• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Update from Trump's Lawyers

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
4,801
5,100
665
If you were wondering why Georgia didn't want to sit there with observers and haggle over signatures, this is why:


Just outrageously bad faith obstructionism going on. These people aren't looking for fraud, they just want to juke the count of legal votes in Trump's favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haribokart

ShadowLag

Member
Jun 4, 2013
280
176
560
If you were wondering why Georgia didn't want to sit there with observers and haggle over signatures, this is why:


Just outrageously bad faith obstructionism going on. These people aren't looking for fraud, they just want to juke the count of legal votes in Trump's favor.
Article posted by the same outlet Google told me said J. B. is already the president? Yeeeeesh
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Haribokart

Compsiox

Member
Jul 6, 2014
13,240
6,956
835
Going off of that last Sidney Powell video from Newsmax, imagine if not only Trump wins but they undo all the votes added to Dem candidates by Dominion and it turns out republicans control a ton of the senate and the house? Like a lot more than usual, a biblical red wave.

In addition to that, everything Trump would have been through at that point would make him invincible. I'm convinced we'd see sweeping reforms for a ton of things. Reforms that would have no chance of passing before. Trump could be the next Roosevelt in this scenario.

I may be getting ahead of myself but it would indeed be biblical.
 

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
10,563
31,094
1,175
some things are so improbable they may as well be impossible
This line of thinking shows a total misunderstanding of the distinction between probabilities and possibilities.

Yet again, a reliance on conflation of distinct things forms the basis of so much counterpoint. It's either amazingly ignorant or amazingly dishonest.

Going by your reputation I'm leaning towards the latter.
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,418
4,632
745
Big failures in AZ, PA, and GA. Seems weird to still not present any evidence to the courts when you just keep taking loss after loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haribokart
Aug 28, 2019
6,675
9,977
790
Big failures in AZ, PA, and GA. Seems weird to still not present any evidence to the courts when you just keep taking loss after loss.
In PA they didn't examine any evidence, not sure you guys understand how court proceedings work, it wasn't up to them whether or not PA saw their evidence, the judge just didn't care but getting it to the Supreme Court is key anyways.
 

Compsiox

Member
Jul 6, 2014
13,240
6,956
835
In PA they didn't examine any evidence, not sure you guys understand how court proceedings work, it wasn't up to them whether or not PA saw their evidence, the judge just didn't care but getting it to the Supreme Court is key anyways.
What kind of fucking Judge is that? I don't care who appointed them. He should be removed from his post.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Haribokart

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,418
4,632
745
In PA they didn't examine any evidence, not sure you guys understand how court proceedings work, it wasn't up to them whether or not PA saw their evidence, the judge just didn't care but getting it to the Supreme Court is key anyways.
Matthew brann, the federal judge who is a longtime conservative, ruled that the reason the lawsuits were shut down was because of lack of evidence. “They didn’t examine the evidence” because there isn’t any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haribokart

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,418
4,632
745
We don't even need what we don't know about to know this is false. There are 50 witnesses, that is evidence, stop lying.
just read the judges conclusion. Just because someone makes an affidavit doesn’t mean it’s true. Affidavits can be thrown out based or hearsay or lack of information, which most of them were. The judge found that there wasn’t any credible evidence here and you’re saying the judge is wrong because “50 people” swear that they witnessed fraud. Time to think for yourself a bit so you can process this one.
 
May 22, 2018
9,484
13,438
720
We don't even need what we don't know about to know this is false. There are 50 witnesses, that is evidence, stop lying.
You seriously think that any court is going to overturn over 6 million legal votes just because 50 random Trump supporters claim to have seen something?

Come on. You are smarter than that.
 

Flying Toaster

Gold Member
Apr 7, 2011
10,119
992
1,020
We don't even need what we don't know about to know this is false. There are 50 witnesses, that is evidence, stop lying.
Just because a person saw something does not mean it is real or often times it is out of context. Not one in these cases has been able to provide physical evidence of wrongdoing. The judges ask for the facts, ask for the evidence and connect the dots. There has been no solid proof so the cases are thrown out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Haribokart
Aug 28, 2019
6,675
9,977
790
Karen saying they saw Satan disguised at Biden personally shredding Trump ballots is hardly evidence, let's be real
Tell that to people sitting in a prison cell for the rest of their life because ONE person saw them do something.

just read the judges conclusion. Just because someone makes an affidavit doesn’t mean it’s true. Affidavits can be thrown out based or hearsay or lack of information, which most of them were. The judge found that there wasn’t any credible evidence here and you’re saying the judge is wrong because “50 people” swear that they witnessed fraud. Time to think for yourself a bit so you can process this one.
Just because a judge reaches a conclusion doesn't make it true. He ignored PA law about independent review simply because he couldn't have them miss the deadline for certification. He pretty much says so. I see no confirmation the judge actually examined all the evidence before throwing the case out. He's an Obama appointee doing what he can to help Biden, a Bush-era Republican posing as a Democrat.

You seriously think that any court is going to overturn over 6 million legal votes just because 50 random Trump supporters claim to have seen something?

Come on. You are smarter than that.
Look at this straw man, no, I did not say that.

Just because a person saw something does not mean it is real or often times it is out of context. Not one in these cases has been able to provide physical evidence of wrongdoing. The judges ask for the facts, ask for the evidence and connect the dots. There has been no solid proof so the cases are thrown out.
These are some amazing legal arguments you guys are making. I'll have to let the courts know 50 witnesses isn't evidence, going to change things big time. You guys also don't seem to realize the burden of proof threshold for GOING TO TRIAL isn't the same as the threshold for a verdict, never mind that the burden isn't the same in a lawsuit. The judges are acting as political operatives, this is true even if Trump team is just wanking us.
 

Flying Toaster

Gold Member
Apr 7, 2011
10,119
992
1,020
Tell that to people sitting in a prison cell for the rest of their life because ONE person saw them do something.



Just because a judge reaches a conclusion doesn't make it true. He ignored PA law about independent review simply because he couldn't have them miss the deadline for certification. He pretty much says so. I see no confirmation the judge actually examined all the evidence before throwing the case out. He's an Obama appointee doing what he can to help Biden, a Bush-era Republican posing as a Democrat.



Look at this straw man, no, I did not say that.



These are some amazing legal arguments you guys are making. I'll have to let the courts know 50 witnesses isn't evidence, going to change things big time. You guys also don't seem to realize the burden of proof threshold for GOING TO TRIAL isn't the same as the threshold for a verdict, never mind that the burden isn't the same in a lawsuit. The judges are acting as political operatives, this is true even if Trump team is just wanking us.
It is interesting that you think these cases will hit trial if they have a high chance of failing at the appeals level for the same reason they failed in the first place. The judges in question are acting as political operatives? So is this the new line of reasoning when something you disagree with has a different outcome than what you had hoped for?

I would love to see examples of how these particular judges are political operatives.

If we are going by the ideological spectrum then the judges from PA and GA are definitely acting in bad faith against what would be best for them given their political views as both are members of the federalist society and it would be in their ideological interest to keep a man like Trump in power so that more conservative justices could be appointed in the upcoming four years.
 

GribbleGrunger

Dreams in Digital
Oct 12, 2012
16,033
8,906
1,200
Karen saying they saw Satan disguised at Biden personally shredding Trump ballots is hardly evidence, let's be real
You people have literally gone insane. This is the sort of thinking that allows totalitarians to lock up innocent people. You are a fascist. Now not even eye witnesses to the crime are of an importance. We better free 2 thirds of our prisoners.
Tell that to people sitting in a prison cell for the rest of their life because ONE person saw them do something.



Just because a judge reaches a conclusion doesn't make it true. He ignored PA law about independent review simply because he couldn't have them miss the deadline for certification. He pretty much says so. I see no confirmation the judge actually examined all the evidence before throwing the case out. He's an Obama appointee doing what he can to help Biden, a Bush-era Republican posing as a Democrat.



Look at this straw man, no, I did not say that.



These are some amazing legal arguments you guys are making. I'll have to let the courts know 50 witnesses isn't evidence, going to change things big time. You guys also don't seem to realize the burden of proof threshold for GOING TO TRIAL isn't the same as the threshold for a verdict, never mind that the burden isn't the same in a lawsuit. The judges are acting as political operatives, this is true even if Trump team is just wanking us.
They're totalitarians, man. All you need is a list. No witnesses to their innocence needed.
 

KiNeMz

Member
Aug 6, 2019
669
1,022
380
Something doesn't add up. From what I hear these 2 lawyers are brilliant. Why are they throwing these cases at the courts that are baseless. Surely they know these cases aren't going to stick. This smells of a distraction.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: mickaus
Aug 28, 2019
6,675
9,977
790
It is interesting that you think these cases will hit trial if they have a high chance of failing at the appeals level for the same reason they failed in the first place. The judges in question are acting as political operatives? So is this the new line of reasoning when something you disagree with has a different outcome than what you had hoped for?

I would love to see examples of how these particular judges are political operatives.

If we are going by the ideological spectrum then the judges from PA and GA are definitely acting in bad faith against what would be best for them given their political views as both are members of the federalist society and it would be in their ideological interest to keep a man like Trump in power so that more conservative justices could be appointed in the upcoming four years.
We declare foreign elections illegitimate/fraudulent on less proof than we have here. The second observers are removed fraud is assumed by our state depts when dealing with foreign elections, I guess we hold these countries to a higher standard than our own. These actions violated state laws, but I guess we're seeing what state law is worth. The threshold was already met for proving fraud is the thing, so any judge acting the way this one did is being a political operative.
 

Compsiox

Member
Jul 6, 2014
13,240
6,956
835
Something doesn't add up. From what I hear these 2 lawyers are brilliant. Why are they throwing these cases at the courts that are baseless. Surely they know these cases aren't going to stick. This smells of a distraction to delay certification.
A lot of the earlier cases people were filing were definitely distractions. As for Trump's cases with states, they already know they'll get dismissed. The plan is to appeal them to the scotus.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
9,484
13,438
720
A lot of the earlier cases people were filing were definitely distractions. As for Trump's cases with states, they already know they'll get dismissed. The plan is to appeal them to the scotus.
If they have all of the evidence they claim why would they expect them to be dismissed? Especially in states where they can appeal to Republican judges?
 
Last edited:

Flying Toaster

Gold Member
Apr 7, 2011
10,119
992
1,020
We declare foreign elections illegitimate/fraudulent on less proof than we have here. The second observers are removed fraud is assumed by our state depts when dealing with foreign elections, I guess we hold these countries to a higher standard than our own. These actions violated state laws, but I guess we're seeing what state law is worth. The threshold was already met for proving fraud is the thing, so any judge acting the way this one did is being a political operative.
Election observers in general were not removed. Trump's group of election observers were removed by some states and honestly that should be looked into as many states have different requirements to become observers. I can get behind reforming the election observation process to streamline that all the states follow the same mandatory rules so that less confusion happens when it comes to who is and can be observers in the first place.
 
May 22, 2018
9,484
13,438
720

I still have to laugh with people who have Mueller avatars or Russia hoax BS in their bios replying to that saying "NO PROOF!"
If affidavits is all they have then they are shit out of luck. No court is going to overturn a national election based on nothing but biased eyewitness claims. Especially the SCOTUS. The Trump legal team needs actual hard evidence of widespread fraud. Anything less and Biden gets sworn in on January 20th.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,418
4,632
745

I still have to laugh with people who have Mueller avatars or Russia hoax BS in their bios replying to that saying "NO PROOF!"
there are legitimate accusations of fraud. They’ve found fraud in this election. It happens in every election. The big problem for the GOP is that there isn’t enough fraud to overturn any results (fraud occurs with both dems and republicans) and zero evidence that the democrats rigged the election in favor of Biden.
 
May 22, 2018
9,484
13,438
720
People still legit saying "zero evidence" in this thread, my dear Lord. Look, I'm happy the way things are going is making the Left feel bold enough on here that they're actually ganging up on people the way they usually endure such dog piles but you guys have to know how silly you look when you say some of this stuff, right?
Can you link me to any court cases where hard evidence of widespread fraud has been presented?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg
May 22, 2018
9,484
13,438
720
These are interesting thresholds you want me to meet in order for there to be more than zero evidence.
As many people on here have made excruciating efforts to make clear over the last 2 years I have been here "Accusations aren't evidence".

Is that not true? Or has that changed now? I'm just holding you all to your own self imposed standards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg
Aug 28, 2019
6,675
9,977
790
As many people on here have made excruciating efforts to make clear over the last 2 years I have been here "Accusations aren't evidence".

Is that not true? Or has that changed now?
You're saying there has only been accusations and zero evidence of fraud... I'm understanding you correctly?
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,418
4,632
745
These are interesting thresholds you want me to meet in order for there to be more than zero evidence.
in court you present evidence to prove your case. We have seen the “evidence” which amounts to affidavits of people saying there’s the possibility that suspicious things happened, except most of those were thrown out for lack of any substance. An affidavit does not automatically mean it’s evidence admissible in court. All we are asking for is to see the hard evidence that the trump legal team has been saying they’ve had but for some reason refuse to show. It makes zero sense to hide any potential evidence even during pending court trials. That’s not how the process works. The defense is entitled to see the evidence so they can make their own case around it. You should be extremely skeptical that they keep saying “keep waiting and you’ll see the evidence” because if they really had it they would be blasting it all over the place, just like they’re doing with these affidavits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madonis

Mista K

Formerly 'Kreios'
Oct 5, 2010
3,489
3,163
1,225
U.S.
in court you present evidence to prove your case. We have seen the “evidence” which amounts to affidavits of people saying there’s the possibility that suspicious things happened, except most of those were thrown out for lack of any substance. An affidavit does not automatically mean it’s evidence admissible in court. All we are asking for is to see the hard evidence that the trump legal team has been saying they’ve had but for some reason refuse to show. It makes zero sense to hide any potential evidence even during pending court trials. That’s not how the process works. The defense is entitled to see the evidence so they can make their own case around it. You should be extremely skeptical that they keep saying “keep waiting and you’ll see the evidence” because if they really had it they would be blasting it all over the place, just like they’re doing with these affidavits.
if your lawyer openly discusses the meat and potatoes of your case before trial, I suggest you get a new lawyer
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,675
9,977
790
I haven't changed anything. How many times are you going to continue to pretend as if accusations are factual information?
Where have I ever pretended that? Again you need to stop changing your argument.

in court you present evidence to prove your case. We have seen the “evidence” which amounts to affidavits of people saying there’s the possibility that suspicious things happened, except most of those were thrown out for lack of any substance. An affidavit does not automatically mean it’s evidence admissible in court. All we are asking for is to see the hard evidence that the trump legal team has been saying they’ve had but for some reason refuse to show. It makes zero sense to hide any potential evidence even during pending court trials. That’s not how the process works. The defense is entitled to see the evidence so they can make their own case around it. You should be extremely skeptical that they keep saying “keep waiting and you’ll see the evidence” because if they really had it they would be blasting it all over the place, just like they’re doing with these affidavits.
Again, you don't get how anything works. You present evidence to prove your case in court if your case is ACTUALLY HEARD. Why would the defense have discovery if a case is tossed by the judge?

There's been plenty of evidence waved in your face, you just don't like it/ignore it...