|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 10:10:17 GMT -6
C'mon guys. These contested elections were run mostly by Republicans. Florida and Arizona have long had mail in ballots. Not a nickel's difference in how the states all do this.
The very fact there is video shows safety measures are adequate to prevent large scale fraud.
If these videos were really significant and all the conspiracy claims were really credible the GOP lawyers would have alleged fraud in their complaints. MOST of the cases here could not do that since the cases were so weak. Those that did were dismissed as lacking evidence.
Let's be real. The lawyers can't take this to court, or they would have. Trump on the other hand, can claim fraud. No real restraint in reality for him.
This sound and fury by Trump is to raise money ostensibly for legal appeals. But not used for that. No matter how much he overpays Rudy for his clown show, very little of the money he is raising since Nov 3 is actually going to the appeals and recounts. More and more that it appears mostly be just to raise money, not actually to litigate. He's scamming his loyal followers. That money goes to the RNC and PACs and will go to mostly pay campaign debts, support Trump post election, and fund Don Jr. and other loyalists in political jobs for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 10:29:11 GMT -6
Over the past month I have heard "there is no evidence fraud." Then it changed to "evidence of widespread fraud." Now I am hearing "there isn't proof of enough fraud to change the election results." The three statements are basically the same.
Fraud has to be both significant and supported by evidence to count...most of the allegations were neither. Why exactly would ANYBODY care about unsupported allegations Trump makes in his tweets? Much tamer allegations made in the lawsuits either do NOT allege fraud at all or have very very little supporting evidence?
I care more about the allegations being made for so little reason other than to mislead so many people who may sincerely want to support their man.
Can you seriously watch that 45 minute Trump tirade and isolate any concrete claims that are supported and show he actually won elections he lost?
One exaggerated claim follows the other. Some egregious, some mere exaggeration, some so general as not to be testable. Almost literally no concrete fact alleged. Sure, he's not a lawyer, but if somebody made this presentation to a court, it would be dismissed.
Looking at it as a pitch to a group of investors, he'd be laughed out of the room. Would you give this man money to pursue a business project based on what he said?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2020 11:50:10 GMT -6
It reminds me of the scene in Johnny Dangerously, where Tommy (the new assistant D.A.) takes his evidence to the D.A. (who is on the mob's payroll):
Tommy: I've got conclusive evidence. Notarized depositions, tire prints, blood samples, I've got eyewitness accounts, murder weapons, fingerprints, recordings!
D.A.: Hold it, hold it! It's flimsy. It's not enough. It'll never hold up, not in a court of law. Let's put this aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 12:02:58 GMT -6
No. These are cases before judges. Often GOP elected or appointed.
The idea they are ALL part of a vast conspiracy is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2020 12:19:07 GMT -6
I was talking about you as the D.A., actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2020 12:40:31 GMT -6
Your President-elect:
"Like I told Barack, if I reach something where there's a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I'll develop some disease and say I have to resign."
What the actual fuck is he doing? If you spent the past 4 years bitching about the horrible jokes Trump made, you can't be ok with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 12:47:07 GMT -6
No. These are cases before judges. Often GOP elected or appointed. The idea they are ALL part of a vast conspiracy is ludicrous. No the judges are mostly ruling on jurisdictional matters not the cases themselves. You would think an attorney would understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 4, 2020 14:54:10 GMT -6
I just can't figure out how Trump ever got elected four years ago. That well-oiled Democrat voter fraud machine must have taken that election cycle off. Frankly I'm surprised they stopped at the presidency this year and didn't take Congress, too. Maybe they didn't want to be too obvious about it. I mean I guess it would get pretty suspicious if everyone in the cemetery was voting straight ticket Democrat.
Or maybe the Dems have just become tighter with Satan from all the children's blood they've been drinking. I hear that stuff is pretty potent with the dark side.
On the other hand, surely Trump still has the big man upstairs in his corner. After all, he did use a bible in that memorable photo op. But maybe God took the election off once he got his Supreme Court. Sometimes you just can't depend on supreme dieties.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 16:51:37 GMT -6
No. These are cases before judges. Often GOP elected or appointed. The idea they are ALL part of a vast conspiracy is ludicrous. No the judges are mostly ruling on jurisdictional matters not the cases themselves. You would think an attorney would understand that. If you were a competent attorney you would be appalled at the quality of these legal actions. It is indeed a procedural barrier when a legal action cannot allege the facts required. Trump lawyers who can't do that are hamstrung by a fatally weak theory without factual basis. The judge simply rules that is the case and dismisses it as without basis. |
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 17:04:48 GMT -6
No the judges are mostly ruling on jurisdictional matters not the cases themselves. You would think an attorney would understand that. If you were a competent attorney you would be appalled at the quality of these legal actions. It is indeed a procedural barrier when a legal action cannot allege the facts required. Trump lawyers who can't do that are hamstrung by a fatally weak theory without factual basis. The judge simply rules that is the case and dismisses it as without basis. No they are clearing the way for an appeal where the matter can be bumped to the proper court. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 17:20:46 GMT -6
Trial courts determine facts. Appellate courts can only review error in law.
These defeats include defeats in the highest state courts. That ends state proceedings absent highly improbable circumstances. Trump lawyers are bailing on these theories. For good reason.
Dismissing a case for not pleading a cause of action will not be overturned.
This is not even a case where the US SCt has to take an appeal if you're thinking of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 17:38:04 GMT -6
Trial courts determine facts. Appellate courts can only review error in law. These defeats include defeats in the highest state courts. That ends state proceedings absent highly improbable circumstances. Trump lawyers are bailing on these theories. For good reason. Dismissing a case for not pleading a cause of action will not be overturned. This is not even a case where the US SCt has to take an appeal if you're thinking of that. Dismissing a case is an appealable act. Sheeesh ...........Perry Mason |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 18:09:58 GMT -6
These defeats include defeats in the highest state courts. That ends state proceedings absent highly improbable circumstances. Trump lawyers are bailing on these theories. For good reason. Dismissing a case for not pleading a cause of action will not be overturned. This is not even a case where the US SCt has to take an appeal if you're thinking of that. Dismissing a case is an appealable act. Sheeesh ...........Perry Mason As any lawyer knows it COULD be legal error, but as I pointed out the state cases have mostly already exhausted appeal. And the higher court is VERY rarely willing to be overrule a decision based on absence of required factual allegations.
In the Federal system, appeals end at the appellate court level unless the SCt accepts a writ of certiorari. This is rare.
If these Trump theories had more substance you would not see the lawyers jumping ship. They were unwilling to allege facts that had little or no basis and very unlikely to appeal on the grounds that will require them to allege facts they cannot prove. Facts matter here.
Failure of your lawyers to take action at lower courts is not grounds for appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 21:19:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Dec 5, 2020 7:54:35 GMT -6
The observers were told that ballot counting was done for the day, and that they would start up again the next day. The observers left for the evening, while some of the poll workers pulled the cases full of ballots and continued to count "votes". While the observers were not dismissed, they were mislead. It is illegal to tally votes without observers having access to the tally process. |
|
