i believe the issue here (among other things i'm probably missing) is the woman saying "i thought all ballots were already counted" and the guy replying "i thought so too" as he sorts out 11 boxes of newly received ballots.

remember, GA was for Trump and at 99% reporting for about 2 days until "extra ballots" kept being counted (again, they were at 99% for 2 straight days).

Funny how Twitter doesn’t give this guy the scarlet letter label all of Trumps tweets get

Appointed by the governor? So that’s not good.

as far as CNN viewers go, this is healthy as fuck.

...to be continued summer 2024 if needed

What about those that worked hard to payoff their debt?

Tell me again it’s only a little bit of fraud so it’s no big deal?

This man is irrelevant in the most absolute way. Nobody cares about anything he said in the last, present and future.

I could honestly give two shits whatever that old fuckbag says, has said or will say any time in the future. He is irrelevant in the most absolute way.

Was all sounding interesting until the part where they want money. Red flag.

whats with the increasing number of almost instant middle eastern language replies to Trump's tweets?

if this is really real, this is some super fucked up shit.

like super fucked up.

lol the guy fucking croaks like a 90 yr old at the very end after she finishes her points. fox is a joke.

is there an easy-to-digest way to present this information/it's conclusions?

that upvote to downvote ratio on the vid is roughly what the trump to biden legal election vote tally will end up being.

if this all does become proven as true, you would be cemented in history too.

Can anyone please somehow explain at least a possible explanation for how this could maybe possibly even happen?

Care to explain why GA and Thomas have a connection?

i mean, i really dont which is why i asked the question.

my main point is it seems we're banking only on testimony at this point. when testimony was all they had against Kavanaugh, for example, we didnt care since none of it could be corroborated by anything. how are we not going to run into the same issue here?

nothing like making up some random shit on a monday afternoon

we would have no idea about all the censoring twitter does if it weren't specifically for Trump.

No I get that but what I’m saying is wouldn’t a judge want something to corroborate testimony before it can be used to determine a case?

Wouldn’t a judge or jury want to see something besides words to corroborate testimony before it’s deemed valid?

What do affidavits do in court?

Anyone speak legalese here and can explain what, honestly, an affidavit can do in court?