There must be one main affirming sense of truth.  Truth gained illegally is not valid (in the justice system).  That's why the evidence may prove something but the man may not be convicted of the crime.  This protects our rights.  If we only lived on a purely evidence based society for the justice system the government can invade your rights as long as the final result is gotten.  No warrants, no freedom, no rights.  We must also have one main source of truth for laws and certain things, if not everyone will believe their own version and society can't function.  The whole point of courts is it to be un-biased.  So far even without the courts no one here has proven ANY evidence of mass fraud enough to change the election results.  This is one of the reasons the courts threw out the cases.  There is no evidence.  Just unicorn dreams.  One day hopefully people here will realize this. 

The job of the courts is like a scientific test.  Have all the evidence and theories out there and come to a conclusion which one is correct. 

The court has 2 jobs.  Legality of evidence is step 1.  This protects everyone's rights.  Step 2 is the validity of evidence.  They serve to be an unbiased filter for evidence.  To root out illegal evidence and incorrect evidence.  They produce the final result based on all valid evidence they have.  Evidence must be valid to considered evidence in my opinion.  (for the justice system)

Totally missing the point. . .

The above is YOUR opinion.  There is no "we" in there.  That's YOUR close minded opinion.  That said, I think you need to open your blinders a little bit to see. . .

Evidence can be an indicator of what happened, but it's NOT exclusive.  That's your opinion of what you view as truth.

Job of the court is like a scientific test?  What da f%$k?!?!  :facepalm:

Do you have any attorney friends?  I would suggest you try passing that one by them. 

Totally missing the point. . .

  That said, I think you need to open your blinders a little bit to see. . .

It's not that he can't see, it's comprehending that's the issue.

With his thinking, since Mueller's report said that there was no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, yet the DNC impeached him, that would mean that he must agree the impeachment was unjust (even though nothing in court was done). #goallinemoved

It's not that he can't see, it's comprehending that's the issue.

With his thinking, since Mueller's report said that there was no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, yet the DNC impeached him, that would mean that he must agree the impeachment was unjust (even though nothing in court was done). #goallinemoved

How does one comprehend possibility of something if they are convinced it just doesn't exist? 

I know there are things that I don't know, which is why I try to keep an open mind to things.

Why do they need criminal defense lawyers?

The Fulton County Board of Registration & Elections has hired two of Georgia’s top criminal defense attorneys & filed paperwork to halt the audit proceedings previously ordered by the judge!


https://mobile.twitter.com/TalkMullins/status/1398000584112881664

Why are people talking to AOG while xhe is failing badly at pretending xhe is a lawyer? If xher was pretending to be a city & country clerk or a substitute teacher maybe I could  understand.

It's not that he can't see, it's comprehending that's the issue.

With his thinking, since Mueller's report said that there was no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, yet the DNC impeached him, that would mean that he must agree the impeachment was unjust (even though nothing in court was done). #goallinemoved

I do agree the impeachment was unjust.  The investigation could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The investigation could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I thought you said courts prove X or Y. And since no court happened, Trump must be innocent right?  #goallinemoved

And read my post. If you still feel the above, read it again slower. And if you still feel the above, have someone read it to you slowly.  And if still you insist the above, have them read it slower to you.

Why are people talking to AOG while xhe is failing badly at pretending xhe is a lawyer? If xher was pretending to be a city & country clerk or a substitute teacher maybe I could  understand.

Not a lawyer but I know many.  This is what I have learned over the years, interpreted in my own mind.  Its my own opinion, and shared by others in the world.  This is why we even have courts.  This is why we have fair trials, and why evidence must be attained properly and be truthful.  I have great respect for the justice system and the courts. 

I thought you said courts prove X or Y. And since no court happened, Trump must be innocent right?  #goallinemoved

And read my post. If you still feel the above, read it again slower. And if you still feel the above, have someone read it to you slowly.  And if still you insist the above, have them read it slower to you.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty?   If an investigation was held, and no findings were produced to bring to court, they are innocent.  The investigation was complete and my previous opinions have changed with it.

Courts are the final arbitrary say.  They speak the full and final truth.  Without it you have to rely on other info.  Investigations are another great way.   Not everything has to be done in court, but the ones that do, that's what "happened".  Without it, innocent till proven guilty.  Election was legit until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt in court because those who say the election was not legit have to prove it and it WILL go to the courts. The courts are one of the final processes,  they have to make it past the other levels first. 

Presumed innocent until proven guilty?   If an investigation was held, and no findings were produced to bring to court, they are innocent.  The investigation was complete and my previous opinions have changed with it.

Courts are the final arbitrary say.  They speak the full and final truth.  Without it you have to rely on other info.  Investigations are another great way.   Not everything has to be done in court, but the ones that do, that's what "happened".  Without it, innocent till proven guilty.  Election was legit until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt in court because those who say the election was not legit have to prove it and it WILL go to the courts. The courts are one of the final processes,  they have to make it past the other levels first.

I may have missed it,  did you admit you were wrong about the Russia Hoax and the rest of us were correct?  I remember threads going on and on even after we provided info to you.

Not a lawyer but I know many.  This is what I have learned over the years, interpreted in my own mind.  Its my own opinion, and shared by others in the world.  This is why we even have courts.  This is why we have fair trials, and why evidence must be attained properly and be truthful.  I have great respect for the justice system and the courts.

that's a common subterfuge to project a sense of expertise or knowledge over others. BLUF: You are not a lawyer.

that's a common subterfuge to project a sense of expertise or knowledge over others. BLUF: You are not a lawyer.

I was wondering about that as well.

that's a common subterfuge to project a sense of expertise or knowledge over others. BLUF: You are not a lawyer.

Its hard to un-know family and friends...I literally said in the second sentence that its my own opinion...

I may have missed it,  did you admit you were wrong about the Russia Hoax and the rest of us were correct?  I remember threads going on and on even after we provided info to you.

Yes after the investigations were complete.  Along with the most recent case where I believe no criminal charges are required.   As nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   I've also said MANY times that I think the russian investigation was a failure and a giant waste of time over the years by the democrats and linking it to the current republican failure and obsession over the election.

This is why we have fair trials, and why evidence must be attained properly and be truthful.  .

And just like evidence requires chain of custody to be considered valid in court, so do ballots, otherwise just like verdicts, elections can't be considered fair or truthful.


Wanna guess what is missing in ALL of these swing states? Proof of Chain of Custody.

Thanks for making the case for the election being illegitimate. Have a Nice Day

Its hard to un-know family and friends...I literally said in the second sentence that its my own opinion...

no you didn't - you added a zero value factor into it "shared by others in the world" who are these "others"?

Not a lawyer but I know many.  This is what I have learned over the years, interpreted in my own mind.  Its my own opinion, and shared by others in the world.  This is why we even have courts.  This is why we have fair trials, and why evidence must be attained properly and be truthful.  I have great respect for the justice system and the courts.

no you didn't - you added a zero value factor into it "shared by others in the world" who are these "others"?

He figures with billions of people in his sample size, he's bound to run across another Millennial that thinks like him.  They are being programmed and placed in IT jobs so their narrative can be better controlled in this digital age.

no you didn't - you added a zero value factor into it "shared by others in the world" who are these "others"?

You were so close,  read those words before your highlight 

Also others are people who believe in the justice system.

 people who believe in the justice system.

Explain how CHAIN OF CUSTODY doesnt apply to elections or GTFO of this thread with your BS games.

Explain how CHAIN OF CUSTODY doesnt apply to elections or GTFO of this thread with your BS games.

There is a chain of custody. Idk what you are blabbering about.  Unless you are whining about Mail in ballots which are completely normal and have other measures to ensure validity.