Posted on 11/27/2020 11:34:10 AM PST by Golden Eagle
Attorney Sidney Powell filed a 104-page lawsuit in Georgia alleging massive voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Sidney Powell’s lawsuit contained allegations of numerous irregularities, anomalies, old fashioned “ballot stuffing,” violations of Georgia’s Election Code, unlawful audit procedures and use of voting machines to manipulate votes.
Many witnesses testified they saw ballots marked for President Trump being put into Joe Biden piles and pre-printed “pristine” ballots that went 100% for Joe Biden.
One affiant testified they saw “counterfeit” ballots with darker colored watermarks that went 100% to Joe Biden.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Amen!
I commend this news source for keeping this story in front of the public. MSM Pravda and people like you are trying to bury truth and any inquiry.
Bury the truth?
How is exposing a headline for being misleading burying the truth.
The only ones burying the truth are those who keep on with these ridiculous headlines.
BOOM!
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: (1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement: (A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered: (i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground; or (C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
You ignored everything after the word “and.” The 801(d)(1) exemption not allow you to offer a witness’s own affidavit or other out of court statements for just any reason. Only for (A) impeachment by use of a prior inconsistent statement, (B) rebuttal of certain kids of impeachment or rehabilitation after impeachment of the witness; or (C) identification of a person the witness perceived earlier.
On the contrary, you had not even pointed out the 801 (d)(1) out of court statement and mention nothing about the use of Affidavits to establish the use of affidavits as evidence that a case even exists to bring it TO trial where the evidence (statement testimony) can be tested by examination and cross-examination. No evidence prior to actual trial is really ever subject to defense cross-examination or likely even challenge until a court hearing. It is you that is obfuscating the presentation of evidence requesting a preliminary injunction leading to trial to determine if said injunction should be made permanent in the light of the weight of the testing of the evidence presented. To get to that point, evidence, including sworn statements which may include personal non-hearsay, directly witnessed knowledge, as well as statements of expert witness evidence that will be presented, and affidavits of physical evidence that will be presented to prove the facts of the case. At that point the adversaries can offer their contrary statements, evidence, and arguments, trying to impeach what has been presented.
You had not even mentioned the rest of the definitions or that they even existed at all.
You pointed out that you did not even know if Sydney Powell included the affidavits in the filing because you had not read the filing. I did... and she did. All of then are included as Exhibits with their sworn affiants subject to call either in court or in camera for testimony and cross-examination. Some are naturally fearful of retaliation from Democrats. Some ARE democrats.
5 Full unredacted copies of all exhibits have been filed under seal with the Court and Plaintiffs have simultaneously moved for a protective order.
Redacted copies concealing the names and details that would tend to reveal of those who had filed the affidavits and requested protection were attached as exhibits to the suit and are available online along with the majority who allowed their names to be revealed.
I would not be surprised if blue states prohibited watermarking and red states required water marking. Things that makes voting more secure seems to be done in red states and things that make cheating easier seem to be done in blue states.
I would not be surprised if blue states prohibited watermarking and red states required water marking. Things that makes voting more secure seems to be done in red states and things that make cheating easier seem to be done in blue states.
I'm not saying that it can't be done. Of course it can. But states control paper ballot specs right down to watermarking (again, CA has legal statutes covering watermarking).
The logistics of, say DHS, "secretly" mandating watermarks or anything else to state-owned and financed ballots would be problematic. That wouldn't stay secret for long.
And again, few if any states actually print or even mail ballots. The manufacture, printing, and mailing of ballots to voters is done entirely by just a handful of USA contractors.
Right. That's my point. States don't mail legit ballots to voters. Their ballot contractors (there are only a handful in the USA) print and mail ballots directly to voters. States don't have big reservoirs of blank ballots laying around, if even one or a dozen.
So if 150,000 ballots for Biden showed up in bulk and at the late hours of morning, they are likely to be fake and identifiable as such.
Failure to exactly (!!!) match the paper and ink used by the legitimate printer would be a dead giveaway.
SO yes you could print something that looks legit on your 6-color offset, but very unlikely that you would have access to the exact same paper and ink.
Exactly. For example, the color tone, weight, and texture of the paper might be slightly different due to a counterfeiting printer not being able to get exactly the right proprietary ballot stock paper with its unique watermark... hence the very, very light grey, opaque printed faux watermark, attempting to duplicate the transparent genuine one imbedded in the structure of the original ballot’ paper, a subtle difference which one poll watcher noticed and attested about on the suspicious ballots in his affidavit of fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.