Noticed the "Disconnect"?

[ChrLzs]

It's a pretty obvious disconnect - why do Trump and his cronies make grandiose claims of voter fraud, and yet those same claims are completely absent from their court cases?

 Allow me to explain this 'problem' in a little more detail...  Trump, Giuliani and others are making wild claims about voter fraud.  Let's forget the question about them having evidence or not, and let's just assume for a moment they do.

Why, then do the court cases all seem to be about questioning procedure, and affidavits about suspicious (but undocumented/unevidenced) behavior..?  Why don't they actually use the words 'voter fraud', or point out the evidence?

And why, do you think, would the Trump lawyers sign a document that states (and I kid you not - you can view the original document here, scroll down to p.5):

Quote

Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots;
Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots;
Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots;
Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.

.... any questions?  It goes on further, but you probably get the idea by now - do you really question why cases like these are being thrown out and laughed about in legal circles..?

So what's going on?  I'll tell you.  It's pretty simple really....

As members of the bar association, lawyers are under a 'professional ethics' obligation.  They must not abuse legal procedure by filing frivolous claims.  All lawyers are forbidden from bringing a claim or argument 'unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous'.  They must inform themselves about the facts of their cases and make good faith arguments supporting their client’s positions. 

If they don't..?  That lawyer is immediately open to sanctions from the state bar, ranging from a reprimand through a fine to a license suspension or worse. In a high profile case particularly, that will remove the court's confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and do immense damage to their reputation.

Even when they have a president standing over them, even when the courts are loaded with republicans... the risk of that is too much for virtually all lawyers, which is why they are not alleging voter fraud.

And of course the reason they can't / won't is VERY simple.  They have no evidence of it.

 

[the13bats]

[Golden Duck]

[Davros of Skaro]

Rudy is working his mad skills for a swift move up the courts (time is of essence). Then BAM!

[the13bats]

55 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Rudy is working his mad skills for a swift move up the courts (time is of essence). Then BAM!

I knew he stole that hand gesture....its a go to for the maniacally twisted and evil.

Edited December 4, 2020 by the13bats

[HandsomeGorilla]

Methinks it has more to do with 'I'm not used to being told no' than actual voter fraud. Same happened when Trump started losing a state in 2016, but they were obviously counted perfectly if Trump won that state lol It's been the same on both sides for as long as I can remember, one team 'wins' and the other spends the next four years whinging and crying. With Trump, I'm not so sure he believes in it, either; it's his way of rallying the troops for one last hurrah, to be heard once again. For him, I believe the presidency was more or less the ultimate popularity test and ego boost. 

 

[+and-then]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/georgia-poll-watchers-jacki-pick/2020/12/03/id/999979/?ns_mail_uid=130a5058-87dd-4ce7-a506-c97674ca125d&ns_mail_job=DM170541_11272020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104loup6m

Have any of you gotten your talking points on THIS yet?  I mean, who ya gonna trust, Democrats or your lyin' eyes?

[ChrLzs]

24 minutes ago, and then said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/georgia-poll-watchers-jacki-pick/2020/12/03/id/999979/?ns_mail_uid=130a5058-87dd-4ce7-a506-c97674ca125d&ns_mail_job=DM170541_11272020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104loup6m

Have any of you gotten your talking points on THIS yet?  I mean, who ya gonna trust, Democrats or your lyin' eyes?

(crossposted) How exactly does that prove fraud?  You do realise that Georgia has ALREADY had 2 (TWO) recounts - are you suggesting that wasn't picked up?

And, please tell me - WHO are the people that were allegedly asked to leave?  Were they properly appointed or nominated by a county or state party chair?

Do you know why I ask?    Guess..

 

Let's face it, "And then", your reputation for (not) having a grasp on the actual election rules, (not) understanding what constitutes 'evidence', and also how the concept of the paper audit trail and recounts to verify an outcome.. well, let's just say that Trump's legal team would probably be even worse than it is, if you were on it.  Hard to believe, eh...? 

Edited December 4, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Tatetopa]

19 minutes ago, and then said:

Have any of you gotten your talking points on THIS yet?  I mean, who ya gonna trust, Democrats or your lyin' eyes?

Not gonna trust Democrats, not gonna trust MSM, not gonna trust right wing media.  Gonna trust the courts.

The headline says alleged, meaning it is not yet validated as evidence.  At this point, it could be a fake.  Veritas does that sort of thing and has been caught at it.

Not saying this is. or is not fake.  Not for me to say, not for the media left or right.  A judge gets to decide if it is admissible evidence.

I thought we were going to chill and wait for the evidence to show up in court.

 

[Peter B]

34 minutes ago, and then said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/georgia-poll-watchers-jacki-pick/2020/12/03/id/999979/?ns_mail_uid=130a5058-87dd-4ce7-a506-c97674ca125d&ns_mail_job=DM170541_11272020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104loup6m

Have any of you gotten your talking points on THIS yet?  I mean, who ya gonna trust, Democrats or your lyin' eyes?

And what explanation is given by the people who are in the video? Do they have a right of reply to explain their side of the story?

[bee]

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

(crossposted) How exactly does that prove fraud?  You do realise that Georgia has ALREADY had 2 (TWO) recounts - are you suggesting that wasn't picked up?

And, please tell me - WHO are the people that were allegedly asked to leave?  Were they properly appointed or nominated by a county or state party chair?

Do you know why I ask?    Guess..

Because you don't want to research anything yourself that doesn't satisfy your need for confirmation bias...?..... 

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing.. whether that be 2 (TWO) or 20 (TWENTY)

 

 

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

It's a pretty obvious disconnect - why do Trump and his cronies make grandiose claims of voter fraud, and yet those same claims are completely absent from their court cases?

 Allow me to explain this 'problem' in a little more detail...  Trump, Giuliani and others are making wild claims about voter fraud.  Let's forget the question about them having evidence or not, and let's just assume for a moment they do.

Why, then do the court cases all seem to be about questioning procedure, and affidavits about suspicious (but undocumented/unevidenced) behavior..?  Why don't they actually use the words 'voter fraud', or point out the evidence?

And why, do you think, would the Trump lawyers sign a document that states (and I kid you not - you can view the original document here, scroll down to p.5):

.... any questions?  It goes on further, but you probably get the idea by now - do you really question why cases like these are being thrown out and laughed about in legal circles..?

So what's going on?  I'll tell you.  It's pretty simple really....

As members of the bar association, lawyers are under a 'professional ethics' obligation.  They must not abuse legal procedure by filing frivolous claims.  All lawyers are forbidden from bringing a claim or argument 'unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous'.  They must inform themselves about the facts of their cases and make good faith arguments supporting their client’s positions. 

If they don't..?  That lawyer is immediately open to sanctions from the state bar, ranging from a reprimand through a fine to a license suspension or worse. In a high profile case particularly, that will remove the court's confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and do immense damage to their reputation.

Even when they have a president standing over them, even when the courts are loaded with republicans... the risk of that is too much for virtually all lawyers, which is why they are not alleging voter fraud.

And of course the reason they can't / won't is VERY simple.  They have no evidence of it.

 

Trump has a fortune coming in from his rubes for legal fees to fight the bogus election on their behalf. He's going to drag it out as long as he can because a large portion of that cash is going to pay his real legal fees after Biden's inauguration. SDNY's DA wants to have a little chat with him.  Remember how Al Capone was finally nailed?

[RoofGardener]

12 minutes ago, Peter B said:

And what explanation is given by the people who are in the video? Do they have a right of reply to explain their side of the story?

I presume they - or at least the Georgia election officials - would have exactly that once the evidence is presented to court ? 

If it ever is ? 

[eight bits]

Um, @ChrLzs, you know I have the greatest respect for you.

But the document you linked is a rotuine joint stipulation prepared for submission to the court by both sides to the specific case in question. Its purpose is to resolve, prior to further litigation, what the parties agree upon.

This case is not about voter fraud. As stated in sections 24 ff., this case is about absentee ballots which failed in some respect to comply with the Commonwealth's statutory requirements for validity. For example, the statute requires the ballot to be placed in a sealed inner envelope, and sometimes the envelope wasn't sealed when it was received. The controversy is what happened to those ballots, compared with what ought to have happened.

It is perfectly appropriate and uninformative about any legal strategy in other cases for the joint statement to observe that the petitioners are unable to determine how or why the inner envelope wasn't sealed. That is not the issue to be litigated, but rather whether the ballot in the inner envelope was then counted, refused or cured in the manner required by law. That is what the case is about (along with issues about other ballots which the petitioners allege had other defects and were improperly handled given their defects).

Team Trump has many lawsuits. Some of them are reportedly about fraud, this one is not.

Edited December 4, 2020 by eight bits

[+and-then]

7 minutes ago, bee said:

Because you don't want to research anything yourself that doesn't satisfy your need for confirmation bias...?..... 

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing.. whether that be 2 (TWO) or 20 (TWENTY)

 

 

I'm sure the talking points will be along, directly.  These people are so deep in the cesspool of hate that they'd do ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.  The irony is that the Left/Marxist media has burned itself down in this effort.  The Legacy media crippled and on its way down.  

The AMERICA FIRST Party is going to steamroll these hacks and once they twig to that situation, it'll be far too late to counter it.  Like most tyrants, they'll be undone by sheer arrogance.  

[the13bats]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/georgia-poll-watchers-jacki-pick/2020/12/03/id/999979/?ns_mail_uid=130a5058-87dd-4ce7-a506-c97674ca125d&ns_mail_job=DM170541_11272020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104loup6m

Have any of you gotten your talking points on THIS yet?  I mean, who ya gonna trust, Democrats or your lyin' eyes?

                              

That word  "alleged" in the link you posted, evidently the definition evades you.

 

[the13bats]

27 minutes ago, bee said:

Because you don't want to research anything yourself that doesn't satisfy your need for confirmation bias...?..... 

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing.. whether that be 2 (TWO) or 20 (TWENTY)

 

 

[Golden Duck]

33 minutes ago, bee said:

Because you don't want to research anything yourself that doesn't satisfy your need for confirmation bias...?..... 

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing.. whether that be 2 (TWO) or 20 (TWENTY)

 

 

You can go direct to the courts and see the verdicts.  It's all the confirmation needed.

[Peter B]

27 minutes ago, bee said:

Because you don't want to research anything yourself that doesn't satisfy your need for confirmation bias...?..... 

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing.. whether that be 2 (TWO) or 20 (TWENTY)

 

Well, yes it can.

And Then posted a link to a news article, which itself had a link to a video, which I watched. A lawyer described how votes were being tabulated while no one was watching. She said (pretty close paraphrase, around 10m20s into the video) "These machines can count 3000 votes an hour, they were doing this for two hours with multiple machines. The total number of votes could be more than the margin of victory."

So, if those were actual fake votes being counted, then there will be a difference between the number of names crossed off the voting rolls and the number of votes counted. Let's assume there were 25,000 fake votes added to the count (presumably, according to the conspiracy theory, added to Biden's total). That means there would be, say, 5,000,000 people with names crossed off the voting rolls, and a total of 5,025,000 votes cast. That would prove rather a lot, don't you think?

Now the obvious question is - is there evidence of this?

[bee]

7 minutes ago, Peter B said:

So, if those were actual fake votes being counted, then there will be a difference between the number of names crossed off the voting rolls and the number of votes counted. Let's assume there were 25,000 fake votes added to the count (presumably, according to the conspiracy theory, added to Biden's total). That means there would be, say, 5,000,000 people with names crossed off the voting rolls, and a total of 5,025,000 votes cast. That would prove rather a lot, don't you think?

ok --- perhaps these further stages have been processed (do we know? ie is there reliable info about that on the internet).... and if so maybe that's where the claims from some places of there being many more votes than those registered come from... ?

[Peter B]

4 minutes ago, bee said:

ok --- perhaps these further stages have been processed (do we know? ie is there reliable info about that on the internet).... and if so maybe that's where the claims from some places of there being many more votes than those registered come from... ?

Perhaps. I don't know.

That's why I'm happy to wait to see what the courts say.

[Peter B]

47 minutes ago, and then said:

I'm sure the talking points will be along, directly.  These people are so deep in the cesspool of hate that they'd do ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.  The irony is that the Left/Marxist media has burned itself down in this effort.  The Legacy media crippled and on its way down.  

The AMERICA FIRST Party is going to steamroll these hacks and once they twig to that situation, it'll be far too late to counter it.  Like most tyrants, they'll be undone by sheer arrogance.  

We're interested in what the courts rule.

Could you please explain how expressing interest in court rulings means we're "deep in the cesspool of hate"?

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Um, @ChrLzs, you know I have the greatest respect for you.

But the document you linked is a rotuine joint stipulation prepared for submission to the court by both sides to the specific case in question. Its purpose is to resolve, prior to further litigation, what the parties agree upon.

This case is not about voter fraud. As stated in sections 24 ff., this case is about absentee ballots which failed in some respect to comply with the Commonwealth's statutory requirements for validity. For example, the statute requires the ballot to be placed in a sealed inner envelope, and sometimes the envelope wasn't sealed when it was received. The controversy is what happened to those ballots, compared with what ought to have happened.

It is perfectly appropriate and uninformative about any legal strategy in other cases for the joint statement to observe that the petitioners are unable to determine how or why the inner envelope wasn't sealed. That is not the issue to be litigated, but rather whether the ballot in the inner envelope was then counted, refused or cured in the manner required by law. That is what the case is about (along with issues about other ballots which the petitioners allege had other defects and were improperly handled given their defects).

Team Trump has many lawsuits. Some of them are reportedly about fraud, this one is not.

OK, then can you point to one that actually refers to voter fraud and evidence of same?  I'd love to look at how it went and why..... 

ADDED, while at it, can you explain the point of that case, then, given the tiny numbers of votes involved that could not have affected the result?

Edited December 4, 2020 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

And in general, feel free, Trumpeters, to post any example where actual voter fraud of sufficent size to affect a result, in any state, has been alleged along with evidence?  Because that is what the thread is about...

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

Trump has a fortune coming in from his rubes for legal fees to fight the bogus election on their behalf. He's going to drag it out as long as he can because a large portion of that cash is going to pay his real legal fees after Biden's inauguration. SDNY's DA wants to have a little chat with him.  Remember how Al Capone was finally nailed?

Trumps not as dumb as his brainwashed bent knee worshippers who send him $$$ he will keep going claiming to be running for 2024 indy but the real goal will be to have idiots send him money, and he can keep bragging how rich he is.