and not on Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parts-trump-georgia-grand-jury-report-released-suggesting-possible-witness-perjury

A special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, released portions of a report detailing findings from the investigation into whether former President Donald Trump and his allies interfered in the presidential election in Georgia as part of a larger
attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The report indicates a majority of the grand jury believes one or more witnesses may have committed perjury in their testimony and recommends that prosecutors pursue indictments against them...

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parts-trump-georgia-grand-jury-report-released-suggesting-possible-witness-perjury

A special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, released portions of a report detailing findings from the investigation into whether former President Donald Trump and his allies interfered in the presidential election in Georgia as part of a larger

attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The report indicates a majority of the grand jury believes one or more witnesses may have committed perjury in their testimony and recommends that prosecutors pursue indictments against them...

ScottW

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

So who lied about what and why? I'll bet if it wasn't someone claiming fraud....we'll never know.
That's the way it works today.
It's like gov't disinforming to save us from disinformation. A one way street.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Senior Señor Shmoo pounds his pulpit.

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

Yes, it does. Replacing intellectual curiosity with religious faith
is a hallmark of the tiny-mind contingent, aka MAGA-nation.

Grow a brain already and give over the fantasizing. Kee-rist!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:30 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parts-trump-georgia-grand-jury-report-released-suggesting-possible-witness-perjury

A special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, released portions of a report detailing findings from the investigation into whether former President Donald Trump and his allies interfered in the presidential election in Georgia as part of a larger

attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The report indicates a majority of the grand jury believes one or more witnesses may have committed perjury in their testimony and recommends that prosecutors pursue indictments against them...

ScottW

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

Whether the conclusion is right or wrong, it only concerns Georgia..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:20:51 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:30 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parts-trump-georgia-grand-jury-report-released-suggesting-possible-witness-perjury

A special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, released portions of a report detailing findings from the investigation into whether former President Donald Trump and his allies interfered in the presidential election in Georgia as part of a larger

attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The report indicates a majority of the grand jury believes one or more witnesses may have committed perjury in their testimony and recommends that prosecutors pursue indictments against them...

ScottW

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

Whether the conclusion is right or wrong, it only concerns Georgia..

One state at a time.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/23 1:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

It seems you can't be convinced by mere evidence.

So who lied about what and why? I'll bet if it wasn't someone claiming fraud....we'll never know.
That's the way it works today.
It's like gov't disinforming to save us from disinformation. A one way street.

A grand jury isn't allowed to indict anyone, so those identities will
have to wait for the prosecutor to act. This is fair because there's no
way for someone to defend themselves against grand jury allegations.

You'll remember Mueller couldn't accuse Trump directly for similar reasons.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/reading-tea-leaves-fulton-county

...the grand jury report is not going to tell the story. It appears to
make charging recommendations to Willis—and its brevity suggests that it
may not even contain substantial arguments in favor of the charges it recommends...

In sum, the grand jury appears to be making charging recommendations
without argumentation or a narrative report. It appears to have done so
without the benefit of the full record now before the district attorney.
And it appears to have been quite self-conscious of lacking the
expertise to evaluate the cases fully—and quite aware of the fact that
the district attorney, after doing so, might evaluate the evidence
differently.

It’s not a surprise, given all this, that charging decisions did not
follow hard on the heels of the grand jury’s report.

Unquote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 1:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

It seems you can't be convinced by mere evidence.

The evidence is clear. They found " "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election".

Ok...now what fraud was found and how do they prevent it?
Because these investigations are unlikely to find all occurrences of said fraud.
So just because they didn't find enough of it doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent what was
found.

But Stephen has demonstrated he wants the fraud door open....just in case.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Poor, dumb, benighted Shmoo scottw. He's off chasing the rabbit in
his imaginary dog track.

The evidence is clear. They found " "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election".
Ok...now what fraud was found and how do they prevent it?

You're fantasizing again. The Georgia grand jury said nothing about
fraud that was NOT widespread.

Just because they didn't cater to the dimmest of diehard fantasts doesn't
mean they are holding back on your lifeblood.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/16/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 1:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

It seems you can't be convinced by mere evidence.

The evidence is clear. They found " "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election".

Ok...now what fraud was found and how do they prevent it?

They're a criminal grand jury. Not their job. And nice to see your knack
with the zero sums is back in which "no widespread fraud that could
overturn the election" really means they found widespread fraud that
couldn't overturn the election.

Because these investigations are unlikely to find all occurrences of said fraud.
So just because they didn't find enough of it doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent what was
found.

What has been found by other methods is so unimportant that the steps to prevent it cause problems such as disenfranchisement that are worse.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:45:45 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 1:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

It seems you can't be convinced by mere evidence.

The evidence is clear. They found " "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election".

Ok...now what fraud was found and how do they prevent it?

They're a criminal grand jury. Not their job. And nice to see your knack
with the zero sums is back in which "no widespread fraud that could
overturn the election" really means they found widespread fraud that
couldn't overturn the election.

Because these investigations are unlikely to find all occurrences of said fraud.
So just because they didn't find enough of it doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent what was
found.

What has been found by other methods is so unimportant that the steps to prevent it cause problems such as disenfranchisement that are worse.

BS... your opinion on this is ignorant and unworthy of consideration.

You want to treat election frauds like meth addicts. Let them.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Senior Shmoo has the scent of a unicorn!

You want to treat election frauds like meth addicts. Let them.

The coyote never catches Road Runner, let alone gets a chance to eat him.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/17/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:45:45 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

On 2/16/23 1:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:

and not on Trump.

Here's the actual document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f11f75f3-4b90-45a9-a71b-5b5c1a90fc9e.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4

Once again....they find "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election". Great 2020 is over.
Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud that needs to be addressed.

It seems you can't be convinced by mere evidence.

The evidence is clear. They found " "no widespread fraud that could overturn the election".

Ok...now what fraud was found and how do they prevent it?

They're a criminal grand jury. Not their job. And nice to see your knack
with the zero sums is back in which "no widespread fraud that could
overturn the election" really means they found widespread fraud that
couldn't overturn the election.

Because these investigations are unlikely to find all occurrences of said fraud.
So just because they didn't find enough of it doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent what was
found.

What has been found by other methods is so unimportant that the steps to
prevent it cause problems such as disenfranchisement that are worse.

BS... your opinion on this is ignorant and unworthy of consideration.

As insignificant as the rate of voter fraud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-court-knocks-down-lake-s-election-appeal-calling-one-of-her-key-claims-sheer-speculation/ar-AA17CwEM

"The appellate court judges struck a similar tone to the one employed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson in his December
dismissal of her claims, saying that they can’t accept “an untethered assertion of uncertainty” in place of evidence that the election was tainted."

You want to treat election frauds like meth addicts. Let them.

There are many more meth addicts than there are vote frauds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)