Trump Can Prove It

[Mycroft]

Unless there is a whole heap of new, never before presented evidence, don't get too excited. I'm guessing we just get yet another rehash of a bunch of conspiracy theories. Then when the judge quite rightly rejects them as non fact based theories, Trump will cry to his followers about how unfair the judge was for refusing to accept his 'evidence'. Sort of like the previous 60 times Trump has tried the same thing in the past.

When Trump's lawyers present all of the evidence of election fraud as justification for Trump's legal and proper action in preventing the effects of that election fraud, it'll be up to the prosecutor to prove that evidence is, as you say, nothing more than conspiracy theory. Whatever the media has to say about it will have no bearing on the court proceedings. The propaganda you so willingly believe will be irrelevant. It will be up to Willis to prove there was no election fraud. It'll be up to her to prove HER contention that claims of election fraud are false.

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

 

[CaughtInThe]

i know i'm gonna get jumped on but i'm to the point where i really do feel sorry for trump supporters/those who believe the Big Lie.

the world has seemed to pass them by.

 

[Ambig]

If Trump were to release a mass of evidence weeks before the trial, the media would do everything they could to dismiss, explain and diminish all of the evidence...in order to manipulate the public.

Jeez, you guys can whine.

Dear victims.

 

[Ishm]

When Trump's lawyers present all of the evidence of election fraud as justification for Trump's legal and proper action in preventing the effects of that election fraud, it'll be up to the prosecutor to prove that evidence is, as you say, nothing more than conspiracy theory. Whatever the media has to say about it will have no bearing on the court proceedings. The propaganda you so willingly believe will be irrelevant. It will be up to Willis to prove there was no election fraud. It'll be up to her to prove HER contention that claims of election fraud are false.

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

What a load of complete bollocks!!!! If you had bothered to actually read the court summaries you would have seen that the most common results were either Rudi and Co failing to present all the so called 'evidence' that they waved proudly in front of cameras outside the courts, or the judge examining the 'evidence' and declaring that it was all conspiracy theories with no facts to support them. Lots' of 'evidence' was examined, it just turned out that it wasn't actually 'evidence' that a court dealing in facts could accept. You need to do better research or change your brand of Koolaid.

 

[Bodecea]

In response to the most recent indictments, Trump's attorneys indicated they finally have a platform to "fully re-litigate every single issue that occurred during the 2020 election," of which there were many. The most important issue in America may finally get its due.​

In Georgia...

​

Even as mathematically improbable-without-being-previously-counted percentages of ballots favoring Biden continued pouring in on November 4, Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger concluded that with voter turnout already exceeding the 2016 total by 400 thousand votes, and Trump leading by over 105 thousand votes with just 2% of the vote left to count, there simply were not enough outstanding votes for Biden to win the state.​

​

Coincidentally, as Raffensperger began stating this on live television, his connection to the program was disconnected. But when he returned, Raffensperger doubled down. Questioned by NBC News panelists, he said, "Even if one of the candidates got the remaining 100%, it wouldn't be enough to change the result."​

​

Despite this determinative revelation, Raffensperger later switched gears when he told the January 6 committee, "If you looked at all the numbers, it never added up to anywhere near what could throw the election in doubt," completely contradicting his previous claim in the process.​

In Michigan...

In Michigan, a recent report exposed the scheme that delivered Biden with unprecedented amounts of ballots in the early morning hours of November 4, which included an excess of 800 thousand ballots being sent to non-qualified voters. Michigan was allegedly decided by 154,188 votes, making the results more than questionable.​

In Wisconsin...

In March of 2022, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Michael Gabelman's investigation unearthed a nursing home exploitation scheme so egregious that his suggested remedy was decertifying Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes. Even Assembly speaker Robin Vos, previously an election fraud denier, conceded that "widespread fraud" had occurred. Later, the state Supreme Court determined that the absentee ballot drop boxes through which 2 million votes were submitted during the election were actually illegal. The majority opinion described the outcome as "obtained by unlawful procedures," as Wisconsin was decided by just 20 thousand votes.​

continued...

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Jeez, you guys can whine.

Dear victims.

THEY ALL drink from the same bottle.

 

[Ambig]

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

Yeah, it's hard to examine something which doesn't exist.

Yep.

 

[Bodecea]

In Pennsylvania...

There were concerns regarding Pennsylvania's voting procedure long before any votes were even cast. The Keystone State's Senate Republican Caucus and the Republican Party strongly argued that the state Supreme Court extending the deadline to count ballots violated the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause by taking away the Legislature's authority to "set the times, places and manner of federal elections." This was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court just prior to Justice Barrett's confirmation. This led to a 4-4 decision, which results in a "stay." Had this been heard after her confirmation, it is likely Barrett would have ruled against the extensions that led to Biden's constitutionally questionable "comeback."​

In Arizona...

But of all the suspected fraud in 2020, Arizona was the first state that raised suspicions in real time. Despite not voting Democrat in a two-candidate presidential election since 1948, Fox News shockingly called the state for Biden after just 27% of the vote was reported. This sparked a forensic audit that concluded that the number of illegal votes exceeded Biden's alleged 11-thousand-vote victory five fold.​

​

President Trump did not try to "subvert" the election, nor did he secretly know he lost. Any beyond-surface-level inspection of the 2020 election reveals its fraudulency. Trump was not only allowed to dispute an election he felt was fraudulent, but as president was constitutionally obligated to do so. That is the opposite of criminal. In fact, he is one of the only public officials willing to uphold the oath he swore. Trying to imprison him for this not only is a tall task, but also puts them at risk of allowing him to publicly prove that "The Big Lie" is the real "Big Lie."​

​

The evidence exists for Trump to finally prove that his over two-year-old claims are valid. All he must do now is present it.​

​

Trump Can Prove It

Establishment politicians and mainstream media have fought harder than on any other issue to convince the public that voter fraud is a conspiracy theory. But unconstitutional changes to state election laws, unsupervised ballot drop boxes, ...

www.americanthinker.com

On the other hand, Trump's lawyers will have to contend with a Trump hating judge who will likely do everything she can to prevent Trump's lawyers from presenting their election fraud evidence.

 

[Airyaman]

"Trump can prove it"

 

[Bodecea]

The claims of "law breaking" are based on the Trump hating propaganda that there was no election fraud.

By proving there was election fraud, that shows that all of Trump's efforts were not against the law, but rather an attempt to uphold the law.

"proving election fraud"...................LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Airyaman]

The only thing I've seen Trump prove is that there are millions of gullible people in this country. Sad, but true.

 

[Peter]

I sure do feel sorry for you and your kind. I think you truly believe what you post. But you are so misinformed. I believe even after Trump's conviction those like you will still believe his innocence.

The power of propaganda!

So sad

Trump could lose 50 trials and Mycroft would still claim he's innocent.
He's incapable of seeing Trump as anything but a victim.

 

[beefheart]

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

Would you just stop the bullshit.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Trump could lose 50 trials and Mycroft would still claim he's innocent.
He's incapable of seeing Trump as anything but a victim.

True. I find @Mycroft kind of fascinating psychologically speaking.

 

[mike2810]

When Trump's lawyers present all of the evidence of election fraud as justification for Trump's legal and proper action in preventing the effects of that election fraud, it'll be up to the prosecutor to prove that evidence is, as you say, nothing more than conspiracy theory. Whatever the media has to say about it will have no bearing on the court proceedings. The propaganda you so willingly believe will be irrelevant. It will be up to Willis to prove there was no election fraud. It'll be up to her to prove HER contention that claims of election fraud are false.

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

No. The lawyer making the claim (Trump's lawyer) will have to prove the election fraud. Explain how all the audits, recounts, and investigation has came up with the same results. Trump lost.
Provide one link to a source that proves Trump won and the election fraud was so large it stole the election from Trump. You have ignored that request time and time again in other threads.

Funny how you are basically saying the election is faulty till it is proven it is not. Maybe we can apply that to the allegations against Trump.
Trump is guilty till he proves himself innocent.

 

[soap box]

In response to the most recent indictments, Trump's attorneys indicated they finally have a platform to "fully re-litigate every single issue that occurred during the 2020 election," of which there were many. The most important issue in America may finally get its due.​

In Georgia...

​

Even as mathematically improbable-without-being-previously-counted percentages of ballots favoring Biden continued pouring in on November 4, Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger concluded that with voter turnout already exceeding the 2016 total by 400 thousand votes, and Trump leading by over 105 thousand votes with just 2% of the vote left to count, there simply were not enough outstanding votes for Biden to win the state.​

​

Coincidentally, as Raffensperger began stating this on live television, his connection to the program was disconnected. But when he returned, Raffensperger doubled down. Questioned by NBC News panelists, he said, "Even if one of the candidates got the remaining 100%, it wouldn't be enough to change the result."​

​

Despite this determinative revelation, Raffensperger later switched gears when he told the January 6 committee, "If you looked at all the numbers, it never added up to anywhere near what could throw the election in doubt," completely contradicting his previous claim in the process.​

In Michigan...

In Michigan, a recent report exposed the scheme that delivered Biden with unprecedented amounts of ballots in the early morning hours of November 4, which included an excess of 800 thousand ballots being sent to non-qualified voters. Michigan was allegedly decided by 154,188 votes, making the results more than questionable.​

In Wisconsin...

In March of 2022, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Michael Gabelman's investigation unearthed a nursing home exploitation scheme so egregious that his suggested remedy was decertifying Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes. Even Assembly speaker Robin Vos, previously an election fraud denier, conceded that "widespread fraud" had occurred. Later, the state Supreme Court determined that the absentee ballot drop boxes through which 2 million votes were submitted during the election were actually illegal. The majority opinion described the outcome as "obtained by unlawful procedures," as Wisconsin was decided by just 20 thousand votes.​

continued...

Raffensperger to Jan. 6 committee: 'I love my country and I will follow the Constitution'

The Jan. 6 committee has released the transcript of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s interview with House investigators.

www.fox5atlanta.com

In this article, linked above, Raffensperger has nothing to hide, and has not changed his account at all. Why did you link to this?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/blog/2020-11-04-trump-biden-election-results-n1246346#ncrd1246405

"there was a large number of secretly dumped ballots as has been widely reported!"

This is all false. The president cannot claim Electoral College votes; they are awarded by states, based on the results of elections."

Why did you link to this?

And the Wisconsin judge was crazy, plus Gateway Pundit,

Will trump bring these claims to court? Really, will this be in any trial?

 

[soap box]

When Trump's lawyers present all of the evidence of election fraud as justification for Trump's legal and proper action in preventing the effects of that election fraud, it'll be up to the prosecutor to prove that evidence is, as you say, nothing more than conspiracy theory. Whatever the media has to say about it will have no bearing on the court proceedings. The propaganda you so willingly believe will be irrelevant. It will be up to Willis to prove there was no election fraud. It'll be up to her to prove HER contention that claims of election fraud are false.

And no...this situation has NEVER happened before. None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

Because there was no fraud. Why did the state legislators refuse to rescind their EC slates? Because there was no fraud. Are trump lawyers going to present this in court?

 

[soap box]

What a load of complete bollocks!!!! If you had bothered to actually read the court summaries you would have seen that the most common results were either Rudi and Co failing to present all the so called 'evidence' that they waved proudly in front of cameras outside the courts, or the judge examining the 'evidence' and declaring that it was all conspiracy theories with no facts to support them. Lots' of 'evidence' was examined, it just turned out that it wasn't actually 'evidence' that a court dealing in facts could accept. You need to do better research or change your brand of Koolaid.

This is true. They showed up in discovery and presented YouTube videos, blogs and tweets. Plus doctored videos, moat famously the State farm arena cut and paste video . When Elias presented the actual four camera video from the site, the altered videos were exposed and tossed. After no evidence was remaining, no trial can proceed.

 

[soap box]

@Mycroft , when will this go to court? You said during the current trials? You claimed that he is withholding this 'evidence' because the MSM will be critical. It seems more likely trump doesn't want his hoax exposed.

When will this go to court?

 

[Ishm]

@Mycroft , when will this go to court? You said during the current trials? You claimed that he is withholding this 'evidence' because the MSM will be critical. It seems more likely trump doesn't want his hoax exposed.

When will this go to court?

2026 if Trump can delay it that long. Seems that despite having all the evidence to prove his innocence and expose the Dem's witch hunts, Trump is pretty desperate not to prove himself innocent until after the election. Wonder why that is??

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The claims of "law breaking" are based on the Trump hating propaganda that there was no election fraud.

The claims of law breaking are based on
presenting forged certificates of fake electors to be counted among the legit electoral college votes.

• No amount of 2020 electoral fraud can undo the presentation of fake electors and forged certificates to be counted among the electoral college votes.​

​

• No amount of 2020 electoral fraud can turn the forged certificates into authentic certificates ​

​

• No amount of 2020 electoral fraud can turn the fake electors into real ones​

Electoral fraud doesn't make forgery and fraud legal.

Shirley, you don't believe that election fraud makes forgery and fraud legal IRL?

By proving there was election fraud, that shows that all of Trump's efforts were not against the law, but rather an attempt to uphold the law.

Presenting forgeries to be counted among the legit votes of the electoral college is not an attempt to uphold the law.

Forging certificates is not an attempt to uphold the law.

Assembling slates of fake electors is not an attempt to uphold the law.

 

[Mach]

None of those "60 court cases" actually examined any evidence of election fraud.

Because there wasn't any significant evidence of election fraud to examine!
Womp womp.

Taking seriously the idea of Trump "proving" something is like circa 2015/2016 for mainstream America.
After that, they got wise to his constant stream of lies. But here you are, still pushing his phony narratives.

Trump and his buddies literally tried to steal the 2020 election.
They are up on hundreds of criminal charges for variety of their misdeeds.

This coming from a guy who pushed birtherism about Obama...

 

[Mach]

"Lawfare" was perfected by Republicans.
Whitewater morphed into Benghazi, and they admitted they hurt Hillary in the polls by their constant bullshit badgering of her in x8 or x9 phony hearings (maybe the first one or two had reason given the circumstances in Benghazi)
And chasing Hunter Biden for years.

Give me a ****ing break.

In contrast, Trump is chased literally by legitimate law enforcement for prosecutable crimes.

 

[Mycroft]

No. The lawyer making the claim (Trump's lawyer) will have to prove the election fraud. Explain how all the audits, recounts, and investigation has came up with the same results.

Wrong.

All they would have to do is show that there is enough evidence to justify Trump's actions. Enough evidence to show that he didn't make any "false claims" of election fraud. It would then be up to Willis to justify her contention that the claims are false.

 

[Mycroft]

@Mycroft , when will this go to court? You said during the current trials? You claimed that he is withholding this 'evidence' because the MSM will be critical. It seems more likely trump doesn't want his hoax exposed.

When will this go to court?

You'll have to ask the judge.