Democrats need to understand what evidence means

[Marener]

Not at all. However, I understand that Biden and the Democrat party are my enemies. so long at Trump is fighting them, I will support him.

That’s right. You see us as your enemies which is why you support Trump attempting to disenfranchise us.

Congrats. You’re one step closer to being a fascist.

 

[Couchpotato]

He planned to tell his supporters to march to the Capitol but kept that plan secret from anyone else.

Dude you have zero evidence of that. There's less evidence of that than there is against Biden. That's just what you want to believe because it's the orange bad man.

The difference is that one person says so under oath before a jury with corroborating evidence.

I assume you mean the E Jean Carroll civil case? There was no corroborating evidence. There was her word against his. That's likely why the jury wouldnt find him liable for raping her and only sexual abuse and defamation. Feel free to provide a link to all the corroborating evidence there was and I'll admit I was wrong.

I listened to the entire hour long call. As I said earlier, Trump was asking Raffensperger to take away Biden votes. I don’t care what he believes. You don’t get to destroy our votes because you believe something.

He was doing so because he believed they were illegal votes. That's wildly different from asking Georgia officials to just nullify valid votes. Votes you know or believe to be valid and just want taken away because if they are you win the election. This goes back point one. You're reading things into the transcript (or in this case hearing what you want to hear) because Trump.

Raffensperger explained that his laundry list was wrong. Did Trump stop asking to “find the votes”? He did not.

LOL. Just because Raffensperger said it doesn't mean Trump agreed with him nor is he required to. Again, Trump bad so anything Trump does must be bad and you want to assign illegality to it. Did Trump say find the votes or a, b or c will happen to you? Did he threaten Raffensperger in some way? If he did it didn't happen on that phone call.

 

[Lisa558]

Please..do! The republicans will lose the House for a generation if they do that.

Nope. The Democrats will lose the Senate if they vote to keep in power a man so comprised that he aids our enemies and interest of foreign adversaries ahead of those of Americans.

 

[BS Filter]

When was the last Democratic candidate that called up a Secretary of State telling them to change the outcome of the election for them?

Trump didn't say that.

 

[Lisa558]

Show us the laptop with a legal chain of custody. Oh yea, you can't even do that. At least you have some dick pics to jerk off to.

You’re disgusting.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s right. You see us as your enemies which is why you support Trump attempting to disenfranchise us.

Congrats. You’re one step closer to being a fascist.

Trump never attempted to disenfranchise you. However, the vast election swindle of 2020 disenfranchised every Trump voter.

 

[Couchpotato]

They already did the recount. Trump was asking Raffensperger to disenfranchise thousand of voters because they voted for Biden.

Why wouldn’t that be illegal?

He was giving reasons if true to invalidate those votes. There's a difference between that and just throwing out votes because you dont like them. This really isnt all that hard to grasp.

 

[Lisa558]

That’s right. You see us as your enemies which is why you support Trump attempting to disenfranchise us.

Congrats. You’re one step closer to being a fascist.

You see anyone who wants Trump as president as your enemies. That’s why the weaponized DOJ is trying to interfere with his election aspirations and rob 75 million of us of our voice.

 

[Lisa558]

Trump never attempted to disenfranchise you. However, the vast election swindle of 2020 disenfranchised every Trump voter.

They don’t care about that. Just as they are OK with racism as long as it’s against whitey, they’re OK with voting suppression as long as it’s against the half of the country with brains.

 

[Lisa558]

Watch it. You shouldn't be here if you're uninformed, doo doo.

If the uninformed weren’t here, the forum would be all conservatives.

 

[Marener]

Dude you have zero evidence of that. There's less evidence of that than there is against Biden. That's just what you want to believe because it's the orange bad man.

I have plenty of evidence that was censored by right wing media.

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says (Published 2022)

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack showed evidence that the former president wanted his call for supporters to descend on Congress to appear spontaneous.

www.nytimes.com

I assume you mean the E Jean Carroll civil case? There was no corroborating evidence. There was her word against his. That's likely why the jury wouldnt find him liable for raping her and only sexual abuse and defamation. Feel free to provide a link to all the corroborating evidence there was and I'll admit I was wrong.

So eyewitness testimony is no longer evidence?

He was doing so because he believed they were illegal votes. That's wildly different from asking Georgia officials to just nullify valid votes. Votes you know or believe to be valid and just want taken away because if they are you win the election. This goes back point one. You're reading things into the transcript (or in this case hearing what you want to hear) because Trump.

We don’t destroy votes because Trump believes something.

LOL. Just because Raffensperger said it doesn't mean Trump agreed with him nor is he required to. Again, Trump bad so anything Trump does must be bad and you want to assign illegality to it. Did Trump say find the votes or a, b or c will happen to you? Did he threaten Raffensperger in some way? If he did it didn't happen on that phone call.

Raffensperger investigated and found they were valid votes. Trump didn’t.

The fact that he persisted in telling him to destroy the votes demonstrates he didn’t care if they were valid or not. He just wanted to win.

 

[Marener]

Trump didn't say that.

He sure as hell did. “Find me the votes” sufficient to change the outcome for him.

It’s on the phone call.

 

[BS Filter]

I have plenty of evidence that was censored by right wing media.

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says (Published 2022)

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack showed evidence that the former president wanted his call for supporters to descend on Congress to appear spontaneous.

www.nytimes.com

So eyewitness testimony is no longer evidence?

We don’t destroy votes because Trump believes something.

Raffensperger investigated and found they were valid votes. Trump didn’t.

The fact that he persisted in telling him to destroy the votes demonstrates he didn’t care if they were valid or not. He just wanted to win.

Trump never told anyone to destroy votes.

 

[BS Filter]

He sure as hell did. “Find me the votes” sufficient to change the outcome for him.

It’s on the phone call.

Yes, find the votes. That means they're already there.

 

[Couchpotato]

I have plenty of evidence that was censored by right wing media.

Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says (Published 2022)

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack showed evidence that the former president wanted his call for supporters to descend on Congress to appear spontaneous.

www.nytimes.com

You have evidence of a secret plan he didn’t tell anyone about?

So eyewitness testimony is no longer evidence?

There was eye witness evidence of Trump raping a woman but the jury wouldnt convict him of it?
Link?

We don’t destroy votes because Trump believes something.

I don’t disagree. Its also not a crime to call the Sec of State of Georgia and tell him you think there are x,y,z issues with an election and to look into it.

Raffensperger investigated and found they were valid votes. Trump didn’t.

ok. Please show me the crime.

The fact that he persisted in telling him to destroy the votes demonstrates he didn’t care if they were valid or not. He just wanted to win.

Again show me the crime. He never said destroy the votes. Your being hyperbolic.

 

[Marener]

You see anyone who wants Trump as president as your enemies. That’s why the weaponized DOJ is trying to interfere with his election aspirations and rob 75 million of us of our voice.

I’ve never said that and don’t believe that.

You say this only out of prejudice against me to justify your distorted worldview.

 

[Lisa558]

I’ve never said that and don’t believe that.

You say this only out of prejudice against me to justify your distorted worldview.

You just accused another poster of seeing you as the enemy! So if another poster responds that you see US as the enemy, that’s prejudice?

Why are you allowed to say it, and not us?

 

[Billo_Really]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

David Archer testified under oath that there was no business discussions between Hunter and his father. Therefore, there is no evidence to bring charges against the President. And yes, you have to have a smoking gun in order to bring charges.

 

[BS Filter]

I’ve never said that and don’t believe that.

You say this only out of prejudice against me to justify your distorted worldview.

How come you're allowed to make stuff up but we can't?

 

[BS Filter]

David Archer testified under oath that there was no business discussions between Hunter and his father. Therefore, there is no evidence to bring charges against the President. And yes, you have to have a smoking gun in order to bring charges.

No, that's not true. Archer said he wasn't aware of any. That's a big difference. Archer did say Hunter called DC to get the prosecutor fired. Joe bragged about it.