Noticed the "Disconnect"?

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, bee said:

on the subject of recounts.... recounting votes that contain (alleged) fraudulent ballots - proves nothing..

Could you stop repeating this, as it is REALLY STUPID.  Let me spell this out for you.

T h e   p a p e r   b a l l o t s   a r e   c o u n t e d   a n d   c r o s s - c h e c k e d   a g a i n s t   t h e   e l e c t o r a l   r o l l s.

 

THINK, bee, THINK.  Read that bolded and italicised bit back to yourself until you have an "oohh.." moment.

Edited December 4, 2020 by ChrLzs

[eight bits]

29 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

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?

No, I am not affiliated with either legal team, and I have no knowledge of the status of any election-related lawsuit except what's public.

You posted a document. That document lacks the significance that has been proposed for it. That doesn't mean anything about your overall position, it just means that that specific document doesn't much help advance your argument. The filing is just as much the product of the Democratic National Committee's lawyers as the Trump campaign's lawyers - that reflects what that sort of document is used for, to economize on the court's resources by establishing what needs to be litigated and what doesn't.

The "point" of the case would be found in the petitioners' complaint, which may well be online somewhere and if so, then you can find it as easily as I can, if the question interested you. Beyond that, not being affiliated with either legal team, I could only speculate where this lawsuit fits into the overall strategy of either side.

In parting, let me note that there seem to be certain "tar baby" subjects, and anything Trump-related has that injurious stickiness. An attempt to introduce facts into the discussion (what a certain kind of routine legal document means and who wrote it) is interpreted as taking sides.

If, as and when I want to take sides, then you will know it. Meanwhile, you've posted a document written jointly by Trump's lawyers and Biden's lawyers, and interpreted it as if it says more about one set of authors than about the other. Apparently messengers need Kevlar underwear around here.

 

[ChrLzs]

31 minutes ago, eight bits said:

you've posted a document written jointly by Trump's lawyers and Biden's lawyers, and interpreted it as if it says more about one set of authors than about the other. Apparently messengers need Kevlar underwear around here.

Quite the contrary..  Have another longer look at the title ("Notice the Disconnect?") and the content of my OP - did you miss the first three paragraphs?

In my first sentence, I said:

Quote

why do Trump and his cronies make grandiose claims of voter fraud, and yet those same claims are completely absent from their court cases?

Now, you will have to admit you have presented NOTHING to contradict those assertions.  Neither has anyone else.  I then said:

Quote

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?

Again, you seem to have posted nothing about that, and again, neither has anyone else.

Finally, it was AFTER all that, I posted the example you disliked - maybe that example wasn't the best, but it was merely an example.  And you still haven't addressed the first three paragraphs, nor have you answered my question about that case - what was the point?  Are you suggesting that in that case, the Trump lawyers didn't agree to all those items?  What was that case for, if not to challenge the result, or raise a substantive concern?

 

So, I would suggest that you have very clearly cherry-picked something you didn't like and completely ignored the preceding and surrounding substantive content of what I posted.  If anything, you've done far worse than I did, ironically.   I'll happily concede that my example was not a smoking gun.  But the point stands - and saying you "could only speculate where {that} lawsuit fits" suggests that you wish to escape actual debate on the substantive points...  I'm happy to debate the issue/s here, but it seems you have decided to complain, not discuss.

So, no need for Kevlar - all I ask is that you and others simply and fairly debate the topic.  If that means I need to withdraw my example, then consider it done.  And don't anyone dare derail this thread now, by explaining to me why the hell that case exists...     

 

Anyway, still waiting - where's the case with a substantive claim of voter fraud, and evidence of same?  Anyone?  Hello?  Is this thing on?

Edited December 4, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Gromdor]

Many seem to gloss over the legal penalties of withholding evidence as well.  If there is a case regarding fraud, they have obligated to show their evidence in court- they can't hide it and hold it for the appeals or higher court.  Election fraud is a crime and in a court case regarding that crime concealing evidence of that crime is punishable. 

[HandsomeGorilla]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

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

 

Only wise folk do such things. 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Quite the contrary..  Have another longer look at the title ("Notice the Disconnect?") and the content of my OP - did you miss the first three paragraphs?

No. Your OP was admirably brief, and my reading glasses correct my vision to within normal parameters.

The difficulty, and the point I addressed in my post, concerned the document you linked. It establishes what heretofore has not been in controversy. Not all objections advanced by the Trump campaign concern fraud.

Fantastic. Now we all know.

There is no "disconnect" between stipulating that one case doesn't involve claims about intent (e.g. fraud) while maintaining that other cases do involve claims about intent.

This case? An absentee ballot comes in. The outer envelope isn't filled out correctly (e.g. the required declaration of eligibility isn't signed). The statutes prescribe what should be done about that. Is that what happened to this ballot? Trump says no, Biden says yes. So Trump sues. Fine. The loser generally pays the court's and the winner's costs. Both lawyers and the judge send their kids to college. It's the American way.

Other cases? What I've admitted is not being on either side's legal team. So, I'm the worng person to ask:

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

why do Trump and his cronies make grandiose claims of voter fraud, and yet those same claims are completely absent from their court cases?

and the answer is surely not to be found in documents like the one you linked, taken from cases that aren't about voter fraud in the first place.

Nor am I the right person to ask:

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

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?

The best I can do for you? Possibly because candidates on the ballot and political parties have legal standing to seek redress in court for violations of election procedure without needing to prove intent. It is my understanding that that would be true in my state (based on recent training to serve as a poll challenger). I don't know about Pennsylvania, but based on what you linked, the law would appear to be similar there.

Finally, on one point I did answer:

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

nor have you answered my question about that case - what was the point? 

Find the complaint. Google is probably your friend. What you're looking for is usually toward the end, and it will be labeled something like "Remedies sought." That's the point: the complainant wants the court to do what it says in that section of the complaint.

 

[spartan max2]

19 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No. Your OP was admirably brief, and my reading glasses correct my vision to within normal parameters.

The difficulty, and the point I addressed in my post, concerned the document you linked. It establishes what heretofore has not been in controversy. Not all objections advanced by the Trump campaign concern fraud.

Fantastic. Now we all know.

There is no "disconnect" between stipulating that one case doesn't involve claims about intent (e.g. fraud) while maintaining that other cases do involve claims about intent.

This case? An absentee ballot comes in. The outer envelope isn't filled out correctly (e.g. the required declaration of eligibility isn't signed). The statutes prescribe what should be done about that. Is that what happened to this ballot? Trump says no, Biden says yes. So Trump sues. Fine. The loser generally pays the court's and the winner's costs. Both lawyers and the judge send their kids to college. It's the American way.

Other cases? What I've admitted is not being on either side's legal team. So, I'm the worng person to ask:

and the answer is surely not to be found in documents like the one you linked, taken from cases that aren't about voter fraud in the first place.

Nor am I the right person to ask:

The best I can do for you? Possibly because candidates on the ballot and political parties have legal standing to seek redress in court for violations of election procedure without needing to prove intent. It is my understanding that that would be true in my state (based on recent training to serve as a poll challenger). I don't know about Pennsylvania, but based on what you linked, the law would appear to be similar there.

Finally, on one point I did answer:

Find the complaint. Google is probably your friend. What you're looking for is usually toward the end, and it will be labeled something like "Remedies sought." That's the point: the complainant wants the court to do what it says in that section of the complaint.

 

All the court cases I have looked at have followed the same trend though. None of them actually make an accusation of fraud during the trail.

It's all about procedure and such and then using the procedure issue to try and throw out thousands upon thousands of ballots.

I admit that I have not read every single lawsuit's court transcript or judges opinion discussion piece. 

But you are free to share one with us where the lawyers are in court directly claiming fraud happened. Not just a spun article headline, but the actual quotes words of one of Trump's lawyers saying fraud happened during court.

 

 

[spartan max2]

Here's some articles talking about what we are talking about.

 

https://www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16070913532438&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ftrump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

 

https://time-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&amp=true&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16070915030602&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F5914377%2Fdonald-trump-no-evidence-fraud%2F

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by spartan max2

[eight bits]

43 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

But you are free to share one with us where the lawyers are in court directly claiming fraud happened. Not just a spun article headline, but the actual quotes words of one of Trump's lawyers saying fraud happened during court.

As I've already said, I'm not on either legal team, so you and I are equally well situated to appraise what's been reported about what each sides' lawyers have argued in court. If you say something has never happened, then I haven't said you were wrong.

What you seem to be looking for may not exist: a judicial elections case where intent is relevant to the remedy sought. That would be a disconnect: brave talk about fraud in whatever state, remedies specific to fraud available there, and ... crickets ... no alleged fraud filings there, just alleged procedural irregularities. Aha!

But if remedies are provided for procedural violations, with nothing extra for proving bad intent, then why would any lawyer waste the court's time with discussion of intent? You wouldn't - the court wouldn't allow you to.

Court filings and rhetoric on the courthouse steps are two different things. Maybe that's news to some people. OK, welcome to the American legal system.

 

[ChrLzs]

It's gone mighty quiet.  Apparently Bee still can't understand what I posted....

So, a few updates:

Federal appeals court throws out Trump election lawsuit in Pennsylvania

Trump's latest batch of election lawsuits fizzle as dozens of losses pile up

Nevada judge rejects Donald Trump campaign's bid to nullify Joe Biden's vote tallyJudge calls Trump request in Wisconsin lawsuit 'bizarre'

Judge calls Trump request in Wisconsin lawsuit 'bizarre'

 

Hmmm.  It's all going rather predictably...  But them largely Republican judges seem to have forgotten what side they are on, and that they are supposed to support the madman, not the law....

[ChrLzs]

And speaking of 'disconnects', can any Trumpeters please explain how it is that almost all of the judges rejecting Trump's ludicrous court cases, and the governors of states who are completely and utterly contradicting / refuting Trump's false claims ....

... are REPUBLICAN.

 

Seriously, I'd really like to know what you think could be the reason for that.  (Even though I know the answer..)

[ChrLzs]

BTW, so far the latest update I can find shows Trump’s team of legal eagles mosquitoes has lost 46 (forty six) election lawsuits.

He and his team have managed just 1 (one) small, non-outcome-changing 'victory', one which challenged a decision to move the deadline to provide missing ID for some absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania..

Edited December 7, 2020 by ChrLzs

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, so far the latest update I can find shows Trump’s team of legal eagles mosquitoes has lost 46 (forty six) election lawsuits.

He and his team have managed just 1 (one) small, non-outcome-changing 'victory', one which challenged a decision to move the deadline to provide missing ID for some absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania..

Just curious...

Are there any lawsuits currently pending?

[Arbenol]

12 minutes ago, President-Elect Acidhead said:

Just curious...

Are there any lawsuits currently pending?

Have you checked on Twitter?

Edited December 7, 2020 by Arbenol

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Have you checked on Twitter?

You do realize since twitter ( which before 2016 i thought was the go to for 13yo girls to tell their bffl that some boy likes them ) is in fact the go to platform of communication chosen by the potus to post and share all his thoughts, opinions and greviences, so it must be very very reputable.

 

[Vorg]

On 12/4/2020 at 2:01 AM, 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?

Video Alleged to Show Ga. Ballots Counted After Poll Watchers Were Ousted

People allege things all the time, however there must be proof before a court can make a ruling. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by South Alabam

[ChrLzs]

Newsmax? As a news source?     

It takes a special kind of gullible....  But then, now that even Fox has abandoned the orange criminal, where else can that kind of person turn?

 

Anyway, I'm sure the big successful court case will come along any day now...  They were saving it up, you know, so the best came last - it woulda bin stooopid to actually bring the best case up FIRST...

Only problem is Dec. 8 has now mostly passed, and Dec. 14 rapidly approaches..  Those are rather important dates, and it might have been best if any decent lawsuits were raised BEFORE then...  Oh well, I'm not a high flying legal eagle like those in Trump's team, so what would I know....

[thedutchiedutch]

On 12/4/2020 at 3:01 AM, 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?

I mean, who you gonna trust right ? Newsmax TV ? Christopher Ruddy ? Are you serious ? Newsmax is a so called "questionable source" or in other words extremely biased and consistently promotes propaganda/conspiracies with poor or no sourcing to credible information and has a complete lack of transparency and thus is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. By the way, did I mention that the owner of Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy,  is also a close friend of Donald Trump ? And did I noticed that since Newsmax has supported Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud, Newsmax has seen a spike in ratings, with as many as 1.1 million people tuning in to its nightly broadcasts ? No wonder Newsmax Supports Trump’s False Voter-Fraud Claims. It's all about the ratings. It's all about the money. Wake up and smell the coffee my friend.

[Autochthon1990]

Trumpists, it's over. It's just done. Every legal strategy has been tried, and your guy lost all of them. It's time to just cut this **** out, admit you lost, admit your guy is a /conman/ and grow the **** up instead of whining like a toddler who was told it's his sister's turn to pick where they go for dinner.

[acidhead]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Newsmax? As a news source?     

It takes a special kind of gullible....  But then, now that even Fox has abandoned the orange criminal, where else can that kind of person turn?

 

Anyway, I'm sure the big successful court case will come along any day now...  They were saving it up, you know, so the best came last - it woulda bin stooopid to actually bring the best case up FIRST...

Only problem is Dec. 8 has now mostly passed, and Dec. 14 rapidly approaches..  Those are rather important dates, and it might have been best if any decent lawsuits were raised BEFORE then...  Oh well, I'm not a high flying legal eagle like those in Trump's team, so what would I know....

 

[RAyMO]

4 minutes ago, President-Elect Acidhead said:

 

Rudy Giuliani - sadly for him, all that he's proven recently is that he asked got a clue. 

[thedutchiedutch]

4 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

I mean, who you gonna trust right ? Newsmax TV ? Christopher Ruddy ? Are you serious ? Newsmax is a so called "questionable source" or in other words extremely biased and consistently promotes propaganda/conspiracies with poor or no sourcing to credible information and has a complete lack of transparency and thus is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. By the way, did I mention that the owner of Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy,  is also a close friend of Donald Trump ? And did you noticed that since Newsmax has supported Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud, Newsmax has seen a spike in ratings, with as many as 1.1 million people tuning in to its nightly broadcasts ? No wonder Newsmax Supports Trump’s False Voter-Fraud Claims. It's all about the ratings. It's all about the money. Wake up and smell the coffee my friend.

 

[ChrLzs]

Supreme court has ruled against Trump, unanimously, including 3 of Trump's nominees:

Quote

The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to stop Pennsylvania from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state despite allegations from allies of President Donald Trump that the expansion of mail-in voting was illegal .

The action by the nation's highest court, which includes three justices named by Trump, came as states across the country are locking in the results that will lead to next week's Electoral College vote. It represented the latest in a string of stinging judicial opinions that have left the president defeated both politically and legally.

I won't cite this - just look it up on your favorite media source.  But do, oh do keep handwaving and throwing excrement at anyone who'll listen, "andthen".  Your 'audience' is dwindling (but of course there will always be those who simply cannot accept reality).

 

Oh, and also feel free to bring back any worthy 'spin' that Trump supporting media puts on to it.  I would simply muse that if the entire Supreme Court rejects Trump's bull****, even tho' he has loaded it up with 'supporters', then you probably need to consider your position.  Perhaps leave the country, andthen?

Edited December 9, 2020 by ChrLzs

[+and-then]

On 12/6/2020 at 11:16 PM, President-Elect Acidhead said:

Just curious...

Are there any lawsuits currently pending?

Why... how clever of you to ask   

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

Apparently, Texas is a bit peeved...

[acidhead]

Just now, and then said:

Why... how clever of you to ask   

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

Apparently, Texas is a bit peeved...

So many more states are joining they don't know what to do with them!