for the most part.


There was mass fraud and there has been for a while. From the illegal actions in the states, vote flipping that was shown on TV, mail in ballots from illegal addresses or made up people, and using the 2010 census to generate list of fake voters to pull from for the late night ballot drops all so provable fraud.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Baby steps, dude. Let's get TRM to acknowledge that he's wrongfully appealing to the courts here. Then maybe we can get him to debate substance.

---

I think Lucky is mostly right about the role of the courts, but the example with the cop's girlfriend misses the mark.
He means to say the "cops" are all politicians other than Trump, they're all, perhaps, "in on it." He'd include the Republicans in charge in Georgia and in Arizona. That strains credulity for me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Cops just represent the establishment. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, other than people who are profiting from the corrupt system have the most incentive to remove a person that's causing disruption. I'm not even saying Trump was doing it intentionally, but, via the chaos brought by his administration, there was a lot exposed about our system. I think they wanted that spotlight gone, and it was in their own self-interest to do so.

Also, it wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy. None would be sufficient. It just gets the point across.

---

So, let me attempt to sum up the last few posts:  

Ronster and p_rushing think the courts refused to look at the evidence.  

Lucky2Last thinks there was no hard evidence, and that's why the cases were thrown out.  But he thinks there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Am I correct so far?

So, Ronster or p_rushing, I think it might be productive if you can cite a specific case where in your opinion a judge refused to look at the evidence, and then we can examine that particular case.

---

There is evidence of fraud, but not the concrete proof that shows Trump lost because of it. So, when his lawyers tried to present evidence, the judges stop them before they can even begin. There has to be a "body" first. What are you not getting about this?

---

There are a few instances where citizens made an appeal to the courts, asking permission to look for evidence. Where it was granted, they have been met by a bureaucracy that is delaying and interfering as much as possible, led either by democrats or Raffensburger.

---

There is evidence of fraud, but not the concrete proof that shows Trump lost because of it. So, when his lawyers tried to present evidence, the judges stop them before they can even begin. There has to be a "body" first. What are you not getting about this?

What I am not getting is a specific case (court case).   I just want to look at a specific case of what you are talking about.  I said that in my previous post.

---

Google them if you want to read them. Almost every single court case filed by Trump falls under my "where's the body" analogy. Judges are saying, if you can't show definitively that you would have won, we are not hearing this case. Every case that was dismissed on standing is an example of this. Trump was bringing the knife and the witnesses to a case with no body. He needed the "Kraken" that Powell was talking about, but it never manifested. As for the other cases, I've already mentioned two: The one with the amicus brief filed by Raffensperger, and the one in AZ, that is being held up by certain election officials with overtures being made by the DOJ. It should be concerning to see officials intervening in these when you have a significant amount of the population that feels disenfranchised.

---

Google them if you want to read them. Almost every single court case filed by Trump falls under my "where's the body" analogy. Judges are saying, if you can't show definitively that you would have won, we are not hearing this case. Every case that was dismissed on standing is an example of this. Trump was bringing the knife and the witnesses to a case with no body. He needed the "Kraken" that Powell was talking about, but it never manifested. As for the other cases, I've already mentioned two: The one with the amicus brief filed by Raffensperger, and the one in AZ, that is being held up by certain election officials with overtures being made by the DOJ. It should be concerning to see officials intervening in these when you have a significant amount of the population that feels disenfranchised.

You want me to search out all these cases in an attempt to find what you are alleging?  No.  

It's like if you told me that Bigfoot exists, and I said, okay, show me BigFoot, and you reply: go out and search the woods, he's out there.  No, I don't think I want to do that. 

Now, when you say, every case that was dismissed for lack of standing is an example of judges saying: you can't show me that you would have won, so I am not hearing the case, that's not what the judge is ruling when he cites "lack of standing."  Lack of standing means you are not the right person to be bringing the suit.  If you witness a person in Walmart slipping on a wet floor, and you file suit, your case would be dismissed for lack of standing because you are not the injured party.  This is a Constitutional requirement and without it, anyone could sue anyone for anything, even if they are not the one who was injured.  

Here is an article you can read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...on_v._Kemp

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2] Among the judges who dismissed the aforementioned lawsuits were judges appointed by Trump himself.[3]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[5] and "without merit".[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Here's an example of a ruling- Boland vs Raffensperger.   Here is a key point the judge made in her ruling:  

[font=sans-serif]Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.[/font]

You can read the entire ruling here:  

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boland_v._Raffensperger

---

Lol. You are dense sometimes.

---

Ok, dude, let me see if I can give a better example. In the MI case (this is from memory, so the recollection might not be perfect), Trump has affidavits from people who saw dates being switched, people counting ballots with no signatures, election officials kicking out Republican observers. There was an affidavit talking about a truck that arrived around 3 AM with what appeared to be ballots. An hour and a half later, there is a large ballot dump where 99% of the ballots went to Biden. There is video evidence that shows a truck pull up and people offloading cases of something, which corroborates the story. This is when the voting center was supposedly shut down for the night. All of that is suspect, but it doesn't prove anything. There needs to be hard evidence.

What I have laid out is the preponderance of evidence, and it doesn't matter how much there is, because Trump can't prove there were ballots on that truck. He can't prove those ballots were then scanned and we all for Biden. It only takes one person saying that they had a skeleton staff working through the night, and that it just so happens that all of those ballots were for Biden because more democrats mailed in votes (not to the tune of 99%, but whatever). It only takes one person saying the truck was just offloading printer paper, even though it was being escorted by a person in a Porsche. The election officials only need to say they kicked out unruly participants, or that there was a mix up. Truth be told, all of those things might just be coincidences, but let's be real. There was a LOT of shady stuff going on. That said, the courts can't seriously take a case that has no verifiable hard evidence. We should still be in agreement here. So, it should be obvious to both me and you that the courts did the right thing by dismissing those cases out of the gate. What should also be obvious to me and you is that there was still a lot of shenanigans involved in the most populated districts in the most important swing states, that were controlled by blue officials with no oversight whatsoever.

Now, when shady stuff goes on, pressure should be put on those institutions to verify that it really was just a coincidence, right? Wouldn't you agree? Instead of a spotlight being shined in that direction, there was IMMEDIATE dismissal coming from the MSM. That doesn't set off warning bells in your head? Not even a little bit? Why are journalists not investigating this? I mean, aside from the fact that they don't investigate anything. Ever. What about the institutions designed to investigate this? Barr didn't send out the FBI. He left it up to local agencies. GA is the only state that said they investigated, at least according to Kemp, but we were given no description of what was done or how they did it. Kemp said something to the affect of 'we had our guys go down there to ask around, but they didn't find anything suspicious.' Before you take that and run with it, ask yourself how agencies might be hamstrung in this type of investigation. Can they look at the ballots? Nope. Can they look at the machines? Nope. You need warrants for any of this stuff, and we get back to the original problem: Where's the body? In the few cases where courts have permitted extra digging, the people are being obstructed by the very agencies that should be helping.

I could do the same thing for GA, AZ, MI, WI, and PA. I literally only mentioned a super small fraction of events that took place this election. I listened to HOURS of witness testimony, and looked at many examples of suspect math...even did some myself. The truth is that there just wasn't anything tangible to back it up. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! If you want to continue on that tract, just know you are doing so at the cost of your own integrity. You can say I am compromising mine, but I'm very specific about what I'm claiming. The preponderance of evidence looks extremely suspect, and we, as a people, should be clamoring for investigations, just like we did for Russiagate.

Here's the kicker: Literally every single thing that contributed to this mess, Dems are now trying to federalize. If anything should set off your corruption radar, that should be it, but, like Mikey, you are too enamored by authority to use your actual brain.

---

Ok, dude, let me see if I can give a better example. In the MI case (this is from memory, so the recollection might not be perfect), Trump has affidavits from people who saw dates being switched, people counting ballots with no signatures, election officials kicking out Republican observers. There was an affidavit talking about a truck that arrived around 3 AM with what appeared to be ballots. An hour and a half later, there is a large ballot dump where 99% of the ballots went to Biden. There is video evidence that shows a truck pull up and people offloading cases of something, which corroborates the story. This is when the voting center was supposedly shut down for the night. All of that is suspect, but it doesn't prove anything. There needs to be hard evidence.

What I have laid out is the preponderance of evidence, and it doesn't matter how much there is, because Trump can't prove there were ballots on that truck. He can't prove those ballots were then scanned and we all for Biden. It only takes one person saying that they had a skeleton staff working through the night, and that it just so happens that all of those ballots were for Biden because more democrats mailed in votes (not to the tune of 99%, but whatever). It only takes one person saying the truck was just offloading printer paper, even though it was being escorted by a person in a Porsche. The election officials only need to say they kicked out unruly participants, or that there was a mix up. Truth be told, all of those things might just be coincidences, but let's be real. There was a LOT of shady stuff going on. That said, the courts can't seriously take a case that has no verifiable hard evidence. We should still be in agreement here. So, it should be obvious to both me and you that the courts did the right thing by dismissing those cases out of the gate. What should also be obvious to me and you is that there was still a lot of shenanigans involved in the most populated districts in the most important swing states, that were controlled by blue officials with no oversight whatsoever.

Now, when shady stuff goes on, pressure should be put on those institutions to verify that it really was just a coincidence, right? Wouldn't you agree? Instead of a spotlight being shined in that direction, there was IMMEDIATE dismissal coming from the MSM. That doesn't set off warning bells in your head? Not even a little bit? Why are journalists not investigating this? I mean, aside from the fact that they don't investigate anything. Ever. What about the institutions designed to investigate this? Barr didn't send out the FBI. He left it up to local agencies. GA is the only state that said they investigated, at least according to Kemp, but we were given no description of what was done or how they did it. Kemp said something to the affect of 'we had our guys go down there to ask around, but they didn't find anything suspicious.' Before you take that and run with it, ask yourself how agencies might be hamstrung in this type of investigation. Can they look at the ballots? Nope. Can they look at the machines? Nope. You need warrants for any of this stuff, and we get back to the original problem: Where's the body? In the few cases where courts have permitted extra digging, the people are being obstructed by the very agencies that should be helping.

I could do the same thing for GA, AZ, MI, WI, and PA. I literally only mentioned a super small fraction of events that took place this election. I listened to HOURS of witness testimony, and looked at many examples of suspect math...even did some myself. The truth is that there just wasn't anything tangible to back it up. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! If you want to continue on that tract, just know you are doing so at the cost of your own integrity. You can say I am compromising mine, but I'm very specific about what I'm claiming. The preponderance of evidence looks extremely suspect, and we, as a people, should be clamoring for investigations, just like we did for Russiagate.

Here's the kicker: Literally every single thing that contributed to this mess, Dems are now trying to federalize. If anything should set off your corruption radar, that should be it, but, like Mikey, you are too enamored by authority to use your actual brain.

Okay, help me out here.  You refer to "the MI case."   There were about a dozen Michigan cases.  Can you tell me which one you are referring to?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...m_Michigan

About the boxes that you say showed up at 3AM with what appeared to be boxes of ballots: the local news station says it was their truck, and it was photographic equipment.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog...-debunked/

[font=georgia,]A video shared widely online shows a man closing the back of a white van early Wednesday and wheeling a box into a Detroit ballot-counting location with a red wagon. As he walks away, a woman recording says the box “looks like one of those lockboxes” and implies that he might be illegally bringing ballots inside.[/font]That man was a photographer for WXYZ, Detroit’s ABC affiliate, and the box was the equipment he was transporting into the TCF Center.
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]A Michigan Department of State spokeswoman confirmed that the video did not depict illegal behavior.[/font][/font]
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]“WXYZ settled this and confirmed it is their camera person,” the spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, wrote in an email. “That video has been completely debunked."[/font][/font]

About the ballot dump with all the ballots going to Biden: 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/verify...cce9f38409

[font=proximanova, sans-serif]There were claims Wednesday morning that about 130,000 votes were added to the tally in Michigan -- and all of them went to Biden.
[/font]
People quickly called foul and pointed to it as evidence confirming their suspicions of illegal ballot dumping.
[font=proximanova, sans-serif]But VERIFY learned that there weren’t 130,000 votes mysteriously given to Joe Biden. The person who made the viral claim later deleted his tweet because it was false.[/font]

So, you have not been able to name a case where a judge "refused to look at the evidence," the so-called "ballot dump" did not happen, and the mysterious boxes that were brought in a van at 3 AM were photographic equipment.  

I hope you stop now, because I am too lazy to want to keep knocking down your specious arguments like this.  Please stop.  

You say I am being dense, but I think you are so locked into this conspiracy theory that you have lost all of your objectivity.  You don't seem to realize, or you don't want to admit, that most of your arguments were debunked long ago.    

---

Cool. I'll address that when I get back from lunch. We're getting somewhere.... I agree that you're lazy.

---