What are they so terrified of? Maybe something like this?

Party On - 531349.jpg [image not found] Upvote for you!

https://www.azmirror.com/2021/05/03/everything-we-know-about-who-is-funding-the-arizona-election-audit/

eyyy gotta love private money being used to create fake shit. :)

thought you guys were against this sort of thing, which is why years of hating george soros happened

An audit that doesn't follow even the most basic of election laws will be a nuisance at worst. That's the most impact that this will ever have: a waste of time and legal fees.

An election that doesn't follow even the most basic of election laws is fraudulent and criminal at best. Your counterparts were supposed to use red pens in their review of stuff, and shamelessly used black and blue.

I argue you have been shielded by the system from the most obvious prima facie stuff long before you get to the substantive details. Let's simply agree the possibility exists even if we differ on the p value.

Then prove it in court! If you can't even prove that a crime happened at all, you get nothing!

The diff between you and me is I take the holistic view.

You gullibly and naively believe we have a free press.

I have multiple direct experiences in how ridiculous that was decades before the corporatocracy put the all but final touches on the various latent control mechanisms.

You read a headline about a court ruling.

I learn about the abuse of evidentiary procedure that was used to corrupt it.

You read about a vote recount.

I learn about the same violated safeguards on the "recount" as were used to commit the fraud in the first place.

You read some widely syndicated MSM talking head parroting tripe about "consensus."

I learn about the patent eyewitnessed ground-level abuses under which accurate balloting was impossible.

You read about some RV being detonated by a "terrorist" in Tennessee.

I learn about the secret Dominion machine forensics being conducted across the street from it at the time, understand the agenda, and see

Night and day.

And I don't really need to file some amicus brief, that's a silly retort. I trust competent people are on the lies ahead of the game in ways you might not imagine.

And if your best retort by now is something about tinfoil, ask me if I give a shit. Because for now that's good enough for me.

Just remember what I said for future.

Right, so, here's the problem: court judges don't consider "but I have direct experiences and I learned about stuff on the internet" to be evidence.

And that's what happened and that's why the case was thrown out 70 times by 70 different judges.

I know you weren't the lawyer in charge of this prosecution but you honestly may as well have been, because they made the exact arguments that you did. And they got nothing. And you've been fishing for excuses ever since.

But there are no excuses. Y'all had no evidence. You still don't. You just read garbage on the internet and believed it.

Actually they do. Those hundreds of signed MI affadavits for example.

I think you mischaracterize the arguments. And I've personally seen courts entirely sway a case by ridiculous evidential calls. The dishonesty was fortunately reversed on appeal, they all but censured the lower court judge but probably didn't have the spine.

Tempus amicus veritatis.

Read the rulings. The judges weren't the least bit impressed at those affidavits. Half of them straight up admitted that they didn't actually see what they were suggesting.

I'm actually smart enough to have read actual affadavits for myself. You should try it sometime.

I did. They were absolute garbage. Half of them straight up admitted that they didn't actually see what they were suggesting.

Are you sure you're not just repeating second hand info? You just described what you said the judges said. Now I'm not believing your claim, and I think you understand why.

That's nothing at all like what I read.

People who took the time to report exactly what they saw. Carefully. As election workers, first hand.

You'll pardon me if I don't buy your characterization.

And half the time, their first hand account of what they saw was that something happened where they didn't actually see it.

And that's what the judges wrote when they threw those affidavits in the trash.