They have some counter-points to this argument. I actually got into it with a shill the other day. They didn't have a comeback my response it, so these talking points might work for you guys.
Your article starts by citing ONE high-profile affidavit that was dismissed, hardly evidence of being representative of the whole.
The article says most weren't filed in court, which is true and misleading. Many were provided directly to legislatures and not any courts. You have an expert from Duke saying the affidavits aren't recognized for the most part as being sworn statements "under the statute". What does that mean? Which statute? Most of the sworn testimony was provided to the state legislators which none have the same statutes.
They say perjury prosecutions are rare, but if 1,000's of people colluded to commit perjury to overturn the 2020 election, that's legit treason. Why isn't a single prosecutor approaching this angle? Surely many DAs would benefit politically for even trying. Especially when the courts wouldn't be trying the perjury, but State's congress. None of them would benefit politically from pursuing perjury?
The article goes on to say it would be difficult to prove them false.
One affidavit was dismissed as hearsay. Fair. It's fine for the courts to dismiss that as factual evidence, but not enough for investigators to summarily dismiss before investigating.
Another case of an affidavit being dismissed for not having evidence, when, once again, sworn statements usually serve to give investigators leads, and strong enough ones, search and arrest warrants.
An unlinked story about 53 ballots being post-dated. Hard to dispute it without more facts.
One that doesn't allege wrongdoing, but rather problems with vote-counting procedures. It qoutes a few of the most frivolous ones, but ignores the ones where Republicans were prevented from watching hundreds of thousands of votes that later never get audited.
It then says that it's not weird that Biden got a Saddam Hussein level of support in Detroit (94%) and that's somehow dismissive of election fraud?
Another dismissed affidavit cited a lack of understanding of the voting system, sourced it's own article that didn't even mention it in the title or the first 4 paragraphs, so I'm not even going to get into it.
In summary, this article provided ZERO context for how representative their article is of the the actual affidavits. How many have been introduced? How many actually got dismissed? How many allege wrong doing vs. procedurals errors? How is procedural errors even a blanket dismissal? Sure, if they're wrong. What about if they're right? WaPo seems to make it seem like it's not a problem if 1,000,000 ballots are counted wrong, because that probably wasn't done illegally, just wrongly? It attempts to write off 1,000 statements with ~6 examples of the worst ones. It vaguely alludes to all of the statements having the same problem without applying any numbers or justification of doing so. Despite all the lawyers and legal experts quoted, the only law cited is some singular vague "statute" which ignores that the various bicameral legislatures would be dealing with close to a dozen statutes. This article was some interesting food for thought, but doesn't do a good enough job of dismissing the affidavits"
If they arrest them and try to imprison them they will have to look at the evidence.
This
Aren't the witnesses the evidence?
No one will be. In order to arrest them. They would have to investigate to prove they lied. They don't want to investigate...
These kangaroo judges will say the evidence is biden won, therefore you lie
Don’t give them any ideas
Ask Mike Pence. He has an answer for everything.
BuT tHeReS nO eViDeNcE oF fRaUd
They have some counter-points to this argument. I actually got into it with a shill the other day. They didn't have a comeback my response it, so these talking points might work for you guys.
This is a WaPo article they used to dismiss this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/20/affidavit-giuliani-vote-fraud/
Here is my response
"....
Your article starts by citing ONE high-profile affidavit that was dismissed, hardly evidence of being representative of the whole.
The article says most weren't filed in court, which is true and misleading. Many were provided directly to legislatures and not any courts. You have an expert from Duke saying the affidavits aren't recognized for the most part as being sworn statements "under the statute". What does that mean? Which statute? Most of the sworn testimony was provided to the state legislators which none have the same statutes.
They say perjury prosecutions are rare, but if 1,000's of people colluded to commit perjury to overturn the 2020 election, that's legit treason. Why isn't a single prosecutor approaching this angle? Surely many DAs would benefit politically for even trying. Especially when the courts wouldn't be trying the perjury, but State's congress. None of them would benefit politically from pursuing perjury?
The article goes on to say it would be difficult to prove them false.
One affidavit was dismissed as hearsay. Fair. It's fine for the courts to dismiss that as factual evidence, but not enough for investigators to summarily dismiss before investigating.
Another case of an affidavit being dismissed for not having evidence, when, once again, sworn statements usually serve to give investigators leads, and strong enough ones, search and arrest warrants.
An unlinked story about 53 ballots being post-dated. Hard to dispute it without more facts.
One that doesn't allege wrongdoing, but rather problems with vote-counting procedures. It qoutes a few of the most frivolous ones, but ignores the ones where Republicans were prevented from watching hundreds of thousands of votes that later never get audited.
It then says that it's not weird that Biden got a Saddam Hussein level of support in Detroit (94%) and that's somehow dismissive of election fraud?
Another dismissed affidavit cited a lack of understanding of the voting system, sourced it's own article that didn't even mention it in the title or the first 4 paragraphs, so I'm not even going to get into it.
In summary, this article provided ZERO context for how representative their article is of the the actual affidavits. How many have been introduced? How many actually got dismissed? How many allege wrong doing vs. procedurals errors? How is procedural errors even a blanket dismissal? Sure, if they're wrong. What about if they're right? WaPo seems to make it seem like it's not a problem if 1,000,000 ballots are counted wrong, because that probably wasn't done illegally, just wrongly? It attempts to write off 1,000 statements with ~6 examples of the worst ones. It vaguely alludes to all of the statements having the same problem without applying any numbers or justification of doing so. Despite all the lawyers and legal experts quoted, the only law cited is some singular vague "statute" which ignores that the various bicameral legislatures would be dealing with close to a dozen statutes. This article was some interesting food for thought, but doesn't do a good enough job of dismissing the affidavits"
BECUASE THE EVIDENCE WAS NEVER DISPUTED. IT NEVER WENT TO COURT. THIS IS MOOT.
Someone posts this everyday. lol.
They'll wait till trump is powerless then quietly pick them off
WTF are you babbling about? Video evidence is not opinion or hearsay