Trump officially filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin's Supreme Court.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: JAGStorm

For those not local, the two counties that the Trump questioned did NOT use a Dominion counting system.

As long as Dominion is somewhere in the aggregation process, the downstream method of tabulation is supposedly immaterial.

Supposedly but can you prove it? I mean actual proof, not hearsay

A forensic audit would but apparently the chain of custody seems to be having a lot of mishaps; destroyed ballots, wiped data, missing thumb drives and such. I'm sure it's all just innocent little mistakes and nothing done intentionally.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: JAGStorm

For those not local, the two counties that the Trump questioned did NOT use a Dominion counting system.

As long as Dominion is somewhere in the aggregation process, the downstream method of tabulation is supposedly immaterial.

Supposedly but can you prove it? I mean actual proof, not hearsay

A forensic audit would but apparently the chain of custody seems to be having a lot of mishaps; destroyed ballots, wiped data, missing thumb drives and such. I'm sure it's all just innocent little mistakes and nothing done intentionally.

If that is actually what happened (and I believe in the tooth fairy) it's the most poorly-run, screwed up, nation-wide event ever.

a reply to: djz3ro

What, specifically, would constitute proof in your opinion? Just curious.

I was not aware robust, statistical analysis demonstrating anomalies in data sets is hearsay.

a reply to: JAGStorm

When I go to the poll to vote on Election Day, they swipe the magnetic strip on the back of my driver’s license. I then sign and they compare that signature to the voter registration signature that comes up by swiping my license. No one else can vote as me unless really good fraudulent ID and forgery.

Key things: Voting in person. Voter ID. No excuse to not do this. Blah, blah, blah military. The base were they vote from is more than capable of verifying and there would be serious repercussions for trying to fraudulently vote including a dishonorable discharge after spending serious military jail time.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I then sign and they compare that signature to the voter registration signature that comes up by swiping my license. No one else can vote as me unless really good fraudulent ID and forgery.

In a normal year I don't disagree. It just so happens that this election happened during a pandemic.
Yes that complicated things.
I am all for ID cards for voting, you pretty much darn need it for everything else.
I wonder in the not so distant future if they will use biometrics...

a reply to: JAGStorm

Back of the hand or forehead...

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: JAGStorm

Back of the hand or forehead...

Not saying I agree, but saying that is how I see it going.

Who knows, maybe it'll be an eyeball, or breath, or scan of the face....
Maybe it'll be your gait as you walk up. China seems to have it down to a science.

I don't think it is quite the Mark of the B, but maybe a step closer.

a reply to: JAGStorm

its going to be rejected because the evidence of fraud was not submitted in the original case which is why it was tossed. no new evidence is allowed in appeals case.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Full on mark of the beast.

Expect a small explosive charge added as well...for remote “conditioning” of a population out of control. Joe and Nancy probably already have a draft written by Harry Reid before he left.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: JAGStorm

its going to be rejected because the evidence of fraud was not submitted in the original case which is why it was tossed. no new evidence is allowed in appeals case.

If you can prove the evidence was not available at the time of the trial and that the new evidence could change the outcome of the court’s decision, new evidence can be submitted at the time of appeal.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This just got tossed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JAGStorm

This just got tossed.

Here's the deets..
www.tmj4.com...

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the court’s three liberals in the decision. He wrote: “We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even—and maybe especially—in high-profile cases. Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law."