US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed

[OKCHunter]

Don't forget, that all of that has become so clear that they are fine presenting it to the public and lawmakers, but very little has been formally presented in court 'because these things take time to find' (save for the stuff that has been presented, and shot down, of course).

As I understand it, the US Constitution says election problems will be resolved through the state legislative process, not the court system.

 

[TedKennedy]

Yes and no, of course they're wrong. Don't try to make an argument out of this.
This state of affairs just sucks for all of us. The divide just keeps getting bigger and no good can come from it.

I disagree. There are at least four or five sides, let's split this up and build some fences.

 

[Hobbes]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/12/01/no-kraken-refer-military-intelligence-unit.hmtl

 

[Dale00]

of course it's lower for the politicians, that is why trump is going this route instead of pushing the courts harder. The people listening to the so-called evidence want to believe it.

And, if the bar is lower for a civil case, why has trump not won any really?

Why this route? In a conflict is it a sign of weakness to try flanking an enemy force?

Your statement which refers to evidence as "so-called evidence" adds nothing to the discussion and implies those who disagree with you are inferior to you....it reminds me of the long string of insults heaped on conservatives by leftists in recent history. You would do well to consider the all of the evidence and assertions but instead you fail to rebut the strong points.

Why has Trump not won any cases? That talking point is commonly used by propagandists. "You are losing, give up now or at least stop trying so hard". The answer to the question is contained in earlier posts.

 

[emapples]

I’m still waiting for hard evidence that army special forces raided a CIA run server farm ? In another sovereign (allied/NATO) country no less? Where is the proof guys the third string no name sites are not it

 

[donner]

As I understand it, the US Constitution says election problems will be resolved through the state legislative process, not the court system.

Courts have historically not wanted to get involved in what they view as political issues. However when you're alleging things like illegally counting votes or other things that are a matter of established laws then the courts do have a history of involvement (otherwise why is the trump campaign even bothering).

As a matter of establishing those laws, though, that has always been an area where state legislatures have set the rules.

An example of this was the challenge in PA where the court said that the officials couldn't extend the deadline for late ballots since it was set by the legislature.

Has there ever been an example of a legislature going back after the people voted (using the prescribed method as set-forth by law) and changing electors from those it said it would send to represent the person who one said vote?

 

[OKCHunter]

...Has there ever been an example of a legislature going back after the people voted (using the prescribed method as set-forth by law) and changing electors from those it said it would send to represent the person who one said vote?

I don't know and would have to research it. But, I don't believe there has ever been this level of alleged fraud by witnesses that have submitted affidavits. Not to mention, I've never heard of this level of widespread intimidation and threats to Republican poll observers, also with affidavits, that preventing them from doing their job.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I have a thought. What if all the falsehoods charged against Trump were there just to set the tone for all the actual cheating that was to be done in the election by the Democrats? Seeds of doubt are not that difficult to sew - even in rotten soil.

These schemers on the left know there is no way to honestly deliver this country unto socialism/communism. I believe Saul Alinsky's tools and methods have been taken to a higher level and it is working. Shame on all you conscienceless bastards.

Woody

 

[donner]

Why this route? In a conflict is it a sign of weakness to try flanking an enemy force?

Your statement which refers to evidence as "so-called evidence" adds nothing to the discussion and implies those who disagree with you are inferior to you....it reminds me of the long string of insults heaped on conservatives by leftists in recent history. You would do well to consider the all of the evidence and assertions but instead you fail to rebut the strong points.

Why has Trump not won any cases? That talking point is commonly used by propagandists. "You are losing, give up now or at least stop trying so hard". The answer to the question is contained in earlier posts.

Lol. Nice attempt to belittle and deflect. Can't say i'm shocked to see it, though.

We have an established path to remedy, as initially proposed by many who support trump. But that path is proving difficult, so a new path is clearly being charted.

I say the evidence is 'so-called' because it so far hasn't materialized in a manner that would sway a judge when presented in court. A great example of the difference between calling it evidence to the public and evidence to a judge is the case that happened in michigan on November 13. The judge looked at the statements, heard from the defense and ruled that the 'witness' didn't have the training to interpret what they 'saw' because they skipped orientation.

The stuff being shown to lawmakers and the public might well be evidence of fraud, or it could be a hodgepodge of things that are easily disproved or explained when put through our adversarial legal process.

I'm also not implying that those who disagree are inferior in any way. If you are making that inference than i cannot do anything to stop you. I keep being accused over overlooking 'the preponderance of evidence' yet when i post examples of counterpoints to the 'evidence' i'm said to be insulting of others or deflecting.

I'll continue to maintain that i am willing to being open to evidence when it is presented in court. And no, that isn't a statement that Trump should 'give up' in court in any way, no matter how many times you try to beat that strawman.

 

[ignerntbend]

As I understand it, the US Constitution says election problems will be resolved through the state legislative process, not the court system.

The problem is that the various states have their OWN constitutions, and it is incumbent upon the legislatures to act in accordance with their constitutions.
NONE of the the Republican controlled legislatures in any of the swing states are showing the slightest inclination to overthrow the results of the election.