2020 US General Election

[Niall_Quinn]

Trumps latest tweet is gold.

“Biden can only enter the White House as president if he can prove that his ridiculous “80,000,000 votes” were not fraudulently or illegally obtained “




If you go around alleging voter fraud, its up to you to prove it not demand the other side prove they didnt commit fraud.

That's true and in progress. Evidence is not proof until tested in a court. Right now the lower courts are managing to dismiss most of the calls for presentation on procedural grounds, but as the cases work their way up the chain there's a decent chance a court will hear at least the evidence specific to constitutional irregularities. Whether there's enough time to produce a thorough case consolidating a significant number of instances of voter or electoral fraud is an issue, but electoral college certification doesn't occur until early January so it's possible.

As I knew would be the case on the night, as the steal was in progress, there's no way to pull off something like that without leaving major traces. Matt Braynard's work appears to be legitimate and has been incorporated into Powell's filing, but has been submerged in a ton of other irrelevant shit that is going to be easily dismissed on technical grounds. But he's bringing a separate case I believe, so it will be very interesting to see how that evidence is treated and how the media tries to spin it away. The latter is crowdfunded so can't be sabotaged by Republican elements who are working as hard as the left to push the steal over the line.

Even if Biden is installed due to time constraints, that doesn't mean all investigation has to end. Eventually the steal will be properly documented and presented in court. It's inevitable.

In the meantime, Trump's golfing seems to be the main concern for the perpetrators. There's no surprise there.

[Letters]

Right now the lower courts are managing to dismiss most of the calls for presentation on procedural grounds.

No. They're dismissing them because of a lack of credible evidence

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1762981.html

“Charges of unfairness are serious,” he said in his ruling on Friday. "But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The case suggested poll watchers did not have access to the vote-counting process, and that the state illegally allowed counties to decide whether voters could fix mail-in ballots with missing signatures or secrecy envelopes.
“Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory,” the judge said. “It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal.”
The judge argued that the number of ballots that the campaign has targeted is far smaller than the margin of victory for it to have any meaningful impact.
“And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters,” Judge Bibas said. “Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised."
In the lower-court ruling, US District Judge Matthew Brann called the campaign’s filings “Frankenstein’s monster” that was “haphazardly stitched together”, in his rejection of Mr Giuliani’s attempt to amend the complain a second time. Friday’s ruling agreed with that decision.

[Letters]

For all their fraud, fraud, fraud claims when they're getting into court...

[Letters]

And this is what a judge had to say about all these affidavits

[Niall_Quinn]

Some people object to being informed that cases are being dismissed on procedural grounds. The same people then produce video of that very fact. It's a strange world.

[Mac76]

Some people object to being informed that cases are being dismissed on procedural grounds. The same people then produce video of that very fact. It's a strange world.

Oh do give it up, you're just making it harder for yourself when Trump finally steps down in humiliation

[Niall_Quinn]

Oh do give it up, you're just making it harder for yourself when Trump finally steps down in humiliation

That's the strategy, isn't it? Give up. Don't look. Don't speak.

Sorry, no can do.

I'm not familiar with the case from which those snippets appear, but based on other cases I have followed it's more than simple to follow along. In the first snippet the attorney makes it clear his case does not allege fraud because all cases in which such allegations have been made have been thrown out on grounds of standing. Basically the court summarily rules the Trump Campaign itself cannot bring such claims because they cannot be an aggrieved party in that particular jurisdiction, the argument being the campaign is not a voter and therefore can not suffer harm due to fraud, whether proven or not. It's a bullshit argument but technically legal. That's why the attorney is specific about the case not being about fraud.

In the second snippet, the judge (who is clearly political), concocts a procedural argument that penalises the plaintiff for practicing due diligence before entering affidavits into evidence. Essentially the argument goes, because you tossed some affidavits on grounds of them being unsound you have therefore cast doubt on those presented as sound, therefore the entire procedure in gathering the affidavits is unsound. A classic procedural dismissal and the law being tortured for political ends.

The net result is the case being dismissed without the evidence being presented, which is the entire point from the court's perspective.

Now if you want to step beyond your TDS and have a discussion, fine. Otherwise follow your own advice and poke your nose out. Or at least bring something that isn't culled straight from the front pages of the fake news media.

[Niall_Quinn]

In another case the court opened its judgement with (in so many words) an unwillingness to disenfranchise millions of voters based on the evidence of two voters. In terms of law this a complete nonsense and again purely political. It is for the court to adjudicate based on the law, not the consequences of that adjudication. You can't rule a murderer as innocent because a lot of people will be upset if he rightly goes to jail. That's without consideration of the evidence itself. Maybe the evidence was good, maybe it wasn't. The issue is the framing set out by the court which is essentially saying nobody can be disenfranchised unless everyone behaved fraudulently. Politics, not law.

[Niall_Quinn]

The courts in the US operate very differently to the courts here in the UK. For a start, the law varies from state to state and in some respects the state holds supremacy whereas in others the federal courts have final jurisdiction. That's like a county court in Cornwall dunking a woman with a long nose because they have special dispensation to do so, whereas it would never float in a Lancashire courtroom (that's a joke btw, before you retain counsel). We don't have that system here and to fail to recognise that distinction, as well as the roles of the various legislative bodies that have various electoral responsibilities (from state to state) means the casual observer can't possibly understand why a case may or may not advance in court or may be summarily dismissed. Most of the time it has nothing to do with the events, evidence or facts, and everything to do with the relevant statute, jurisdiction, the standing of both the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) and, most importantly, the venue (court).

What fails at the district level will not necessarily fail at the state supreme court level and vice versa. And what fails at the state level may not fail at the federal level. Above it all, in terms of regulation associated with the Constitution, is the federal Supreme Court which won't be able to advise or rule on state level claims of fraud that relate to individuals that have standing, but can rule on the electoral processes that were in place and were (or weren't) adhered to before, during and after the election process. For example, SCOTUS can rule on the authority of state courts to revise electoral rules and regulations when it was not in their remit to do so, which is the case with Pennsylvania. And Georgia if I read the documents correctly. There's a strong chance of the Trump campaign prevailing at the supreme court level (either state or federal) on these particular matters.

So the old, give it up, demand is a strange request. Because, surely, the goal for all parties is to ensure free and fair elections, right? Both now and in the future? So what possible harm could entail by following a specifically mandated entitlement to do so? Nobody has anything to hide, do they? Only good can come of it? Or am I misreading the motive here?

Of course all this could be cleared up with an audit in each of the contested states. I wonder why that isn't happening? I guess it's too expensive and time consuming to ensure free and fair elections?

[Niall_Quinn]

A motion by the Trump legal team to amend an existing pleading has just been dismissed. To make an amendment! LOL.

Next they'll be dismissing lawyers who wear the wrong colour tie.