2837
Comments (134)
sorted by:
77
KrellKrypto 77 points ago +80 / -3

Have their not been thousands of signed afadavits already?

26
DefenderDad 26 points ago +26 / -0

Yes. If they are false it is perjury.

17
Observe95 17 points ago +17 / -0

They have. Corman is just playing delay games like they did in Michigan.

https://rumble.com/vm25ak-grassroots-group-is-opening-up-pandoras-box-in-pa.html

-58
YourOwnGreatGrandma -58 points ago +12 / -70

“Signed affidavits” mean virtually nothing. This Guliani line is so old and stale, it’s practically “the kraken” at this point.

43
TexasJack 43 points ago +48 / -5

Exact opposite of the Kraken. It's real people providing written statements that they attest to under penalty of perjury. For a lawyer in Rudy's position at the time, it's a key initial step in making the case.

1
ceremony_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can provide as many written statements as you want.

Like one statement per citizen.

Sort of like a Vote.

In the end, someone actually has to consider them in order for the "Statements" (or Votes) to become relevant.

-3
Xuvial -3 points ago +13 / -16

real people providing written statements that they attest to under penalty of perjury

Fortunately their statements are the kind that are impossible to disprove/falsify, so they are safe from the penalty.

For a lawyer in Rudy's position at the time, it's a key initial step in making the case.

How? So far out of the 60+ election lawsuits, affidavits haven't helped whatsoever in making any case. Literally hundreds of affidavits have been swept aside as being hearsay in court. What is the point of chasing affidavits again, 9 months after the steal? This feels like deja vu. I wish PA the best of luck with this.

10
doug2 10 points ago +12 / -2

No they're really not. Any one of them could be proved / disproved any number of ways

8
TexasJack 8 points ago +8 / -0

Fortunately their statements are the kind that are impossible to disprove/falsify, so they are safe from the penalty.

That's not true at all. If someone swears in an affidavit that they were working at a polling location in Pennsylvania on 11/3/20, but they were really playing the slots in Vegas that day, the falsity of their statement would be easy to prove.

0
Xuvial 0 points ago +1 / -1

Most of the actual election fraud affidavits aren't making the types of claims that can be disproven, because it contains claims like this:

I experienced intimidation the entire time I was on the floor to observe, from 8:30am to 12pm.

Any time I would approach the table to observe, Democratic observers would block the viewing. The Democratic challengers would try to distract us from observing the information on the monitor.

I did attempt to speak with other Republican poll challengers to discuss how to effectively observe, but we were told we could not converse amongst ourselves.

It's impossible to disprove any of this because we can't go back in time to check who said what, or who intimidated who.

1
TexasJack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can't help you. Sorry.

1
Xuvial 1 point ago +1 / -0

Watch how far these PA affidavits get in court.

-4
QLARP -4 points ago +4 / -8

You are thinking of affidavits with a court of law.

The Guliani affidavits were between the witnesses and the Trump campaign.

The only penalty for lying in those would be being sued by the Trump campaign in civil court for lying.

7
TexasJack 7 points ago +8 / -1

That's not correct. The affiant is swearing their statement is true under penalty of perjury before an officer of the court (any attorney). They can be prosecuted if their statement is later found to be materially false.

-5
QLARP -5 points ago +2 / -7

Look at affidavits themselves they aren't between an individual and a officer of the court they are between the individual and the Trump campaign.

5
day221 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wow you are so full of shit. Just look up any of the affidavits:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/img-201118215108%20%281%29.pdf

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/20201118184530537.pdf

And compare them to those from any other case. The other user already explained why your reasoning was wrong.

-3
QLARP -3 points ago +2 / -5

The election affidavits had no legal exposure for criminal perjury only civil lawsuits from the campaign.

3
TexasJack 3 points ago +4 / -1

Contracts are between two parties. Affidavits are not "between" anyone. They are statements from an individual sworn before a notary or an officer of the court, in this case Rudy or Jenna Ellis or another attorney. Whether that notary or attorney was working for the Trump campaign is irrelevant.

-1
QLARP -1 points ago +2 / -3

The election affidavits had no legal exposure for criminal perjury only civil lawsuits from the campaign.

-5
Liquid_Hot_MAGA -5 points ago +3 / -8

Except he took those affidavits from another case, that was later thrown out and they were never his own, so they were basically worthless

4
TexasJack 4 points ago +6 / -2

Not correct. Unless the affidavits were proven to be false, their intrinsic worth remains the same, regardless of the outcome of any given court proceeding. And no court substantively evaluated them in their rush to get rid of the election challenges as quickly as possible.

-1
Liquid_Hot_MAGA -1 points ago +1 / -2

Wrong again. They were never even submitted because he never did anything with them. He just said he has them and that's it. He never filed or submitted them anywhere after taking them from another case

0
TexasJack 0 points ago +1 / -1

You don't know what you're talking about. But carry on.

1
Liquid_Hot_MAGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can literally read the court docs online where it says it but ok

-16
deleted -16 points ago +8 / -24
14
Treefreak1776 14 points ago +17 / -3

Not sure who's worse you or anaconda

3
Criss_P_Bacon 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think they’re the same person.

-13
YourOwnGreatGrandma -13 points ago +6 / -19

I’m right. You’re just butthurt because you fell for yet another grift and you’re not man enough to admit the fact.

4
Dereliction 4 points ago +6 / -2

It would be easy to admit if you were right. But you're not.

-4
YourOwnGreatGrandma -4 points ago +1 / -5

That explains why none of your tHouSaNds oF aFFaDaviTs have been used to overturn a single vote. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re too arrogant to learn.

4
doug2 4 points ago +6 / -2

You're ignorance, and total confidence in yourself despite it, is really incredible

-3
YourOwnGreatGrandma -3 points ago +1 / -4

That’s rich, as your comment perfectly describes yourself and the other poorly educated users on this site.

Weird how I was right about everything for the last years while you’re a bunch of ignoramuses still talking about overturning election results with aFFaDaviTs a year after the election is over. Let me know when you overturn one single vote.

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

You know who I am?

-2
YourOwnGreatGrandma -2 points ago +1 / -3

Yeah you’re someone who has no idea wtf you’re talking about at all

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn't say we could overturn anything based on them, I said they aren't meaninglesa

1
TexasJack 1 point ago +3 / -2

You don't know what you're talking about.

-3
YourOwnGreatGrandma -3 points ago +1 / -4

You’re a fake lawyer. Let me know when you overturn a single vote with your “affadavits.” It’s been almost a year now and you charlatans haven’t done shit except:

https://www.emojipng.com/preview/5987085

7
ebuy123 7 points ago +9 / -2

An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay.

Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.

What Is An Affidavit And When Are They Used? | LegalNature https://www.legalnature.com/guides/what-is-an-affidavit-and-when-are-they-used

Using an Affidavit as Admissible Evidence An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify. Thus, never assume that just because you signed an affidavit that it will get you out of testifying in court as a witness. Sometimes courts may have local rules that will state whether an affidavit is considered hearsay or not. Your attorney will let you know if you need an affidavit, have to testify, or if you need an affidavit and will have to testify.

Restrictions on Affidavits No restrictions for age are in place for signing an affidavit. However, you must be of sound mind and you must understand what you are signing and why you are signing it. Keep in mind that an affidavit is signed under oath. Generally, you will not be asked to sign an affidavit unless you are over the age of 18. However, minors may be asked to sign an affidavit in a family court matter, as long as the minor is of sound mind and is of an age where he or she is old enough to understand the facts and that the minor is signing a document that must be true and correct.

Consequences of Signing an Affidavit Before you sign an affidavit, keep in mind that there are legal consequences to signing an affidavit with false facts. Since you are signing a document under oath, it is the same as testifying in a court of law. If you provide information that is false or lie on the affidavit, you could be fined for perjury. Fines could include monetary fines, community service, and even jail time. The punishment and the severity of the punishment vary from state to state.

-3
YourOwnGreatGrandma -3 points ago +1 / -4

Admissible evidence?!?!?

https://www.emojipng.com/preview/5987085

The fact that you copy and pasted a Wikipedia article on affidavits and got 10 upvotes shows we have no chance at all of overturning the election. You guys are absolutely clueless.

1
ebuy123 1 point ago +1 / -0

its not a wikipedia article. click the link silly. you need to do the homework instead of constant dooming.

-3
YourOwnGreatGrandma -3 points ago +1 / -4

Legal nature.com “what is Muh affadavit???”

https://www.emojipng.com/preview/5987085

1
Criss_P_Bacon 1 point ago +1 / -0

The the fuck is a link from LEGAL NATURE the same as Wikipedia? And why do you support red flag laws??

1
-3
YourOwnGreatGrandma -3 points ago +1 / -4

https://www.emojipng.com/preview/5987085

You’re literally all like that drunk blonde who thought she was going to overturn Arizona’s election because she signed an affidavit “which means I can go to jail!”

So embarrassing.

1
doug2 1 point ago +3 / -2

Wtf of course they mean something retard lol

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
QLARP -2 points ago +2 / -4

You are thinking of affidavits with a court of law.

The Guliani affidavits were between the witnesses and the Trump campaign.

The only penalty for lying in those would be being sued by the Trump campaign in civil court for lying.

3
Concerned__Citizen 3 points ago +4 / -1

An affidavit is an instrument of law, in civil and criminal matters. An affidavit may exist in a civil case with no criminal penalties, but its existence and what is stated within it may lead a civil case into becoming a criminal one. Civil cases are not criminal cases, but you can end up in a criminal court from your actions in a civil case.

It doesn't matter if visiting a court or not - perjury is a criminal offense that can be prosecuted in whatever state you live in, as you're attesting to the truth within the document under oath. Whether a perjury case is prosecuted or not is entirely up to the prosecuting attorney within the county or state you live within.

The Monica Lewinsky case is such a case where the actions of Ex President Bill Clinton allegedly acted in a manner within a civil matter which could have led him into criminal court: perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice - however, the Senate found him not guilty.

-1
QLARP -1 points ago +2 / -3

Look at affidavits themselves they aren't between an individual and a officer of the court they are between the individual and the Trump campaign.

1
ebuy123 1 point ago +1 / -0

a lawyer is "AN OFFICER OF THE COURT" it's a responsibility and a privilege for any licensed attorney to be an "officer of the court"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/court_officers/

-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
-5
YourOwnGreatGrandma -5 points ago +1 / -6

cognitive dissonance REEEEE

27
Bump 27 points ago +28 / -1

You mean in addition to the thousand affidavits, the queue of eye witnesses at the hearing that took 14 hours, the video evidence & Rudy Giuliani with experts to explain the data breaches they found? Or did none of those feckless, corrupt senators take any notice, apart from our total babe, Mastriano?

10
FuckingWiseCracker 10 points ago +10 / -0

Mastriano is a total babe, in fact it seems that he's the total, complete package. although IIRC, he's married (sigh) so I should say that his wife is a lucky lady. Incidentally, I'm in PA and got a Sharpie, the whole place had nothing but Sharpies. It was the same story here too: Trump flags, signs, and stickers everywhere, not a Biden supporter to be found, not one... But the senile fucker won our county.

1
itswood 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mind if I ask which county your in? I had a very similar experience, and I actually took pictures at my Montco polling place's sharpies. Wonder if that's worth submitting...

3
FuckingWiseCracker 3 points ago +3 / -0

Although I'm not going to give anyone my name address, SS#, etc... (Lol) I don't mind answering that I'm in York County. I suppose that it couldn't hurt to drop an email. I absolutely will do that, but I can't remember the lawyer's name that's handling it. If you can find it, please let me know. Thanks & best wishes!

5
Perziant0ker 5 points ago +5 / -0

Im in York too. Everyone Ive spoken to was given a fucking sharpie. No way the POS senile kid fucker won our county. NO. WAY.

1
FuckingWiseCracker 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know, right? Regarding the Sharpies; I can remember thinking that they would go through the paper, and were expensive pens for the government to buy for a single use purpose. It was all so odd.

1
Whoopies_tds 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is being done by the PA Senate directly with citizens who "may" be called in to testify in front of the Senate.

I filled out the form because I did experience some BS first hand. If nothing comes from it, this will go down as another useless dog and pony show

17
EJay_Scott 17 points ago +18 / -1

Hope the folks that come forward are offered some kind of protection.

9
MAGAnic316 9 points ago +13 / -4

Lol, you’ll join the witless protection programme overseen by the FBI.

12
Deadpool 12 points ago +12 / -0

Witnesses protection is overseen by a real law enforcement arm, the US Marshals. The FBI only stages false flags and covers up crimes by the political elites.

3
EJay_Scott 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's exactly why I didn't specify what kind of protection. With that corrupt fox-guarding-the-henhouse outfit, the witnesses would be better off being issued a firearm with a mounted camera to prove that they didn't kill themselves.

2
TheFreeSpeechRadical 2 points ago +2 / -0

sod the protection! Isn't our democracy worth dying for? I'd rather do it come what may!

3
24601 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is exactly why I don't trust Corman. There's enough evidence right now to simply issue subpoenas... Instead he's going to run a kangaroo court while outing witnesses to crimes... slow walk the subpoenas - giving the criminals enough time to either pay off those who come forward or beat them within an inch of their lives.

14
TexasJack 14 points ago +14 / -0

Corman is a lying weasel. This is just another delay tactic and PA is corrupt as hell. We will never see a real forensic audit there.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
3
LongDongDonald420x69 3 points ago +3 / -0

kkekk

11
JoseyMontana 11 points ago +11 / -0

Fuck.

Corman.

He is using this stunt to discredit the need for "audits" and keep his Hell's Bargain with the uniparty.

4
Snoman 4 points ago +4 / -0

I agree, there’s something wrong w/this play between Mastrianno and Corman.

Who’s to say he doesn’t bring a 3rd Party auditor and plant false evidence to degrade the audit process in PA thus those across the nation.

Bannon let the Pillow Merchant denigrate the process, how much of this will he pursue ?

5
DefenderDad 5 points ago +5 / -0

Corman removed Mastrianno from his seat. That is all you need to know about Corman.

He removed a patriot from doing patriot things.

3
Snoman 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’m aware, which prompts a greater level of skepticism than I already possess.

3
BloodDe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds like Barr. We've seen that trick already

11
wtp_1 11 points ago +12 / -1

testifying 10 months later?! ... common people, don't be stupid.

7
SkeletorsTeeth 7 points ago +8 / -1

Like the poll watcher that was denied entrance in Philly on video? There has to be hundreds of examples.

6
Mrsfedo2 6 points ago +6 / -0

I was a poll watcher in a Philly suburb. The Judge of Elections gave provisional ballots to four guys who were not registered to vote (not just in our precinct, but in all of PA....no record of them) They didn’t speak English. He said it was “easier than getting into a disagreement”. Beyond that so many people showed up who were told they had already voted by mail, but they insisted they hadn’t. It was a mess. I’ve reported all of that. Not sure that’s the thing they are looking for though.

3
Mrsfedo2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh and when I showed up I was told I wasn’t allowed to be in the same room where people were voting. That’s literally what I was there to do...I got that sorted out quickly.

6
Ichuta 6 points ago +6 / -0

They already have hundreds of affidavits. This is BS

5
ravioli_king 5 points ago +5 / -0

Didn't they do this 9 months ago? They had quite a top tier list of credible witnesses. Doctors, lawyers, military and so on. People in control of voting equipment keys.

4
GOPkilledTHEMSELVES 4 points ago +4 / -0

They shut down Mastriano so they could carry out their own fake audit.

3
PartTimeLoser 3 points ago +3 / -0

Haven’t we already done this? Wasn’t there a week long hearing in PA with Giuliani and other lawyers shortly after the “results” came out from the election?

3
Hamadryad 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hope they have the courage to come forward. The left will threaten the life of them and their families and antifa will riot outside their house.

5
Xuvial 5 points ago +5 / -0

This whole thing feels 9 months too late. "Hey folks, do you remember seeing anything strange 9 months ago? Please let us know".

Seriously, what the fuck? Didn't we already do a LOT of that?

2
Big_Sam_Handwich 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes...I watched the hearings in a bunch of different states.

3
TermLimits 3 points ago +3 / -0

This a bogus panel like the Michigan one. They will just be covering up evidence.

2
PorchLightOn 2 points ago +2 / -0

The article spells it out:

The information will “help lawmakers develop potential improvements to state law to bolster election security.”

“The goal of the Senate’s investigation will not be to conduct a recount, but to find any flaws in the system that could be exploited by bad actors and take action to correct those flaws through legislative changes to our Election Code,” he said.

Legislative changes is all Corman and Dush are talking about. I don't believe they have any real interest in exposing the criminal acts that lead to Pennsylvania's stolen election. And if they're not interested in exposing it, they're complicit.

JustTheNews mentions the threat to decertify voting equipment in York and Tioga as if it's a good reason to avoid audits, instead of identifying it for what it is: the continued punishment of citizens by a corrupt state, for simply wanting to know if their votes were fairly counted.

I'm disappointed by JustTheNews, and Dush is only helping Corman run out the clock.

1
PorchLightOn 1 point ago +1 / -0

Adding: AuditTheVotePA is not giving up in their fight for Pennsylvania's election integrity. You can keep in touch with their current strategy, at Telegram account: https://t.me/auditthevotepa

I think Toni Shuppe and her group have decided to focus on helping individual counties do their own research and bring evidence of fraud to light, to increase the pressure on Corman and Dush to do more than "investigate."

It's possible this portal for public testimony can be used to increase the pressure on Dush, if they get a big response. I'm just saying, we shouldn't let them pretend that more investigations with no further action is an acceptable substitute for audits and canvassing that can uncover real fraud.

2
CTGunner82 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh wow! In just a few more weeks the dam will really break this time! /SARCASM

2
Beer-_-Belly 2 points ago +2 / -0

I personally saw numbers change over night that statically were impossible.

2
texas4ever 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only way PA does anything is if the AZ audit actually comes out within a couple months and it's even way worse than people expect. Otherwise they'll just run out the clock.

2
Theoldmaster 2 points ago +2 / -0

More information will come out 2 weeks from never !

2
R3tro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Stall tactic to drag this out for as long as they can…

2
Spock_Logic 2 points ago +2 / -0

All of this is great but 1/2 the population will never hear about it. MSM will never report it and the communist Dems will LIE all day long. You have smart liberals like Sam Harris who think all of the voting issues have already been ruled on by the courts. They have no clue what the legal term "no standing" means. None of the evidence was actually presented before a court.

2
Jonah_Kyle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not valid. They kicked out the REAL forensic audit guy, Colonel Mastriano, and are now putting together a Kabuki Theater presentation of "election fraud investigation." Not buying it.

2
AbrahamLincoln 2 points ago +2 / -0

Didn't we already have hundreds of affidavits that they gave zero shits about?

2
ComingForU 2 points ago +2 / -0

What a joke - they had many of those at the start. This is theater to keep the Red masses in PA placated.

2
SaltyKrakenBalls 2 points ago +2 / -0

CORMAN AND THE GOP ARE TRAITORS. Pulling Doug M. from his Senate chairman role was a completely corrupt move. PA is now tucked.

2
RetardFarts 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is shit.

People are afraid to come forward, CNN and PMSNBC will send their Antifa goons to their houses.

2
BudBurner 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sen Jake Corman said on the news the Pennsylvania audit isn't about changing the results it's about election integrity. Don't expect anything to come out of this bullshit audit in Pennsylvania.

-1
Walleye-vision71 -1 points ago +1 / -2

You can’t change the results, no matter what.

1
ChynahIzAzzhole 1 point ago +1 / -0

Government wants another list to turn over to the terrorists.

1
patriot808 1 point ago +1 / -0

we can rest assured that when john soloman reports it's happening ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Same just the news constantly jerked us off on durham report amungst other things

1
texas4ever 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is why we urgently need the Arizona audit to come out. It'll be explosive and force these RINOs hands, but not if it's 4 months later.

1
FreedomFrogs 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’d be absolutely shocked if anything came out of this, or really any of the audits at this point. Why is there an appetite for audits now and not 9 months ago? I think they just want to placate the base to get votes in the next election. I would love to be proven wrong, but the tick tock is too common now.

1
dakinnia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Witnessed malfeasance?

Well, I did see a Democrat on my bus, so there's that.

1
Thesyrianlannister 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does being forced to use a sharpie count towards this? Because I was given one when i voted

1
Basard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Didn't they do that a long time ago....... They had hours long hearings.......

1
Qualityproduct 1 point ago +1 / -0

When I went to go vote, first of all, my voting location was at the same building as another voting location. They didn't differentiate between the two. One had a line out the door longer than a football field, the other didn't have a line. You didn't even know though. Because you didn't expect two separate voting centers to be there.

I can't imagine how many people turned around and left or waited forever when they didn't have a line.

After that the only odd thing was when I checked in the one lady said to the other lady, "oh, independent"

1
DefenderDad 1 point ago +1 / -0

The article says this is purely to get how to change the laws to secure future elections.

In short, this is a giant finger to the people.

1
doodaddy 1 point ago +1 / -0

probably a trap. they already have the testimony from the days after the "election"

1
itswood 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong...but I keep seeing people on this site simp for Mastriano...but wasn't he one of the senator's who voted FOR Gov Wolf's illegal election rule changes? Anyone who voted in favor of those changes knew what they were doing.

1
Scankles 1 point ago +1 / -0

Corman is stalling. The ballots can be destroyed soon making a forensic audit impossible. Stalling is the RNC tactic from coast to coast.

1
Marshall2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does this remind anyone of the Clinton Lists of Arkancides?

1
covok48 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like can’t they use the evidence they already have?

I don’t trust this shit any more than Arizona.

0
sumbodyshero 0 points ago +1 / -1

I hope it's all affidavit, otherwise lying democrats with come with disinformation.

1
Big_Sam_Handwich 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, poison the well on purpose...they are good at that