Dominion Engineer Told Antifa He’d “Made Sure” Trump Wouldn’t Win, Report Says

Well I guess if they're that much smarter and able to outfox Republicans maybe they should run the government huh

 

How's that going so far?

 

So it's true, then
The Russians did hack voting machines in 2016 to give the election to Trump.
Just like the Intelligence Community thought.

New Senate Intelligence report shows “extensive” Russia 2016 election interference

 

Let's see those statistics......

 

Lol...Would that be Herbert Antifa or his cousin Vinny Antifa?

 

At least this “news” outlet tells you their bias and believes “opinion is vital“ in their mission statement.

It’s merely another tabloid littering our media landscape. Unfortunately, we suck at the introduction of any new technology. Hopefully we’ll get this cleaned up and get back to arguing our positions over one set of facts.

 

I listened to this yesterday evening and I decided to give this another listen. This is well worth forty nine minutes of your time too.

"The Kraken Is About To Be Released, No Escape, It’s Going To Be Biblical - Ep. 2335b"

 

Just because you were told to believe that doesn’t mean you have to. You have a mind of your own...use it. You’ll be happier once you do.

 

Doesn't that also apply to you? Just asking?

 

I’m not the one who bought into the preemptive claims of cheating by Trump. I thought for myself and didn’t buy into it. I also go by all of the cases being tossed out of court for....wait for it....NO EVIDENCE. I also go by the fact that no one has been able to show ANY evidence of widespread voter fraud despite asking for at numerous times. Every time I ask for evidence I get one excuse after another as to why the person is unable to produce it. It’s simple folks....SHOW US THE ******N EVIDENCE. Here’s your chance. Provide links with actual proof of widespread voter fraud. Good luck

 

Like I have said before. I am not convinced one way or another. I have an open mind and would like a thorough investigation. Someone standing back from a distance and claiming "no evidence" is not an investigation.

 

So no evidence. Got it.

 

If you're not convinced by now you never will be.

Why? While it's possible there might have been some isolated cases of fraud (I don't remember reading about even one), there's not even a hint of massive fraud. It's like asking for an investigation to see if a crime has been committed for no reason at all. There has to be some reasonable basis for an investigation, not just one guy's unsupported claim(s), especially not one with a reputation for being a pathological liar.

 

Spot on.

 

The charge about Dominion is based entirely on a claim by a single person (Joe Oltmann), who says he heard Eric Coomer on a telephone conference say, " “Don’t worry about the election. Trump is not going to win, I made ****ing sure of that. Hahaha.”

No one has corroborated Oltmann's account. Even if he's reporting accurately, it hasn't been verified that the conference call "Eric" is actually the Dominion employee. Even if it is, it's impossible to know if Eric was telling the truth; he could have been joking or trying to impress the other call participants.
(My source for this analysis was this Snopes article).

This is not strong evidence, and the company denies that it is even possible. Plus, Georgia used Dominion machines, and their hand-recounts showed that the machine counts were pretty accurate.

It's interesting how this rumor has been circulated among Trump's minions, and treated as firm proof of fraud. Clearly, there's a hunger for anything that supports the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen.

 

None either way. That is why I want a thorough investigation.

 

People who have no valid argument, stick up things that have nothing to do with the issue.

 

I have been concerned about voting long before Trump. It is difficult at best to investigate and far too many are satisficed with the statement that little to no fraud has been found. If you don't look, it is not likely that you will find it.

 

I believe there were about 30 lawsuits where there was no evidence of fraud and even withdrawal of allegations of fraud. What more do you want? Do you seriously expect criminal investigators to constantly investigate if murders were committed when there is no basis for it?

 

How many of those judges went out and did an investigation? The fact that judges did not believe there was sufficient evidence does not impress me.

 

Apparently you have no clue how the judicial system works. Judges only investigate the facts, evidence and issues brought to them (filed and averred) by the litigants, they are not criminal investigators, it's not their job. It's up to the litigants to do the investigation and bring the facts, evidence and issues to the court. Your question makes no sense.

No one needs to impress you, you have nothing to do with any of this. No one needs to convince you of anything, you are irrelevant in the scheme of things. What is relevant is that 30 judges more or less did not believe there was sufficient evidence because there wasn't any. Do you believe they're all in on some kind of conspiracy or just all stupid? I believe some of these judges were Trump appointees. It wasn't just the judges who knew there was insufficient evidence, the facts bear out that there was insufficient evidence. If there was evidence, it would be splashed all over the MSM and law enforcement would be all over it. Subscribe to Pacer, read all the documents on each of these cases and see for yourself if you're at all interested. Or do you just blindly believe there is or might be some kind of mysterious evidence that has never been publicly exhibited without even investigating the court records yourself?

 

I suspect I know more about how the judicial system works than you do. When I said "How many of those judges went out and did an investigation?" I knew they did not investigate. However they have the authority to order an investigation.

I believe that you sometimes you do not find evidence until you look for it. I do not believe their has been an investigation of sufficient intensity to assure that there is no evidence.

One of my functions as an engineer was failure analysis. I learned that first impressions are frequently wrong and a lot more effort is required to determine the root cause of failure.

 

I seriously doubt it. Have you ever written and filed a federal lawsuit or defended one yourself? Do you know what the FRCP is or even read it and used it in a pleading? Do you know how to overcome a Rooker-Feldman doctrine defense? Have you ever even written one single brief? I've done all of that, too many that I wanted to and have never lost a case I've personally litigated as a plaintiff or defendant.

Then why would you ask such a silly question?

Judges can order all sorts of things but very rarely do they order an investigation. Regardless, it's irrelevant, no judge ordered any investigation in the 30 cases filed by Trump. So your question still makes no sense.

I believe you rarely if ever find evidence unless you look for it, unless you happen to stumble on it. So what? You still need a compelling reason to investigate. No one investigates anything without a reason to.

That's assbackwards logic. Before you bring a case to court, you first have to have evidence usually assembled from an investigation of some kind. But again, you still need a compelling reason to investigate in the first place. No one in his/her right mind concocts a theory from thin air then brings a case to court based on such a theory without evidence gathered from a proper investigation (except for the crackerjack Trump legal teams).

I made a living as a systems analyst so what? What does that have to do with anything?

 

To make a point. The judges had little actual knowledge of the situation when they made their decision.

The compelling reason is that we are talking about electing a president and vice president of the United States. We should spare no effort to make sure that election is fair.

You can't the court to intervene without evidence and you can't get the evidence without an intervention. Catch 22.

What it has to do with me is that I realize that first impressions are frequently wrong. You have to dig deeper.