China Useful Idiot Eric Swalwell Uses Fraudulent Evidence At Impeachment Trial....

[Angus Young]

Swalwell photoshopped the identity verification badge onto the tweets he used.

Suddenly, using fraudulent evidence in a trial is no big deal to leftists. MUST.GET.TRUMP.AT.ALL.COSTS.

What Swalwell (or whichever Democrat thug orchestrated this) submits and uses altered evidence at trial:



Jennifer Lynn Lawrence steps in, says she's never been verified by Twitter. I wonder if Swalwell had his Chinese handler Fang Fang (or whatever her name is) do the dirty work for him.

BUSTED! Eric Swalwell Caught Using Photoshopped Tweet at Impeachment Trial #FakeNews * The Gateway Pundit * by Jim Hoft

If they're not cheating, they're lying.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Angus Young]

Now in what court would this not be considered fraud?

 

[Spamature]

Are those her words or are they not ?

 

[middleview]

Swalwell photoshopped the identity verification badge onto the tweets he used.

Suddenly, using fraudulent evidence in a trial is no big deal to leftists. MUST.GET.TRUMP.AT.ALL.COSTS.

What Swalwell (or whichever Democrat thug orchestrated this) submits and uses altered evidence at trial:

View attachment 61306

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence steps in, says she's never been verified by Twitter. I wonder if Swalwell had his Chinese handler Fang Fang (or whatever her name is) do the dirty work for him.

BUSTED! Eric Swalwell Caught Using Photoshopped Tweet at Impeachment Trial #FakeNews * The Gateway Pundit * by Jim Hoft

If they're not cheating, they're lying.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Is that verification badge what matters or is it what she tweeted? Is anyone arguing that those were not her tweets?

 

[Angus Young]

Is that verification badge what matters or is it what she tweeted? Is anyone arguing that those were not her tweets?

Fraud always matters. The difference between a verified account and non-verified account matters- unless you can show Swalwell included the tweet of the woman saying her account wasn't verified. And even then, how do we know it's the person in question?

 

[Angus Young]

Are those her words or are they not ?

We don't know. It's not a verified account. Swalwell submitted fraudulent evidence.

 

[middleview]

Fraud always matters. The difference between a verified account and non-verified account matters- unless you can show Swalwell included the tweet of the woman saying her account wasn't verified. And even then, how do we know it's the person in question?

Did she dispute the tweet?

 

[Angus Young]

Did she dispute the tweet?

Did who? We don't even know who "she" is. Swalwell submitted fraudulent evidence.

 

[middleview]

Fraud always matters. The difference between a verified account and non-verified account matters- unless you can show Swalwell included the tweet of the woman saying her account wasn't verified. And even then, how do we know it's the person in question?

A decoration on the Tweet doesn't make it fraud.

 

[middleview]

Did who? We don't even know who "she" is. Swalwell submitted fraudulent evidence.

WTF? What do you mean we don't know? "She" was mentioned in your top post.

 

[Angus Young]

WTF? What do you mean we don't know? "She" was mentioned in your top post.

How do we know who "she" is? It's an unverified account. It could have been me for all we know. Why falsify evidence?

 

[Spamature]

We don't know. It's not a verified account. Swalwell submitted fraudulent evidence.

Unless she was kicked off of Twitter of deleted the post, yes you can find out if there are her words or not.

I have a feeling you are not trying to be honest.

Do as I do.

Just post the truth and work with that instead of trying to win at all cost.

 

[Angus Young]

Unless she was kicked off of Twitter of deleted the post, yes you can find out if there are her words or not.

I have a feeling you are not trying to be honest.

Do as I do.

Just post the truth and work with that instead of trying to win at all cost.

I see. Eric Swalwell doctored evidence to trick people into believing the tweets were from a verified account, but it's me that's being dishonest. Hilarious.

 

[Spamature]

I see. Eric Swalwell doctored evidence to trick people into believing the tweets were from a verified account, but it's me that's being dishonest. Hilarious.

Whether the person is verified or not it is still their account.

Is she going to claim that nothing on the account is hers and the whole thing is made up ? Is she going to say she did not post what was exhibited ?

She isn't doing that, is she ?

Why do you think that is the case ?

 

[Angus Young]

Whether the person is verified or not it is still their account.

Is she going to claim that nothing on the account is hers and the whole thing is made up ? Is she going to say she did not post what was exhibited ?

She isn't doing that, is she ?

Why do you think that is the case ?

I think doctoring evidence to make it appear it is from a verified account is dishonest.

 

[Spamature]

I think doctoring evidence to make it appear it is from a verified account is dishonest.

Does it really matter if she verified the account when it is in fact her words, and she does not dispute that, very, and really only relevant, part of it.

 

[Colorforms]

Swalwell photoshopped the identity verification badge onto the tweets he used.

Suddenly, using fraudulent evidence in a trial is no big deal to leftists. MUST.GET.TRUMP.AT.ALL.COSTS.

What Swalwell (or whichever Democrat thug orchestrated this) submits and uses altered evidence at trial:

View attachment 61306

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence steps in, says she's never been verified by Twitter. I wonder if Swalwell had his Chinese handler Fang Fang (or whatever her name is) do the dirty work for him.

BUSTED! Eric Swalwell Caught Using Photoshopped Tweet at Impeachment Trial #FakeNews * The Gateway Pundit * by Jim Hoft

If they're not cheating, they're lying.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Democrats lie and manipulate information? Say it isn't so....

 

[Angus Young]

Does it really matter if she verified the account when it is in fact her words, and she does not dispute that, very, and really only relevant, part of it.

So from now on, you're OK with Photoshopping evidence. Got it.

 

[Spamature]

So from now on, you're OK with Photoshopping evidence. Got it.

Not if it is intentional or if it alters the evidence in a way that distorts information that is being conveyed or is relevant to the case being made by either side.

 

[Angus Young]

Not if it is intentional or if it alters the evidence in a way that distorts information that is being conveyed or is relevant to the case being made by either side.

I see.... so the images were accidentally Photoshopped to distort the veracity of the tweets in question. Of course it was intentional. You're just being silly at this point.

Now.... submitting doctored evidence is wrong. Will you at least agree to that????