• 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

Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
Let just cut to the chase. Has any of the reported "evidence" you claim to have been proven in a court of law yet?
Something being evidence is true regardless of whether or not a court case is determined in someone's favor, you realize this, right? Like because OJ was acquitted doesn't mean the evidence against him wasn't evidence... this is clear to you, correct?
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
Where have I ever pretended that? Again you need to stop changing your argument.



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...


theres not a single piece of evidence there proving that the Biden campaign rigged the election. I spent about 20 minutes clicking each of the links last week and another 5 just now. Do you mind just linking me one source which proves Biden or the democrats or even rogue democrats stole the election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: belmarduk

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
Something being evidence is true regardless of whether or not a court case is determined in someone's favor, you realize this, right? Like because OJ was acquitted doesn't mean the evidence against him wasn't evidence... this is clear to you, correct?
“if the ballots are not legit
You must acquit”

 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
theres not a single piece of evidence there proving that the Biden campaign rigged the election. I spent about 20 minutes clicking each of the links last week and another 5 just now. Do you mind just linking me one source which proves Biden or the democrats or even rogue democrats stole the election?
"Well, you see, clearly the fraud is widespread enough for us but since you can't connect all the fraud to a specific evil entity behind every piece of it you're wrong", even if every instance of fraud was committed by a totally independent person for their own reasons it'd still be fraud and it would still require investigating.
 
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
Gotta love the way you guys operate. Take something someone says and twist it into an argument that suits your purposes because the actual argument cannot be tackled.
You have no argument. You are basically saying "Evidence doesn't need to be proven in court to be true!" which is ridiculous. Of course it does. Especially in a case like this where we have a national election on the line. All of the "evidence" in the world doesn't mean squat if the Trump team cannot prove there was widespread fraud in court.


You are also confusing evidence of fraud with evidence of widespread fraud, but that is a whole other issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tschumi

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
"Well, you see, clearly the fraud is widespread enough for us but since you can't connect all the fraud to a specific evil entity behind every piece of it you're wrong", even if every instance of fraud was committed by a totally independent person for their own reasons it'd still be fraud and it would still require investigating.
I’ve never once said it’s not worth investigating. I find the investigations to be a win all around except the damage that comes from delaying the transition. Ultimately it will help our elections become even more secure and will hopefully put an end to this and allow the country to move forward. The problem is all the armchair Twitter and 4chan detectives are literally “connecting dots” that don’t connect
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tschumi
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
You have no argument. You are basically saying "Evidence doesn't need to be proven in court to be true!" which is ridiculous. Of course it does. Especially in a case like this where we have a national election on the line. All of the "evidence" in the world doesn't mean squat if the Trump team cannot prove there was widespread fraud in court.


You are also confusing evidence of fraud with evidence of widespread fraud, but that is a whole other issue.
OJ Simpson argument again, was all the evidence not evidence because he was found not guilty? I agree it's a big deal we have a national election on the line, it's why I want this investigated. "Widespread fraud" seems like a weird gotcha term you guys use, it's bad faith because you'll never explain what the threshold for it is, because you don't actually know. You seem to think Obama appointees tossing out cases without hearing evidence is proof there is no evidence, that's an interesting way to go about this. That said you also seem hellbent on not letting the process finish, since this very realistically and most likely will be heading to the supreme court everything you have to say is premature at best.

What's the threshold for it to be widespread fraud? Isn't every piece of evidence that fraud occurred an addition to how "widespread" the fraud was? lol
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,240
192
1,615
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.
This, to me, is a very persuasive line of reasoning. If we are not adhering to the standards we have imposed on other countries for determining the legitimacy of their elections, one is within their rights to ask why that is. It is, at the very least, hypocritical and strange, and should definitely raise eyebrows.
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
I’ve never once said it’s not worth investigating. I find the investigations to be a win all around except the damage that comes from delaying the transition. Ultimately it will help our elections become even more secure and will hopefully put an end to this and allow the country to move forward. The problem is all the armchair Twitter and 4chan detectives are literally “connecting dots” that don’t connect
"It's worth investigating but I'll do a victory dance when a judge tosses the case"

I would hope any future election doesn't use mail-in voting, Dominion voting systems and allows observers from both sides to observe... yes... though if we keep pretending these things aren't problems I'm not sure what will change.

Yeah, that's the real problem, not Judges ignoring their own state laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
OJ Simpson argument again, was all the evidence not evidence because he was found not guilty? I agree it's a big deal we have a national election on the line, it's why I want this investigated. "Widespread fraud" seems like a weird gotcha term you guys use, it's bad faith because you'll never explain what the threshold for it is, because you don't actually know. You seem to think Obama appointees tossing out cases without hearing evidence is proof there is no evidence, that's an interesting way to go about this. That said you also seem hellbent on not letting the process finish, since this very realistically and most likely will be heading to the supreme court everything you have to say is premature at best.

What's the threshold for it to be widespread fraud? Isn't every piece of evidence that fraud occurred an addition to how "widespread" the fraud was? lol
The threshold is enough fraud to swing the entire election in Biden's favor. Joe Schmoe and Whitney Whoeverthefuck in Wisconsin voting twice does not mean Trump gets to win the election. Karen and Kevin from Pennsylvania being suspicious about the mail in votes and signing an affidavit about it does not mean Trump gets to win the election.


You have to prove that there was was a concerted illegal effort to give Biden the win on a large enough scale to have had actually affected the outcome. Anything short of that is going to be laughed out of court. The court system is not going to toss out millions of legal votes for anything less than that.
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
The threshold is enough fraud to swing the entire election in Biden's favor. Joe Schmoe and Whitney Whoeverthefuck in Wisconsin voting twice does not mean Trump gets to win the election. Karen and Kevin from Pennsylvania being suspicious about the mail in votes and signing an affidavit about it does not mean Trump gets to win the election.


You have to prove that there was was a concerted illegal effort to give Biden the win on a large enough scale to have had actually affected the outcome. Anything short of that is going to be laughed out of court. The court system is not going to toss out millions of legal votes for anything less than that.
You seem to be doing what the judge in PA did, throwing out a case due to its desired outcome. You're also still whinging about disenfranchisement when any negative effects of this have no bearing on how credible it is. The second ballots began being counted in secret the people doing so decided people would or could be disenfranchised. The second they ignored their own rules and mixed mail-in ballots with regular ballots they decided to disenfranchise people. I gave you a link btw, you can stop being disingenuous about the evidence of fraud.

What is it you think I or they need to prove? A concerted illegal effort? Not really. If there's enough evidence of fraud to make it so we distrust the results it can go to the House and be decided there. I don't presume what you do about how the court system will handle this, I'm waiting on the supreme court, as I've said before.
 
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
I do not know how to respond to this if you believe that. But the last four years of Russia , impeachment and COVID relief negotiations have proven other wise.
Then explain to me why this federal judge who is a Republican and was unanimously approved by the Senate at time when they weren't unanimously approving jack shit is a "RINO".


I'm being serious. Explain to me why this Republican isn't a "real" Republican to you.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Tschumi
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
You seem to be doing what the judge in PA did, throwing out a case due to its desired outcome. You're also still whinging about disenfranchisement when any negative effects of this have no bearing on how credible it is. The second ballots began being counted in secret the people doing so decided people would or could be disenfranchised. The second they ignored their own rules and mixed mail-in ballots with regular ballots they decided to disenfranchise people. I gave you a link btw, you can stop being disingenuous about the evidence of fraud.

What is it you think I or they need to prove? A concerted illegal effort? Not really. If there's enough evidence of fraud to make it so we distrust the results it can go to the House and be decided there. I don't presume what you do about how the court system will handle this, I'm waiting on the supreme court, as I've said before.
See you claim to care about the election results and their validity while supporting the idea of the decision going to the House because you know your side will win there. That right there is why I don't take your arguments seriously. You don't actually care about any evidence or legal processes. You just want the election to go to the house so Trump can win. You are obviously biased. Meanwhile I am supporting Trump's ability to actually prove it in court and am willing to accept their judgement as long there is no funny business.


But somehow it me and the Left that are trying to undermine democracy or whatever. Unbelievable lol
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Tschumi

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
"It's worth investigating but I'll do a victory dance when a judge tosses the case"

I would hope any future election doesn't use mail-in voting, Dominion voting systems and allows observers from both sides to observe... yes... though if we keep pretending these things aren't problems I'm not sure what will change.

Yeah, that's the real problem, not Judges ignoring their own state laws.
What judges are ignoring state laws? Also are your thoughts about Brian kemp, fiercely loyal trump supporter, who is now being called a rino because he said the election in GA was secure despite him wishing Trump won. Does his statements make him a RINO as he’s being called? Does raffensperger deserve to get death threats for saying the same thing?
 

Tschumi

Gold Member
Jul 4, 2020
1,900
2,237
540
Japan

Classy :)

At one recount table, a Trump observer objected to every ballot that tabulators pulled from a bag simply because they were folded, election officials told the panel.
How can you possibly think you're in the right when you're pulling cowardly shit like that :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
Then explain to me why this federal judge who is a Republican and was unanimously approved by the Senate at time when they weren't unanimously approving jack shit is a "RINO".


I'm being serious. Explain to me why this Republican isn't a "real" Republican to you.
Obama had no trouble appointing judges, Clinton is the only President who appointed more judges total, so you can drop this idea that they weren't approving things for Obama at the time. If you want my reason why he isn't a real Republican it'd be because he ignored his own state's laws to make a partisan decision based on an encroaching deadline.
 
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
Obama had no trouble appointing judges, Clinton is the only President who appointed more judges total, so you can drop this idea that they weren't approving things for Obama at the time. If you want my reason why he isn't a real Republican it'd be because he ignored his own state's laws to make a partisan decision based on an encroaching deadline.
"He didn't rule in my favor so he is a RINO!"


Okay.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,245
855
1,270
It's ironic. These 'dismissals out of hand' with vague generalized justification that we keep getting are probably being done in an effort to maintain public confidence in the election process. Trying to make sure the claims can never appear to gain legitimacy in most people's eyes.

I think it may be doing the opposite. Kind of a Streisand Effect type of situation.
Note that this argument works whether or not the dismissals of the cases are legally justified. So the question is whether cases should be assessed on their legal merits, or rather on how partisans of either side would react to the result.

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.
Evidence for what exactly? The only remaining "complaint" to be considered in the case was whether giving counties the power to allow or deny ballot curing is a violation of "equal protection", since it can lead to different rules in different counties. And moreover whether the way to redress this violation is to disqualify everyone's vote.

"Thereafter, on Sunday, November 15, 2020 – the day Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss was due – Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) with the Court. This new complaint excised five of the seven counts from the original complaint, leaving just two claims: one equal-protection claim, and one Electors and Elections Clauses claim. "

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that under the Third Circuit’s decision in Bognet, this Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have standing for their Elections and Electors Clauses claim in the FAC.
Plaintiffs represent that they have included this claim in the FAC to preserve the argument for appellate review. Because Plaintiffs have made this concession, and because the Third Circuit’s decision in Bognet is clear, this Court dismisses Count II for lack of standing without further discussion. "

"Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection."

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Madonis

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745

Classy :)



How can you possibly think you're in the right when you're pulling cowardly shit like that :messenger_tears_of_joy:
the way the brain works, if you go into a situation looking for a specific outcome, that’s all you’re going to care about. It’s like when the poll watchers would record people curing ballots and posted that it was fraud happening in plain sight
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tschumi

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
10,947
4,359
1,710
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.
Good to know 👍
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
See you claim to care about the election results and their validity while supporting the idea of the decision going to the House because you know your side will win there. That right there is why I don't take your arguments seriously. You don't actually care about any evidence or legal processes. You just want the election to go to the house so Trump can win. You are obviously biased. Meanwhile I am supporting Trump's ability to actually prove it in court and am willing to accept their judgement as long there is no funny business.


But somehow it me and the Left that are trying to undermine democracy or whatever. Unbelievable lol
If we can't verify the integrity of results then yes, I approve of the process laid out by the constitution for solving it. You laugh react nearly everything you disagree with, who cares what you take seriously? I'm sorry, but what I outlined IS a legal process. I want something done about all the fraud instead of laughing it off as not meeting some imaginary required threshold, I gave up on the idea of Trump "winning" at least a week ago on here and have said as much. The bigger picture is the future of the country if the fraud committed is allowed to stand. We're all biased. Wait, when you do a victory lap over a case being thrown out you're SUPPORTING Trumps' ability to prove it in court? Also you just said accept their judgment as long is there is no funny business... sounds dangerously close to what Trump said about conceding, doesn't it?

I can't say for sure if you want democracy undermined, your posts are so confusing and contradictory, you seem to say whatever sounds best in the moment for "your side". But I totally assume there are lots of Democrats who would undermine democracy if the end goal means removing Trump, yes.

What judges are ignoring state laws? Also are your thoughts about Brian kemp, fiercely loyal trump supporter, who is now being called a rino because he said the election in GA was secure despite him wishing Trump won. Does his statements make him a RINO as he’s being called? Does raffensperger deserve to get death threats for saying the same thing?
Brann ignored his state laws regarding independent review regarding the witnesses. Also you guys seem unaware they never had a hearing for evidence, it was cancelled. Kemp certified but also called for an audit. No one deserves death threats, what the fuck kind of question is that?
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
"He didn't rule in my favor so he is a RINO!"


Okay.
No, he didn't follow the law. To me a Republican is someone who follows the laws as written and doesn't make decisions for partisan reasons.

Note that this argument works whether or not the dismissals of the cases are legally justified. So the question is whether cases should be assessed on their legal merits, or rather on how partisans of either side would react to the result.


Evidence for what exactly? The only remaining "complaint" to be considered in the case was whether giving counties the power to allow or deny ballot curing is a violation of "equal protection", since it can lead to different rules in different counties. And moreover whether the way to redress this violation is to disqualify everyone's vote.

"Thereafter, on Sunday, November 15, 2020 – the day Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss was due – Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) with the Court. This new complaint excised five of the seven counts from the original complaint, leaving just two claims: one equal-protection claim, and one Electors and Elections Clauses claim. "

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that under the Third Circuit’s decision in Bognet, this Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have standing for their Elections and Electors Clauses claim in the FAC.
Plaintiffs represent that they have included this claim in the FAC to preserve the argument for appellate review. Because Plaintiffs have made this concession, and because the Third Circuit’s decision in Bognet is clear, this Court dismisses Count II for lack of standing without further discussion. "

"Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection."

Yes, and the conclusion boils down to "time's a wastin', we got deadlines to hit". We'll see how it goes in upper courts.

This is their evidence so far and I’m not being facetious

You've been linked to a website collecting the evidence. "Dude trust me" seems to be your motto for why all that evidence isn't evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
Brann ignored his state laws regarding independent review regarding the witnesses. Also you guys seem unaware they never had a hearing for evidence, it was cancelled. Kemp certified but also called for an audit. No one deserves death threats, what the fuck kind of question is that?
no, trump tried to disenfranchise millions of votes in PA because many democratic counties allowed the curing of ballots whereas many republicans counties did not. That’s a problem with the counties, not the election. My point with kemp and raffensperger is that many of trumps followers, even ones in positions of power, exhibit many cult-like vendettas against people who speak out against trump, and facts don’t mean a whole lot to them


You've been linked to a website collecting the evidence. "Dude trust me" seems to be your motto for why all that evidence isn't evidence.
I’ve spent about 25 minutes of my life I won’t get back clicking on the sources on that website and I didn’t find one that proved the election was stolen. Can you link one for me because maybe I missed it in the sea of armchair detectives on Twitter being sources and articles speculating that the voting system was rigged (without proving evidence)
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Tschumi
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
no, trump tried to disenfranchise millions of votes in PA because many democratic counties allowed the curing of ballots whereas many republicans counties did not. That’s a problem with the counties, not the election. My point with kemp and raffensperger is that many of trumps followers, even ones in positions of power, exhibit many cult-like vendettas against people who speak out against trump, and facts don’t mean a whole lot to them



I’ve spent about 25 minutes of my life I won’t get back clicking on the sources on that website and I didn’t find one that proved the election was stolen. Can you link one for me because maybe I missed it in the sea of armchair detectives on Twitter being sources and articles speculating that the voting system was rigged (without proving evidence)
I agree they didn't need to disenfranchise so many voters, they could have just left it where it was Tuesday night before the mail-in ballots began being counted as they were the problem.

If you agree every piece of evidence cited is real and indisputable then you'd have to look at it through a lens of a cumulative effect, no one piece of evidence overturns the whole election, the question is does all of it combined do so? Why is the evidence not enough? Oh, right... "dude, trust me"
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheContact
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
Please point out where this federal judge broke the law.
Why do you keep twisting people's words? He ignored the law, he did not break the law and he allowed laws to be ignored by others. It's already been pointed out to you as well, but you're really stubborn about not listening to what's being said to you.
 

Hardensoul

Member
Oct 4, 2020
172
250
290
Just because Obama appointed him doesn't turn his blood blue lol
Then explain to me why this federal judge who is a Republican and was unanimously approved by the Senate at time when they weren't unanimously approving jack shit is a "RINO".


I'm being serious. Explain to me why this Republican isn't a "real" Republican to you.
EHungtingon provided you with that answer. I don't think you are being serious with this question. If you don't think people change their allegiance or allied to who they were appointed by.
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
I agree they didn't need to disenfranchise so many voters, they could have just left it where it was Tuesday night before the mail-in ballots began being counted as they were the problem.

If you agree every piece of evidence cited is real and indisputable then you'd have to look at it through a lens of a cumulative effect, no one piece of evidence overturns the whole election, the question is does all of it combined do so? Why is the evidence not enough? Oh, right... "dude, trust me"
I can understand this point of view, except even the articles listed as sources are speculative. It reminds me of what happened around 9/11 except now the internet is way more pervasive and allows for misinformation to flow much more easily than in 2001. What trump is alleging is a conspiracy theory, and when people force dots to be connected they end up with some wild results that have no basis in fact.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,245
855
1,270
Yes, and the conclusion boils down to "time's a wastin', we got deadlines to hit". We'll see how it goes in upper courts.
The conclusion is that prohibiting certification of the election results (denying everyone's voting rights), would not "reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote." And moreover that:

"Defendant Counties, by implementing a notice-and-cure procedure, have in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others. "


Whether or you not you agree with these claims, they are essentially legal in nature. There is no evidence to wait for, or to dispute; just an interpretation of what the law requires. And we should be clear that no fraud is being alleged in the remaining complaint; just that the system does not fairly protect individuals right to vote. If this is the case however, then it applied before the election took place when the rules were already known, and it would apply even if Trump was the winner. Think about whether in that situation you would be ok with having Trump's votes tossed out. Also think about why no lawsuits were raised to fix this claimed injustice before the election took place.
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
I can understand this point of view, except even the articles listed as sources are speculative. It reminds me of what happened around 9/11 except now the internet is way more pervasive and allows for misinformation to flow much more easily than in 2001. What trump is alleging is a conspiracy theory, and when people force dots to be connected they end up with some wild results that have no basis in fact.
I didn't need a single internet article to believe it, though. I saw it in real time... the vote was stopped until morning, two hours later they find votes for Biden. The average person believing the fraud narrative was someone who was watching live and saw this or something like it occur. All this extra evidence we keep finding is like a cherry on top for us because we know what we saw. Again, most of what you're calling "speculative" or a "wild conspiracy theory" is at the threshold for the US State Dept. to declare a foreign election as rigged/stolen/fraudulent, maybe we should ask why that is?
 

Tschumi

Gold Member
Jul 4, 2020
1,900
2,237
540
Japan
There's just one thing that, really, you should read, put in your pocket and take away on a holiday:

Every angry thing you think, every clench of indignation, every frisson of determination to see your orange great leader win, every fantasy about civil war, every assertion that you know more about the law than judges, is built on baseless claims that have been irrefutably shot down, from people on both sides of the aisle, from the moment Trump's motley crew spewed them.

Now, if you can go on a non-partisan website, anything in the middle top portion of this graph, and find ANYTHING that supports your stuff said by people who aren't rabid Trump supporters, and aren't leftists, you can come back here and make a valid point. If you're going to blindly cite "rock solid evidence" that even Trump's team of lawyers have now abandoned, you'll be, guaranteed, wrong.

I recommend this course of action:

Feel bad man about losing an election, like one party has for every election ever, post about how Biden is entirely responsible for the economic consequences of COVID-19 (just like you probably gave Trump credit for economic improvements that were entirely in line with trends started by Obama), and teach your children that the us Constitution is not sacred because your hugely unpopular orange avalanche lost an election once. Godspeed you.
 
x1

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
EHungtingon provided you with that answer. I don't think you are being serious with this question. If you don't think people change their allegiance or allied to who they were appointed by.
no, if you’re a democrat going against Trump you’re branded a traitor. If you’re a republican going against trump you’re a RINO. Kemp is recently the most prime example of this. So it’s easy to say if someone disagrees with trump, it’s not possible for them to be loyal to their country, or their job; instead they are immediately a RINO. That’s cult-like behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tschumi
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
EHungtingon provided you with that answer. I don't think you are being serious with this question. If you don't think people change their allegiance or allied to who they were appointed by.
So because Obama appointed him that means he isn't a "real" republican? You can't be serious with that. Especially since he was unanimously supported by Republicans in the Senate.


That is some seriously ignorant team based thinking.
 
Last edited:

EHuntingon

Gold Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,173
5,679
920
Michigan
ehuntington.org
EHungtingon provided you with that answer. I don't think you are being serious with this question. If you don't think people change their allegiance or allied to who they were appointed by.
Yeah, but I'm only half-serious. He was an Obama-appointed judge, but he was also in the Federalist Society. The judge is a neocon, from the Reagan/Bush school of thought, but he is a Republican and served in the party for years. I have no doubt the judge has far more in common with the corporate Democrats, but on paper he still should've been more receptive to Trump's efforts. Sidney Powell said that the ruling wasn't that big of a deal, as they're looking to get past the first round of judges and present their case to the appellate courts, so maybe it doesn't really matter anyway.
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
The conclusion is that prohibiting certification of the election results (denying everyone's voting rights), would not "reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote." And moreover that:

"Defendant Counties, by implementing a notice-and-cure procedure, have in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others. "


Whether or you not you agree with these claims, they are essentially legal in nature. There is no evidence to wait for, or to dispute; just an interpretation of what the law requires. And we should be clear that no fraud is being alleged in the remaining complaint; just that the system does not fairly protect individuals right to vote. If this is the case however, then it applied before the election took place when the rules were already known, and it would apply even if Trump was the winner. Think about whether in that situation you would be ok with having Trump's votes tossed out. Also think about why no lawsuits were raised to fix this claimed injustice before the election took place.
The conclusion was finding out if the claim had merit would take too long to be finished before tomorrow, the deadline is what would prohibit certifying the results, in other words under other circumstances we don't know how it would have gone. But you have pretty thoroughly made clear what I and others have already said, that this decision was not based on lack of evidence for fraud, no evidence was even looked at.

Were no lawsuits raised prior? Was this occurring in prior PA elections? A lawsuit doesn't appear out of thin air, something has to have happened. If there's a law on the books that could potentially hurt me but the law isn't enforced I can't sue.
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
5,413
4,602
745
I didn't need a single internet article to believe it, though. I saw it in real time... the vote was stopped until morning, two hours later they find votes for Biden. The average person believing the fraud narrative was someone who was watching live and saw this or something like it occur. All this extra evidence we keep finding is like a cherry on top for us because we know what we saw. Again, most of what you're calling "speculative" or a "wild conspiracy theory" is at the threshold for the US State Dept. to declare a foreign election as rigged/stolen/fraudulent, maybe we should ask why that is?
It makes sense you and others would think that. On nov 3 it looked like trump was going to win. He had the lead and then all of a sudden, Biden starts pulling ahead. Someone must have flipped a switch in the results when they saw Trump was going to lose, right? And that 138k vote switch was a visual glitch and wasn’t actually tallied to his votes, and it was fixed 30 minutes later. But looking at Biden suddenly receive 138k votes does look suspicious and it only served to further fuel the claims of fraud. The problem is once you see that it’s hard to go back and accept the truth of what happened.
 
Last edited:

EHuntingon

Gold Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,173
5,679
920
Michigan
ehuntington.org
Hardensoul Hardensoul
To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised how poorly these cases are going for Trump and Trump supporters. They haven't found a single receptive judge so far. I'm not expecting judges to overturn the election, but the fact that the legal effort has made virtually no headway is surprising to me. The general opinion of the judicial system seems to be: "Get this out of here and into the Legislature."
 
May 22, 2018
9,269
12,924
720
Hardensoul Hardensoul
To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised how poorly these cases are going for Trump and Trump supporters. They haven't found a single receptive judge so far. I'm not expecting judges to overturn the election, but the fact that the legal effort has made virtually no headway is surprising to me. The general opinion of the judicial system seems to be: "Get this out of here and into the Legislature."
That due to the lack of substantial evidence. No judge in their right mind Republican or Democrat is going to disenfranchise any US citizen based on anything less than overwhelming hard proof that something blatantly illegal has taken place.


It's just not going to happen.
 
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
There's just one thing that, really, you should read, put in your pocket and take away on a holiday:

Every angry thing you think, every clench of indignation, every frisson of determination to see your orange great leader win, every fantasy about civil war, every assertion that you know more about the law than judges, is built on baseless claims that have been irrefutably shot down, from people on both sides of the aisle, from the moment Trump's motley crew spewed them.

Now, if you can go on a non-partisan website, anything in the middle top portion of this graph, and find ANYTHING that supports your stuff said by people who aren't rabid Trump supporters, and aren't leftists, you can come back here and make a valid point. If you're going to blindly cite "rock solid evidence" that even Trump's team of lawyers have now abandoned, you'll be, guaranteed, wrong.

I recommend this course of action:

Feel bad man about losing an election, like one party has for every election ever, post about how Biden is entirely responsible for the economic consequences of COVID-19 (just like you probably gave Trump credit for economic improvements that were entirely in line with trends started by Obama), and teach your children that the us Constitution is not sacred because your hugely unpopular orange avalanche lost an election once. Godspeed you.
I'm not angry. I'm not indignant. I'm not arguing on the basis I believe Trump can win. I haven't spoken about civil war in this thread, have I? I don't think I know more about the law than Brann, I think Brann knew exactly what the laws were he was ignoring. Ah, here we go, your claims are baseless and have been shot down! I've been deboonked! No argument required!

Non-partisan website? Looks like an authoritative graph made by a non-partisan. I need to find support from people who are not Trump supporters or leftists? Are you sure none of what I've linked is from anyone self-describing as independent? I'm going to say no. It's weird you put rock solid evidence in quotes, it's almost like you're claiming I said that. What have Trump's lawyers abandoned? You know they're going to higher courts, right?

If the trends were in line with how things were going under Obama then why did every analyst predict lesser gains than Trump made? You really want anyone to believe the regulatory cuts and tax cuts from Trump had no effect? Why would I teach anyone the constitution isn't sacred?

no, if you’re a democrat going against Trump you’re branded a traitor. If you’re a republican going against trump you’re a RINO. Kemp is recently the most prime example of this. So it’s easy to say if someone disagrees with trump, it’s not possible for them to be loyal to their country, or their job; instead they are immediately a RINO. That’s cult-like behavior.
If that were true wouldn't Ben Shapiro's audience have abandoned him years ago?

So because Obama appointed him that means he isn't a "real" republican? You can't be serious with that. Especially since he was unanimously supported by Republicans in the Senate.


That is some seriously ignorant team based thinking.
You keep saying unanimously supported as if judges at that level are given the scrutiny say a Supreme Court judge was, they don't really hold a vote they just see if anyone objects. Again, Obama had no problem getting judges through, second most judges behind Clinton appointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands
Aug 28, 2019
6,542
9,699
790
It makes sense you and others would think that. On nov 3 it looked like trump was going to win. He had the lead and then all of a sudden, Biden starts pulling ahead. Someone must have flipped a switch in the results when they saw Trump was going to lose, right? And that 138k vote switch was a visual glitch and wasn’t actually tallied to his votes, and it was fixed 30 minutes later. But looking at Biden suddenly receive 138k votes does look suspicious and it only served to further fuel the claims of fraud. The problem is once you see that it’s hard to go back and accept the truth of what happened.
Yeah, lots of glitches that favor Biden, none for Trump that I've seen. The problem is shutting down the count and kicking out observers only to resume counting hours later (or the whole time for all we know) in secrecy. A lot of us like transparency, especially when you're going to suddenly tell us the states are all flipping.

That due to the lack of substantial evidence. No judge in their right mind Republican or Democrat is going to disenfranchise any US citizen based on anything less than overwhelming hard proof that something blatantly illegal has taken place.


It's just not going to happen.
Already been covered that Brann saw no evidence, the evidentiary hearing was cancelled. You keep talking like there's some giant threshold for voter disenfranchisement when in 2016 we had faithless electors, what do you make of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FloatingIslands

EHuntingon

Gold Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,173
5,679
920
Michigan
ehuntington.org
That due to the lack of substantial evidence. No judge in their right mind Republican or Democrat is going to disenfranchise any US citizen based on anything less than overwhelming hard proof that something blatantly illegal has taken place.
You're right, and I'm not trying to claim the evidence presented so far warrants overturning anything, but the brutality these judges are showing in their opinions is shocking (to me at least.) Thaedolus Thaedolus had a great, stinging insult that was simply a judge's opinion on public record. I would have though at least one of the judges would've acknowledged the abnormalities and statical issues and dismissed the case, without prejudice, pending further investigation. Besides the one win, on procedural grounds, no judge has even humored the idea of fraud of manipulation.

I don't know, maybe my internal bias is just too strong on this one.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Tschumi

Gold Member
Jul 4, 2020
1,900
2,237
540
Japan
Hardensoul Hardensoul .They haven't found a single receptive judge so far.
We had a nice exchange the other day, I'm not here to flame you.

Ahem.

I think you don't quite grasp what the obligations of the law are. And i think you should be grateful for it, really. Maybe now it will seem tough for you that judges must ignore politics, but many times in the past you can be sure a separation of the law and politics has saved the States from big problems. There are a few countries in Europe right now plagued by courts that are in the palm of authoritarian leaders, i don't think Americans would want that. That would be extremely against the freedom that the US exports.

"Receptive judge" a judge who fits that bill will be, by definition, a bad judge and probably in danger of being kicked out. I guarantee you that if one of these republican judges had seen any evidence that justified disenfranchising millions on voters, they would have done it.

This is why the supreme court allowed Pennsylvania to count mail in votes received days late, provided they could be proved to have been sent on time. Because, conservative or not, they are there to protect the constitutional right of voters to vote - even if they don't want to risk infection - and they made a decision that reflects it.

In the unlikely event that Trump's cases make it that far, i believe the court will reject them, more or less immediately.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EHuntingon

Kreios

Member
Oct 5, 2010
3,400
2,997
1,125
U.S.
You're right, and I'm not trying to claim the evidence presented so far warrants overturning anything, but the brutality these judges are showing in their opinions is shocking (to me at least.) Thaedolus Thaedolus had a great, stinging insult that was simply a judge's opinion on public record. I would have though at least one of the judges would've acknowledged the abnormalities and statical issues and dismissed the case, without prejudice, pending further investigation. Besides the one win, on procedural grounds, no judge has even humored the idea of fraud of manipulation.

I don't know, maybe my internal bias is just too strong on this one.
quite honestly, our laws have not caught up with technology, or our government, which makes this the perfect storm.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EHuntingon