Detroit Michigan Recorded Training And Told To Commit A Felony Of Voter Fraud
(youtu.be)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (289)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I hope this is admissible in court and verified as real.
I guess it would depend on if Michigan is a one-party consent state?
SPEZ: How convenient, MI is two-party consent. https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/michigan-recording-laws/
The idea of a two party consent state should fall apart if it actually proves a crime, I swear.
It does if you do it right in court.
Get the person to lie about what they said IN COURT. Tell the judge you have evidence to the contrary. It is the one way I know you can use it despite consent laws.
There's also things like "I was recording this for notes that I could review later." You can also determine if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They do not. This is how Wal-Mart records you without permission while you shop.
I've read a book or two on private investigator training because I want to take the test in my state at some point. One book I read talked about recording someone through their window and it was admissible in court. They didn't bother to draw the curtains and they did what they were doing in plain view of the window. Had hey drawn their curtains they would have an expectation of privacy.
I don't really think the two-party consent laws will defend them against this recording. No one in that room had an expectation of privacy.
Then the Trump Team needs this for the casework
It does if they admit to a crime or the planning of one.
If somebody is stupid enough to admit to a crime they did or planning, and there is evidence that leads to arrest, they are fucked. This isn't like TV. You don't need a warrant. If you are in the middle of a divorce you can record any phone call with your soon-to-be-ex as they are considered your wife still and they don't have reasonable expectation of privacy.
You only really need permission if you are archiving the conversation and there is no other reason to expect otherwise. If they are stupid enough to not agree to recording, and they admit they murdered somebody, they can still get arrested.
This would be completely admissible as evidence as long as they can identify who/what/where/when/why.
Evidence has to be presented before any proceeding otherwise its thrown out. Those gotcha games are the reason.
The SCOTUS will destroy that
In Michigan you are one the of the parties so its fine either way.
No... Thats how ONE party consent works.
A recorded call that violates 2 party consent may still be used as evidence. The person who made the recording may still be in trouble though.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/15/federal-judge-questions-michigans-secret-recording-law-asks-high-court-weigh/3662931001/
Obama judge muddied the waters to protect a Project Veritas target so now it's before the Michigan Supreme Court, which just flipped to 4-3 Democrat majority because of the rigged voting. What a clusterfuck
Ooooh...oh...ooooh....oh yeah I memba!!!
Two party consent usually isn’t required when a crime is being committed.
Plus, there's ability to record a government official performing in their official capacity? IANAL but I don't think situations like these are as clear as "one party/ two party" consent rules.
Could this fall under the protection of the first amendment to record in a public place?
Yeah; this isn’t a permission needed situation. It’s a training provided to a class and members of the public and not subject to that requirement.
Just checked, it is
this video was taken into court and used as part of an order to allow poll challengers to have access to the balloting, the guy that recorded this video discussed it at length on Rekieta Media on livestream prior to the election. (livestream after he made the video, confirmed in comment on the next day's stream that they had won in court).
It is likely that if this recording or any of the other info known by the person recording it is of any use in the post-election environment it has already made it's way to where it can be useful, the person that recorded it is with michigan state GOP
https://youtu.be/uh7DXEzhQbI -- guest appears around 54-55 minutes in after discsussio about pre-election ACB stuff.
Thanks for the info.
Some people may ask if it's common to be admissible in court?
To the doubters I would quote an austere democratic scholar: "YEP IT'S A COMIN'"
Witnesses stating that they were not able to view absentee ballots would help corroborate this.
This will be admissible in court, but it will not change anything. This is the recording from an official training video for vote counters, what the women is telling them is not illegal, it is how the law says the ballots should have counted. It is already rigged, we should have protested the state laws when they were changed by Demonrats, the only way I see now is to rise up and defend the constitution and president Trump. We need to occupy white house like commies occupied wallstreet. Say whatever you want, but it was effective. And not to let Biden take over the white house