IMO, the Fix is in

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D
What would " evidence " look like for you?

It depends on the specific allegation, but generally I would need to hear sworn testimony in court (can be cross examined and rebutted). If we're talking about hacking of voting software, I'd need to hear from eye witnesses (preferably) and/or computer forensic experts who examined the relevant machines and testified that they'd been hacked. Then I'd want to hear evidence of who the actual bad apples were.

 

[Phil Elliott]

It depends on the specific allegation, but generally I would need to hear sworn testimony in court (can be cross examined and rebutted). If we're talking about hacking of voting software, I'd need to hear from eye witnesses (preferably) and/or computer forensic experts who examined the relevant machines and testified that they'd been hacked. Then I'd want to hear evidence of who the actual bad apples were.

So you say that what you call "evidence" must be presented in court, yet you and others are complaining that you have not been shown any evidence?

 

[horninchicago]

So you say that what you call "evidence" must be presented in court, yet you and others are complaining that you have not been shown any evidence?

No, if it isn't on Tucker's show or presented in a press conference by crackpots, then no evidence exists.

<sarc>

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
When one of the acclaimed cyber experts testified and was cross examined would you accept their testimony?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So you say that what you call "evidence" must be presented in court, yet you and others are complaining that you have not been shown any evidence?

If it's shown in court, I will hear about it. The problem with vague claims and promises of evidence in press conferences is that it's of no legal value and therefore can't impact the outcome (unless the real intent isn't legal but political and/or monetary which I'm starting to suspect to be the case). Trump's legal team knows this. Therefore, if it's not offered in court, I'm going to question it's existence and certainly its reliability.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
When one of the acclaimed cyber experts testified and was cross examined would you accept their testimony?

Well, I'd view it like a trier-of-fact is supposed to view any other piece of evidence offered in court. That means I'd listen to it as well as controverting evidence and accept the one that's more believable.

That's what happened when I offered evidence in court. If I offered a medical record and the defense counsel did nothing to rebut it, the jury was pretty much sure to defer to my client's doctor about what that doctor did and that it was necessary to treat my client. However, sometimes the defense would retain an expert witness (often this guy) to say my client's injuries were ******** and that my client's doctor screwed up and shouldn't have given him the treatment he did. When that happened I had to call my client's doctor as a live witness and let him explain his treatment further and explain why the insurance carrier's hack doctor was full of crap. The jury weighed both doctors' testimony and decided who they thought was telling the truth and rendered their verdict accordingly. That's what I'd do with a cyber expert.

 

[iatrogenic]

If I'm going to cheat I'm not going to design an algorithm that is so obvious that it takes votes away from a candidate. That would be as stupid as not trying to win 2-3 senate seats down ballot. I've read your links. They almost all say "it happened to both of them but it hurt Trump more". I read that to mean it's something that's uniquely related to all of the ballot counting post election and we all knew that the early voting and mail in ballots were going to favor Biden.

I'd like to see an actual election expert from the right besides some amateur data scientist, Rudy G., Sidney Powell (shout out to Hugo Chavez!), and Jenna _______ present evidence.

Now you suddenly reject conspiracy theories? You have been nestled in Adam Schiff’s butt crack for the last four years when it came to false claims of “Russian Collusion”, and you continue to believe that ridiculously false claim despite actual evidence to the contrary. You are a shining example of a Dem angered by the truth. You just tend to change your interpretation of the facts rather than your false beliefs.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You have been nestled in Adam Schiff’s butt crack

Of course it's worth noting that guys from Mobilhoma are into that sort of thing anyway.

 

[OUBubba]

Any of you guys watch Krebs on 60 minutes. Impressive dude. Can he run for president?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Of course, to guys from Mobilhoma, Maynard G. Krebs seems like a smart, impressive guy.

Getting on a roll with the Oklahoma-bashing.

 

[OUBubba]

Of course, to guys from Mobilhoma, Maynard G. Krebs seems like a smart, impressive guy.

Getting on a roll with the Oklahoma-bashing.

I’m ok with it. It made me laugh. This place has really toughened me up, cyberly speaking, of course. A few of my Facebook snowflake conservatives could learn from me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I’m ok with it. It made me laugh. This place has really toughened me up, cyberly speaking, of course. A few of my Facebook snowflake conservatives could learn from me.

I virtually never talk politics on Facebook. Way too big of a waste.

 

[horninchicago]

Oh okay, that explains it. She's a celebrity. They can do whatever they want.

 

[mchammer]

Of course, to guys from Mobilhoma, Maynard G. Krebs seems like a smart, impressive guy.

Getting on a roll with the Oklahoma-bashing.

 

[mchammer]

Of course, to guys from Mobilhoma, Maynard G. Krebs seems like a smart, impressive guy.

Getting on a roll with the Oklahoma-bashing.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I remember Kuehl from when she was in the California legislature. She's nauseating, and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite on this.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Barr says DOJ hasn't uncovered widespread voter fraud in 2020 election

"There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results," Barr said. "And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that."

And on cue...

 

[Mr. Deez]

Barr says DOJ hasn't uncovered widespread voter fraud in 2020 election



And on cue...

If you don't buy into the narrative or just question it pending the introduction of evidence, they're going to crap on you. They're doing it to Brian Kemp and the SoS of Georgia.

I'm becoming less and less optimistic of winning the runoffs. The chair of the Republican National Committee is having piss her time away by going to Georgia to tell dumbass Trump supporters who think their vote won't count in the run-off that they need to turnout or we'll lose the Senate. If you're having to do that, you're not in a position of strength.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you don't buy into the narrative or just question it pending the introduction of evidence, they're going to crap on you. They're doing it to Brian Kemp and the SoS of Georgia.

I'm becoming less and less optimistic of winning the runoffs. The chair of the Republican National Committee is having piss her time away by going to Georgia to tell dumbass Trump supporters who think their vote won't count in the run-off that they need to turnout or we'll lose the Senate. If you're having to do that, you're not in a position of strength.

Trump has raised more than $150M since election day. That appears to be his ultimate goal with these fraud allegations. I'll say it again, if the Senate is in the hands of the D's it makes the Biden Admin an easier target for Trump. If you believe that Trump sees the Republican party as simply a tool for his own means, he really doesn't care about those Senate races and stemming the demise of America in D hands.

 

[Garmel]

Hmm. Has Barr interviewed any witnesses or had any hearings? Meanwhile, several cyber-security experts and witnesses say differently. In Michigan right now we have a ton of witnesses explaining to what they saw. Whistleblowers galore!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hmm. Has Barr interviewed any witnesses or had any hearings? Meanwhile, several cyber-security experts and witnesses say differently. In Michigan right now we have a ton of witnesses explaining to what they saw. Whistleblowers galore!

Barr said. "And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that."

 

[Garmel]

Into what? I've seen no witnesses nor cyber experts from them. Barr talks with no action. Example would be what he and Durham have produced so far.

They've looked into "various complaints'. Whatever that means.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Into what? I've seen no witnesses nor cyber experts from them. Barr talks with no action. Example would be what he and Durham have produced so far.

Barr is part of the deep state too?

 

[Garmel]

Barr is part of the deep state too?

No, he's just is a talker and not a doer. I'll go with the witnesses that I've seen so far.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'll go with the witnesses that I've seen so far.

I'd expect nothing less.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Trump has raised more than $150M since election day. That appears to be his ultimate goal with these fraud allegations. I'll say it again, if the Senate is in the hands of the D's it makes the Biden Admin an easier target for Trump. If you believe that Trump sees the Republican party as simply a tool for his own means, he really doesn't care about those Senate races and stemming the demise of America in D hands.

It's just hard imagine that he would plan to run again in four years. He'll be 78 in 2024 - 5 years older than Reagan when he was running for his second term.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's just hard imagine that he would plan to run again in four years. He'll be 78 in 2024 - 5 years older than Reagan when he was running for his second term.

Never underestimate Trump's ego.

 

[cnb]

I don't care what Graham says. Biden's a creep. He does despicable stuff like openly attacking voters. If Trump was doing that you'd have a fit.

Uh I believe the orange special genius does that.

 

[cnb]

It's just hard imagine that he would plan to run again in four years. He'll be 78 in 2024 - 5 years older than Reagan when he was running for his second term.

He's going to be spending the next 4 yrs trying to stay out if prison.

 

[Garmel]

I'd expect nothing less.

Well, who else am I supposed to listen to?