The mueller report is catching up

[Horza]

Just try to have a little faith in Cyber Ninjas, you cynics.

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"That fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given."

it's a little silly that the executive branch would indict itself, it's too bad there aren't any conservatives on here to explain the rest. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's a little silly that the executive branch would indict itself, it's too bad there aren't any conservatives on here to explain the rest. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On vacation in Vegas atm. Haven’t been able to keep up on the forum as before

[G13]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With all that evidence they showed in court in all 60 of those cases should have been enough to over turn the election. I wonder why that failed... Maybe it was, Rudy sabotaging trump. Maybe it was those judges trump himself picked to be judges, just denying it outright. He totally won. lol Because 73,000,000 is more than 81,000,000. You already said math is racist and its obviously racist against white, god fearing, pure of heart conservatives. The true americans.. how could this be?!

No evidence was never allowed in court

Try to keep up

Hopefully we can audit every state and dig into those machines. Can't wait.

[Horza]

Those Trump-appointed judges must be in Biden's pocket.

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On vacation in Vegas atm. Haven’t been able to keep up on the forum as before

Did I need to know that, weirdo?

[Gravydoo II]

LOL no evidence was ALLOWED in court HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahahahahahha!!! hahahahahhaa!!!!
ok im done laughing. jesus...
so tell me exactly how that worked. Rudy would submit his "evidence" and then what happened, exactly?

jesus i cant wait for this. $20 says he runs from it, cant explain how evidence is "not allowed" into a court case.

[G13]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LOL no evidence was ALLOWED in court HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahahahahahha!!! hahahahahhaa!!!!
ok im done laughing. jesus...
so tell me exactly how that worked. Rudy would submit his "evidence" and then what happened, exactly?

jesus i cant wait for this. $20 says he runs from it, cant explain how evidence is "not allowed" into a court case.

Which case actually allowed evidence and wasn't punted on a "technicality"?

If you have a link I'd love to see it

Here is an example of a case being rejected because of a technicality:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...in-and-Ord.pdf

Most if not all were rejected for this reason. Evidence never saw the inside of a courtroom

But that's why we have audits. So we can get into those machines and verify everything was on the up and up right?

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which case actually allowed evidence and wasn't punted on a "technicality"?

If you have a link I'd love to see it

Here is an example of a case being rejected because of a technicality:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...in-and-Ord.pdf

Most if not all were rejected for this reason. Evidence never saw the inside of a courtroom

But that's why we have audits. So we can get into those machines and verify everything was on the up and up right?

Here's the summary from SCOTUS Blog

Issues: Whether a policy by the secretary of state of Michigan extending the deadline to receive absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day until 14 days after Election Day violates federal law and the U.S Constitution.

This demonstrates why "forensic audits" are retarded. The "fraud" you're looking for was procedural and very legal, very cool!

[G13]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's the summary from SCOTUS Blog



No fraud!

You're proving my point

THANK YOU