Sorry but this is the one. This is the Dominion insider Rudy was talking about, it aligns with everything Rudy said. They better have more than this. The courts have so far just ignored these affidavits by saying "well I talked to the person running the election and they said all went well and that's more believable than this affidavit".
what i like most is calling these people ‘whistleblowers’. This is a term the left loves to throw around so its important to play by their own rules on this. whistleblower immediately implies credible insider exposing some wrongdoing or illegal act. need more them
She was told to do IT work, not "run their election". Very interesting wording there. If It's not our election, then whose is it that he is referring to? I think it is quite obvious.
If that takes place. We have to assume the deep state is working behind the scenes frantically trying to push something through; threaten and cajole state legislators; create an event of unprecedented chaos to distract the nation so badly that this isn't uncovered
This better not be Exhibit A in the Trump campaign's legal case. Aside from being poorly written, this woman provides no substantiating evidence of her claims. She did not witness boxes of ballots being brought in - only that people went on smoke brakes and "could have" brought new ballots for counting. Sounds pretty weak, IMO
The way she describes it is not factual. It wouldn't stand up against cross-examination. Multiple people scanned batches 4 or 5 times? No one scanned them 3 times or 6 times? Each occurrence was either 4 or 5 but you can't state which number with any certainty?
Her generalities make it sound like she's making rough guesses and estimations.
She probably worked with an attorney who was rushed and lacked courtroom experience to get a good, solid affidavit from her.
One of the worst things she said was some people got on their phones and talked about something and she "believes" something was covered up.
Stating that she was the only Republican should include a statement that she questioned every other observer as to their affiliation, and they all told her they were Democrats. That would be a statement with support. She also said that anyone with a flag was "deemed" to be a Republican. How can she factually know what others "deemed"?
I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just telling you how testimony works. I hope her narrative will be considered as worthy of further inquiry and not just tossed due to too much opinion/speculation.
She just made an estimate. They jammed 4-5 times an hour randomly. That's testable. If they rescanned each time they jammed, that's 4-5 times more votes. That they were rescanning them at all is illegal isn't it?
The phone conversation can be confirmed if the data shows they did lose a large amount of data, and in doing so names at least one person pulling the strings.
There are illegal signatures, illegal ballot handling, illegally denying republican poll watchers, no security or chain of custody, etc...
The van thing was pretty speculative for sure. But it matches other reports we've heard all over.
That could be good testimony, if she didn't say that she saw it happen "countless" times. Not that it would be dismissed due to her vague counting, but taken as a whole with everything else, let's just say it's far from ideal.
But like you said, it matches other things, so taken in that way, it can be viewed as potentially corroborative.
FWIW, I think the Trump team is holding aces we don't know about it. The way Rudy and Sidney talk, we got this. :)
It doesn’t matter, that number should never be above 50.
It gets cleared at the end of every batch, and every batch is exactly 50 votes. The fact that it’s above that number is the problem, not the number of scans.
It was actually kind of funny (in a sad way) when she was talking about all the ballots she saw in one interview and was asked if she could see who the ballots were for from her vantage point. And she answered that she could.
She had to be asked the follow up question: Who were they for? To which she answered, Joe Biden.
It's not an issue of being truthful. It's about objective facts and whether they can be substantiated. "I was the only Republican there." Can she prove that? Did she ask everyone? Or was this her "belief"?
I have no doubt that everything she said was true - either to her, or factually. But in a court room, there's more than just whether she believes what she's saying is true.
I don't think this is perjury. But I do think it is poorly framed to the point where it won't hold up in court. Does this give evidence without a reasonable doubt? I can't say for certain.
I don't think she is being untruthful. But her statement at best is vague. At worst, it lacks any physical corroboration. I'm not shilling, just explaining how evidence admission works in a courtroom. Just because she signed an affidavit doesn't make it admissible. Believing there is a coverup is not the same as proving a coverup. She's speculating. Do I think she saw these things? Yes. Do I feel this sworn statement is anything close to airtight proof? Absolutely not.
Ebonics?
Ebonics might say that, but more accurate spelling(to seperate hillbilly from ghetto) would be " I seen't dat shit"
My first thought reading was ebonics were most likely but who knows.
I mean yeah maybe. I don't usually think there's many rules to that dialect besides butchering standard english.
It should have been: dam cuz, I be done did seen some shit up in here! Y’all just didn’t realize it was shortened, probably for reading constraints.
It's actually "What had happened was....."
Trust me on this.
This is good and all but I really hope this is not the Dominion insider they been whispering about.... cause this won’t get us very far.
Yeah this isn't actually a Dominion insider, she was a contractor hired for election day only.
Sorry but this is the one. This is the Dominion insider Rudy was talking about, it aligns with everything Rudy said. They better have more than this. The courts have so far just ignored these affidavits by saying "well I talked to the person running the election and they said all went well and that's more believable than this affidavit".
We need videos of this happening. Re running attacks of ballots. Absolutely absurd.
what i like most is calling these people ‘whistleblowers’. This is a term the left loves to throw around so its important to play by their own rules on this. whistleblower immediately implies credible insider exposing some wrongdoing or illegal act. need more them
She was told to do IT work, not "run their election". Very interesting wording there. If It's not our election, then whose is it that he is referring to? I think it is quite obvious.
If that takes place. We have to assume the deep state is working behind the scenes frantically trying to push something through; threaten and cajole state legislators; create an event of unprecedented chaos to distract the nation so badly that this isn't uncovered
Typo of 'on' to 'one'
I hope John wins! I voted for him 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
so did my family.
Nice great work
This better not be Exhibit A in the Trump campaign's legal case. Aside from being poorly written, this woman provides no substantiating evidence of her claims. She did not witness boxes of ballots being brought in - only that people went on smoke brakes and "could have" brought new ballots for counting. Sounds pretty weak, IMO
Deeeebooooonnkkked! 😜
Archived Full Document ::
https://gofile.io/d/BAcVNi
This is the same woman who was interviewed on the video released a few days after the election. https://m.twitch.tv/videos/798796260
It's mostly speculation, assumption, hearsay, and opinion. It's not really actionable data, unfortunately.
How, visually seeing user error with tabulation machines by one of the IT techs?
The way she describes it is not factual. It wouldn't stand up against cross-examination. Multiple people scanned batches 4 or 5 times? No one scanned them 3 times or 6 times? Each occurrence was either 4 or 5 but you can't state which number with any certainty?
Her generalities make it sound like she's making rough guesses and estimations.
She probably worked with an attorney who was rushed and lacked courtroom experience to get a good, solid affidavit from her.
One of the worst things she said was some people got on their phones and talked about something and she "believes" something was covered up.
Stating that she was the only Republican should include a statement that she questioned every other observer as to their affiliation, and they all told her they were Democrats. That would be a statement with support. She also said that anyone with a flag was "deemed" to be a Republican. How can she factually know what others "deemed"?
I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just telling you how testimony works. I hope her narrative will be considered as worthy of further inquiry and not just tossed due to too much opinion/speculation.
Yep. While I have no doubt what was occurring was fraudulent, this is not framed in an airtight manner that can hold up. Fairly frustrating.
^ this guy lawyers.
She just made an estimate. They jammed 4-5 times an hour randomly. That's testable. If they rescanned each time they jammed, that's 4-5 times more votes. That they were rescanning them at all is illegal isn't it?
The phone conversation can be confirmed if the data shows they did lose a large amount of data, and in doing so names at least one person pulling the strings.
There are illegal signatures, illegal ballot handling, illegally denying republican poll watchers, no security or chain of custody, etc...
The van thing was pretty speculative for sure. But it matches other reports we've heard all over.
That could be good testimony, if she didn't say that she saw it happen "countless" times. Not that it would be dismissed due to her vague counting, but taken as a whole with everything else, let's just say it's far from ideal.
But like you said, it matches other things, so taken in that way, it can be viewed as potentially corroborative.
FWIW, I think the Trump team is holding aces we don't know about it. The way Rudy and Sidney talk, we got this. :)
It doesn’t matter, that number should never be above 50.
It gets cleared at the end of every batch, and every batch is exactly 50 votes. The fact that it’s above that number is the problem, not the number of scans.
It was actually kind of funny (in a sad way) when she was talking about all the ballots she saw in one interview and was asked if she could see who the ballots were for from her vantage point. And she answered that she could.
She had to be asked the follow up question: Who were they for? To which she answered, Joe Biden.
It's not an issue of being truthful. It's about objective facts and whether they can be substantiated. "I was the only Republican there." Can she prove that? Did she ask everyone? Or was this her "belief"?
I have no doubt that everything she said was true - either to her, or factually. But in a court room, there's more than just whether she believes what she's saying is true.
I don't think this is perjury. But I do think it is poorly framed to the point where it won't hold up in court. Does this give evidence without a reasonable doubt? I can't say for certain.
I don't think she is being untruthful. But her statement at best is vague. At worst, it lacks any physical corroboration. I'm not shilling, just explaining how evidence admission works in a courtroom. Just because she signed an affidavit doesn't make it admissible. Believing there is a coverup is not the same as proving a coverup. She's speculating. Do I think she saw these things? Yes. Do I feel this sworn statement is anything close to airtight proof? Absolutely not.
Not when it’s a sworn affidavit..
Judge Tim Kenny already threw this case out
The case that was thrown out was completely unrelated to Trump's stuff. It was a lawsuit from 5 citizens.