Nine useful articles and data points showcasing 2020's election theft

[PaulinVA]

PaulinVA essentially stating he does not think sworn testimony is “credible evidence”. (Or is it just in this case Paul?)

Read what I said. I said “credible evidence of fraud”. I did not say they weren’t true. I said they were not “credible evidence of fraud”.

Many judges agree with me. In one of the Pennsylvania cases Rudy G agreed that “this is not a fraud case”.

Giuliani in Public: ‘It’s a Fraud.’ Giuliani in Court: ‘This Is Not a Fraud Case.’ - The New York Times

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cathoholic]

Read what I said. I said “credible evidence of fraud”. I did not say they weren’t true.

OK.
Then my question remains.

Would you consider eyewitness testimony under oath “nothing”?

 

[sallybutler]

Or perhaps they only saw part of what was going on, sort of the way you quoted me.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic quoting sallybutler . . .

I would consider eyewitness testimony under oath as proof that they believe what they are saying. Just like many 2 year-olds . . .

sallybutler evidently thought my portion of her quote was out of context saying . . . .

Or perhaps they only saw part of what was going on, sort of the way you quoted me.

I guess this (below) really changes the context . . . .

I would consider eyewitness testimony under oath as proof that they believe what they are saying. Just like many 2 year-olds believe in the Santa Claus as defined by Coca-Cola.

Like I said. I believe you.

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers.

See FoxNews for this story too if you want to see more ways of electioneering that in my opinion took place . . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PaulinVA]

Would you consider eyewitness testimony under oath “nothing”?

I consider eyewitness testimony under oath to be “something”.

In the case of these sham hearings and the lawsuits filed by Powell. Giuliani, & Wood they are just stories. They don’t allege fraud.

I’m repeating myself here. Did you not get this from my posts?

 

[Cathoholic]

I consider eyewitness testimony under oath to be “something”.

Great.

Were you aware that there HAS BEEN eye witness testimony under oath concerning election fraud?

 

[PaulinVA]

Were you aware that there HAS BEEN eye witness testimony under oath concerning election fraud?

There has not been credible evidence of voter fraud submitted to a court. That’s what I’m watching.

Well, wait, let me clarify. There have been the normal onesies and twosies kind of people doing wrong things. No widespread or coordinated fraud.

 

[Cathoholic]

Well, wait, let me clarify. There have been the normal onesies and twosies kind of people doing wrong things. No widespread or coordinated fraud.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Dobby]

Trump lost and continues to lose… I don’t need to see any articles.