Voting technology company sends legal notices to Fox News...

Why would all the counters be dems?

 

Then you should be able to name a county where this happened and provide evidence.

 

Because they feel it in their bones! They just know it!

 

Hundreds of ACCUSATIONS. If there are so many, it should be easy to find even one shred of proof right.

Hell, Trump has 26 women who have accused him of sexual assault. He has paid every one of them and has signed NDA's with them, and you and your dismissed that out of hand.

So you believe what you want to be true, facts dont really matter in rightwinglandia

 

Because they were in the dem controlled cities and even applauded when a Republican poll watchers got kicked out.

 

They also get really confused or listen to people who blatantly misrepresent the facts. There were places where BOTH Republican and Dem poll watchers were turned away, but not ALL Republican and Dem poll watchers were turned away in those counties. They had just reached maximum occupancy so they couldn't let any more in. Some people heard "poll watchers turned away" and either misunderstood our outright lied in turning that into "ALL poll watchers turned away."

 

What was the poll watcher kicked out for and where is your evidence that ALL Republican poll watchers were kicked out of the place?

 

Witnesses are proof but it would have to get to court first. Especially when reporting the same thing over and over by disparate witnesses.

 

On one of the centers they chased out the watchers then used the Covid excuse not to let them back in so the counting went on without watchers which is in violation of the law.

 

So all watchers were kicked out? Where is the evidence? And where is the evidence that all of the counters were Dems?

 

@Hoosier8 You wouldn't happen to be talking about any of these cases, would you?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...hers-were-banned-thats-a-lie/?sh=161707cf44da

 

I am going off witness statements, not some media hack.

 

What does the article say that was incorrect? And where are those statements? And why did Trump's lawyers tell people in public that their poll watchers weren't allowed . . . only to admit in court that they had been lying?

 

This has always been a game of accusation by omission. Make the accusation, but leave out the parts that dont fit the narrative, or that outright prove the accusation incorrect.

The best example was the counting room video where they claimed that the counters pulled out "suitcases of ballots" and counted them in the dark of the night. They produced a 12 minute video, but conveniently left out the that the "suitcases" were actually ballot transfer cases that the state uses to transfer ballots, AND that not one ballot was actually counted during that 12 minute video. Then they also OMIT, by stopping the video at 12 minutes that thats when the poll watchers came in and they actually started counting the ballots per the legal requirements of the election.

But to the right, when you show the proof, thats just part of the conspiracy of the left to steal the election. Apparently every poll watcher, every counter, and every election official and judge, every election machine vendor, ballot printers, and poll watcher in the United States was in on this scam.

 

Witness' without proof are nothing. Not one of them actually had any evidence other than " i know a guy who knows a guy who said that he overheard another guy who was walking his dog.....". This is why none of these cases actually were accepted by a court. I know....I know, it's all a conspiracy of the judicial system to screw over the republicans......

Go into a court sometime and watch a trial. There may be a lot of people making accusations from the stand, but their isnt a court in the country that would convict someone without some hard evidence and you know it.

FFS, you guys have made that claim about the Russia investigation and there was plenty of proof to at least investigate that.

 

Yes, you're right. You're probably thinking about defamation per se - false statements that are presumed to be damaging to reputation. Four types of statements qualify, including false statements about a business - that it has acted improperly, incompetently, negligently, etc. Basically, it's one less hurdle - there's no need to prove how or why the statement is defamatory. It's just presumed to be, without any need for context, explanation etc. As it's presumed to damaging, entitlement to damages is also presumed, but how much a business will get will obviously depend on the impact.

 

Evidently you have never heard of witnesses in court.

 

Mello Guy is right - it's the same thing. I suspect you know this, or should - you've discussed the AZ ballots several times in other threads.

 

Counted with zero watchers. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

Apparently you haven't heard how your "witnesses" have been fairing in court.

 

Poll watchers were free to come and go as they pleased. And the whole thing was being filmed and livestreamed. Poll watchers and the media were there when the "suitcases" (which weren't actually suitcases) were being filled with ballots and put there.

 

You mean the cases dismissed on standing or laches where evidence is never entered?

 

No watchers. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

I mean the cases where judges specifically criticized the Trumpists for not having evidence of their claims.

 

The vast majority of cases have failed because they failed to make their case.

As regards those which lacked standing, what exactly do you think that means? What exactly do they lack?

Additionally, when dismissed for lack or standing or laches, judges have nonetheless taken the opportunity to opine on the merits of the case - and what they have said is not good.