Sworn testimony

@metal-brain said
"The truth: Fraud never happened."

That is not true and you lost a bet telling that (here is the irony) lie before.
You are off to a rough start. Fraud happened, it is only a question of how much. You need to use that important word before the word fraud. Widespread.

Remember? First the democrats said fraud never happened, then when we proved fraud happened and al ...[text shortened]... misinformation. Now they always use the word widespread to avoid embarrassment. You didn't do that.

Nope. We watched the Trump administration Attorney General, campaign manager, and senior campaign officials that he hired under sworn testimony saying the opposite of what you wrote.

If you were under oath, you wouldn't write what you wrote.

@wildgrass said
Nope. We watched the Trump administration Attorney General, campaign manager, and senior campaign officials that he hired under sworn testimony saying the opposite of what you wrote.

If you were under oath, you wouldn't write what you wrote.

None of them said fraud never happened.
You know fraud happened. You lost a bet with me because I proved 10 dead people voting. You need to use the word "widespread" or something similar. If you don't you are spreading misinformation and since you know it is false it is really disinformation, so stop lying.

@metal-brain said
None of them said fraud never happened.
You know fraud happened. You lost a bet with me because I proved 10 dead people voting. You need to use the word "widespread" or something similar. If you don't you are spreading misinformation and since you know it is false it is really disinformation, so stop lying.

Yeah, the difference is that if you were asked the same question under penalty of perjury, you would not have replied with what you just wrote. You've purposefully distorted facts.

@wildgrass said
Yeah, the difference is that if you were asked the same question under penalty of perjury, you would not have replied with what you just wrote. You've purposefully distorted facts.

You said fraud never happened. You know that is not true. Stop lying. You've purposefully distorted facts. Now you are projecting.

You lost a bet over this. You had to create the thread called "metal brain was right and I was wrong". I am still right and you are still wrong. STOP LYING!

@metal-brain said
You said fraud never happened. You know that is not true. Stop lying. You've purposefully distorted facts. Now you are projecting.

You lost a bet over this. You had to create the thread called "metal brain was right and I was wrong". I am still right and you are still wrong. STOP LYING!

If I was asked these questions about voter fraud under penalty of perjury, I'd be comfortable with what I wrote throughout this thread. I don't know if you can say the same?

@wildgrass said
If I was asked these questions about voter fraud under penalty of perjury, I'd be comfortable with what I wrote throughout this thread. I don't know if you can say the same?

Then you would be comfortable with lying under oath. You know it would be a false statement.

@metal-brain said
Then you would be comfortable with lying under oath. You know it would be a false statement.

A sitting attorney general, a campaign manager, multiple Trump loyal campaign lawyers on the scene. Listen to the stuff they say. Listen to what's said by people much more knowledgeable than me in sworn testimony.

They are not saying anything close to what you're writing.

@wildgrass said
A sitting attorney general, a campaign manager, multiple Trump loyal campaign lawyers on the scene. Listen to the stuff they say. Listen to what's said by people much more knowledgeable than me in sworn testimony.

They are not saying anything close to what you're writing.

Maybe they believe the no fraud falsehood. It isn't lying if you believe a falsehood, but you know there is fraud in every presidential election. You don't have that excuse anymore.

@metal-brain said
Maybe they believe the no fraud falsehood. It isn't lying if you believe a falsehood, but you know there is fraud in every presidential election. You don't have that excuse anymore.

I think you're trying to get me to qualify the statement but I defer to the Trump advisors, experts and lawyers for that. I don't have the full picture, but they do.

sworn testimony > internet commenter

@averagejoe1 said
I hope a LOT that he is referred to the AG for prosecution. If there were evidence, it would have surfaced by now. With none, Trump will be all freed up, and the populace will be so disappointed in being lied to about evidence , that it will catapult the repubs!! (For the record, I dont want Trump to run. Now, I aint sayin that I dont want him to be president!!)

..........WHAT?....What evidence?
Pardon me???????

@wildgrass said
We do the dance a lot on this forum. One side accuses someone of lying (or far worse) and the other side says the first side is lying about the lies and do-si-do to personal attacks until the thread gets lost in the unsearchable back pages. The truth is subjective.

This time is different, folks. This Jan 6 committee has interviews under sworn testimony in which a commitm ...[text shortened]... ped was asked for and was spent based on these lies.

None of these truths are good for democracy.

So these are your contentions:

1. There was no fraud in the 2020 election.
2. After 2 months it was known without dispute that there was no fraud. (This was known because of the many court cases that rejected Trump's case for things such as "lack of standing". Whenever a court rules the plaintiff "lacks standing" that proves their claims were always false. ).
3. Trump should have conceded the election on election night because even though he was ahead, the momentum had already shifted against him.
4. Pelosi reject 2 Republican appointees to the Jan6th committee because they thought those 2 might not help Trump enough and she wanted to get the strongest possible counter-arguments to ensure the process was fair.
5. Trump's expert advisors told him the truth. At least the ones selected to testify in front of the Jan6th committee.
6. We know there where no other advisors that told Trump they thought the election might have bene stolen. If there were, the Democrat led Jan6th committee would certainly have had sought them out and had them testify in defense of Trump to ensure they're getting a balanced view. Of the 330 million people in America, the Jan6th committee was thorough and has heard from literally everyone who might have been giving Trump advice.
7. We know for sure that everyone who agrees with Trump that the election was stolen would have eagerly spoken in his defense if they thought his claim had merit. After all, Marjorie Taylor Greene was able to narrowly avoid being disqualified from running after showing sympathy for the cause of the protestors, so no one else could possible have fear of speaking up.
8. Trump always believes his advisors. (We know this based on how he handled Covid).

Therefore: Trump had to have been lying. Because of that, we can charge him with the crime of "igniting the fuse", which means sharing an opinion that makes someone angry if at any point in the future that opinion turns out to not be proven true.

No politician was charged in 2020 for "igniting the fuse" before all the BLM protests because it is a known fact that all police hunt and kill African Americans for sport and that no African Americans in jail actually committed any crime. So in that context, it is okay for politicians to fan the flames of hatred against police leading to a billion dollars in damage and 25 deaths.

@techsouth said
So these are your contentions:

1. There was no fraud in the 2020 election.
2. After 2 months it was known without dispute that there was no fraud. (This was known because of the many court cases that rejected Trump's case for things such as "lack of standing". Whenever a court rules the plaintiff "lacks standing" that proves their claims were always false. ).
3. Trum ...[text shortened]... ans to fan the flames of hatred against police leading to a billion dollars in damage and 25 deaths.

WRONG...........Why do you choose to post falsehoods?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/12/critics-claim-blm-was-more-violent-than-1960s-civil-rights-protests-thats-just-not-true/
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/

@jimm619 said
WRONG...........Why do you choose to post falsehoods?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/12/critics-claim-blm-was-more-violent-than-1960s-civil-rights-protests-thats-just-not-true/
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
ht ...[text shortened]... tifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/

You're not even replying to the things I mention.

I suggested the BLM riots were violent. I did not compare them to anything, especially to 60s riots. I did not compare them to the Jan6th riots, although if I were going to compare them, that would have been my only comparison.

I suggested the riots caused a billion dollars in damage and killed 25. You refute that with a debunk that it did not cause 8 billion in damage and did not kill 36 people. Even that debunk put the number of dead between 12 and 19, and that was written in August 2020 reporting on numbers for just the first month or so. Also, your own debunk quoted an insurance spokesman who said the damages would likely be more than in the Rodney King protests (which were 1.2 billion), but that they didn't have final numbers yet. I only claimed "more than a billion".

And clearly of all the protestors associated with BLM, the majority of them were peaceful. The same can be said of the Jan6 protestors.

Your so called refutations of my "falsehoods" not only doesn't debunk even a single thing I said, the links almost completely support the things you claim to have refuted.

@metal-brain said
None of them said fraud never happened.
You know fraud happened. You lost a bet with me because I proved 10 dead people voting. You need to use the word "widespread" or something similar. If you don't you are spreading misinformation and since you know it is false it is really disinformation, so stop lying.

10 dead people voted, you claim. But those 10 ballots were detected as invalid, otherwise you wouldn’t know about them now. So those ballots were rejected, were not counted, and therefore did not influence the result in any way. It wasn’t fraud. It was attempted fraud which did not influence the result. You distort facts.

@techsouth said
You're not even replying to the things I mention.

I suggested the BLM riots were violent. I did not compare them to anything, especially to 60s riots. I did not compare them to the Jan6th riots, although if I were going to compare them, that would have been my only comparison.

I suggested the riots caused a billion dollars in damage and killed 25. You refute that w ...[text shortened]... ven a single thing I said, the links almost completely support the things you claim to have refuted.

I only saw fit to respond to your false
allegations concerning the George Floyd protests.