Here is the evidence

[Cortopassi]

Crowdsourced evidence, geez what’s next electing the president by popular vote? The horror.

[pmward]

"This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in court"

Then why have the things here that have been submitted to court been booted by even right wing judges specifically for "lack of evidence"??? Why are there things here that have not even been submitted to the courts??? Oh that's right, because it's all either bullshit that is not really acceptable in court, or things that would have gotten fixed in all the multiple recounts. Things like "oh, John Smith voted in all 50 states", well yeah duh because there are multiple "John Smith's" in all 50 states. Or "these ballots on election night were taken from the Trump pile and put into the Biden pile" when the recount(s) would have fixed this discrepancy.

[Maddy]

Then why have the things here that have been submitted to court been booted by even right wing judges specifically for "lack of evidence"???

Which courts? Which cause numbers? You know, anybody with $125 and a bus ticket to the courthouse can file a lawsuit. Yeah, even you.

What, in particular, makes you believe these particular cases were significant? Who brought them? What were the allegations?

If you want to provide a link to the actual court documents (motion to dismiss plus order of dismissal), I will give you a thorough analysis of why the case was dismissed. Barring that, off-the-cuff assertions that unspecified cases have been "booted". . . specifically for lack of evidence" means nothing. Law and litigation is my expertise, and I watch the news closely--but so far I have seen a lack of evidence of what's being touted off-the-cuff as a "lack of evidence." Show me.

[glennds]

Then why have the things here that have been submitted to court been booted by even right wing judges specifically for "lack of evidence"???

Which courts? Which cause numbers? You know, anybody with $125 and a bus ticket to the courthouse can file a lawsuit. Yeah, even you.

What, in particular, makes you believe these particular cases were significant? Who brought them? What were the allegations?

If you want to provide a link to the actual court documents (motion to dismiss plus order of dismissal), I will give you a thorough analysis of why the case was dismissed. Barring that, off-the-cuff assertions that unspecified cases have been "booted". . . specifically for lack of evidence" means nothing. Law and litigation is my expertise, and I watch the news closely--but so far I have seen a lack of evidence of what's being touted off-the-cuff as a "lack of evidence." Show me.

Today the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit brought by the Trump Campaign. Case number is 20-3371. You can read the opinion here, directly from the Court's website. Some of the opinion language is interesting.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

Please make of this whatever you will. I thought it might be helpful because the link provides the case number, parties and other specifics you asked about.

[pmward]

Then why have the things here that have been submitted to court been booted by even right wing judges specifically for "lack of evidence"???

Which courts? Which cause numbers? You know, anybody with $125 and a bus ticket to the courthouse can file a lawsuit. Yeah, even you.

What, in particular, makes you believe these particular cases were significant? Who brought them? What were the allegations?

If you want to provide a link to the actual court documents (motion to dismiss plus order of dismissal), I will give you a thorough analysis of why the case was dismissed. Barring that, off-the-cuff assertions that unspecified cases have been "booted". . . specifically for lack of evidence" means nothing. Law and litigation is my expertise, and I watch the news closely--but so far I have seen a lack of evidence of what's being touted off-the-cuff as a "lack of evidence." Show me.

There are dozens of cases from Trump's lawyers that have been dismissed with judge comments specifically stating "lack of evidence" as the reason. Take your pick if you want to analyze them. If you're following this closely, can you find and bring a case that has real evidence to us? I would love to see some real legal evidence instead of blogspot.com BS. So far I have not seen any real evidence of this large-scale fraud that screwed Trump submitted to the courts. If you can bring something like this to the table, then we can begin to actually have a real discussion. In the meantime, internet fake news is not worth discussing.

Let us not also forget the Dept. of Homeland Security also publicly stated on record that there is no evidence of fraud.

[Maddy]

Today the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit brought by the Trump Campaign. Case number is 20-3371. You can read the opinion here, directly from the Court's website. Some of the opinion language is interesting.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

Please make of this whatever you will. I thought it might be helpful because the link provides the case number, parties and other specifics you asked about.

I stopped reading after the first couple of paragraphs, where the court states,

"This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on
a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the
Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not."

Is there some reason that I should read further?

[Maddy]

There are dozens of cases from Trump's lawyers that have been dismissed with judge comments specifically stating "lack of evidence" as the reason. Take your pick if you want to analyze them.

Then cite them.

[SomeDude]

Did anyone see the several hours of threats and badgering the dems did to the Republicans in Wayne county to get them to certify the vote (despite obvious fraud)? They were threatening their families and children.

Did anyone see the USPS worker who swore an affidavit that he was ordered to commit fraud along with his coworkers? The FBI showed up at his house and literally said they were there to scare him into remembering something different. He recorded them and project veritas has played it.

Imagine the threats these judges are getting. Judges dismissing evidence is not "lack of evidence". Imagine the death threats they are getting (at least the honest ones).

[pmward]

There are dozens of cases from Trump's lawyers that have been dismissed with judge comments specifically stating "lack of evidence" as the reason. Take your pick if you want to analyze them.

Then cite them.

To be honest, I don't care enough to put in the work to go dig back in my reading history to find the citations. But I will take note to bring any new ones that I come across here. However, if you are following this so closely you could refute us all if you could bring real actual legal evidence to the table. If you cannot cite any real legal evidence, then that is the very proof of "lack of evidence" in and of itself.

[vnatale]

Did anyone see the several hours of threats and badgering the dems did to the Republicans in Wayne county to get them to certify the vote (despite obvious fraud)? They were threatening their families and children.

Did anyone see the USPS worker who swore an affidavit that he was ordered to commit fraud along with his coworkers? The FBI showed up at his house and literally said they were there to scare him into remembering something different. He recorded them and project veritas has played it.

Imagine the threats these judges are getting. Judges dismissing evidence is not "lack of evidence". Imagine the death threats they are getting (at least the honest ones).

Did anyone watch / see this from yesterday?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?478850-1/ ... -joe-biden

NOVEMBER 26, 2020

President Trump Thanksgiving Day Remarks

In Thanksgiving Day remarks, President Trump says the election was rigged and that it would be a mistake for the Electoral College to vote for Joe Biden. However, he says he would leave the White House but won’t say if he’ll attend the inauguration.


I only listened to part of as during it some important Boston Celtics talk came on the radio so during that time I switched my ears to be tuned to that. But I did hear the beginning and ending of Trump's remarks.


It just again underscored for me how it totally befuddles me how anyone could vote for him. I actually do understand the reasons why many people do vote for him, including many here. But listening to those remarks. Wow!!! If it was just some regular person calling into C-Span I'd immediately label that caller a wacko!


Vinny

[pmward]

Did anyone see the several hours of threats and badgering the dems did to the Republicans in Wayne county to get them to certify the vote (despite obvious fraud)? They were threatening their families and children.

Where is proof of these supposed threats to their families and children? Is it all hearsay, or is there actual investigation ongoing? It is illegal to threaten someone's family and children after all.

Did anyone see the USPS worker who swore an affidavit that he was ordered to commit fraud along with his coworkers? The FBI showed up at his house and literally said they were there to scare him into remembering something different. He recorded them and project veritas has played it.

And someone cannot easily fake a "recording"? I honestly do not believe for one minute that actual FBI agents showed up threatening a post office worker to not testify that he was "ordered to commit fraud". I also just googled "project veritas" and all I have to say is consider the source....

Imagine the threats these judges are getting. Judges dismissing evidence is not "lack of evidence". Imagine the death threats they are getting (at least the honest ones).

Well at least here you're admitting that this is in your imagination. But still, imagination is not admissible to court. Same can likely be said about the other two tinfoil hat stories above, only they were someone else's imagination instead of your own.

[Ad Orientem]

Quote of the day...

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

-Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, on behalf of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Once again, Trump's lawyers are being laughed out of court. The opinion is scathing.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/27 ... anias-vote

[Maddy]

To be honest, I don't care enough to put in the work to go dig back in my reading history to find the citations. But I will take note to bring any new ones that I come across here. However, if you are following this so closely you could refute us all if you could bring real actual legal evidence to the table. If you cannot cite any real legal evidence, then that is the very proof of "lack of evidence" in and of itself.

Don't pull that shit on me. I didn't take a position one way or another.

YOU are the one who claims that numerous cases have been dismissed for lack of evidence. And you're doing so in the context of a discussion that attempts to use these "cases" as proof that there IS no evidence.

Again, let's see the cases. Cite one, and we'll examine it.

[Ad Orientem]

To be honest, I don't care enough to put in the work to go dig back in my reading history to find the citations. But I will take note to bring any new ones that I come across here. However, if you are following this so closely you could refute us all if you could bring real actual legal evidence to the table. If you cannot cite any real legal evidence, then that is the very proof of "lack of evidence" in and of itself.

Don't pull that shit on me. I didn't take a position one way or another.

YOU are the one who claims that numerous cases have been dismissed for lack of evidence. And you're doing so in the context of a discussion that attempts to use these "cases" as proof that there IS no evidence.

Again, let's see the cases. Cite one, and we'll examine it.

Google is your friend.

Lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_ ... l_election

[SomeDude]

To be honest, I don't care enough to put in the work to go dig back in my reading history to find the citations. But I will take note to bring any new ones that I come across here. However, if you are following this so closely you could refute us all if you could bring real actual legal evidence to the table. If you cannot cite any real legal evidence, then that is the very proof of "lack of evidence" in and of itself.

Don't pull that shit on me. I didn't take a position one way or another.

Maddy, he said he doesn't care enough to look into it. He does care enough to disagree to get a try to get a rise out of people.

Evidence is all over the place if people are interested in it or even in disputing it. Claiming it doesn't exist because someone they respect (judges) ignore it, is just playing a little game with other people.

This is the internet. Some people are looking for stimulating discussion of theories and goings on around the world. Some are just interested in pushing buttons. I prefer a 90/10 split of the former. I'll suffer 50/50 from someone but no more than that.

[pmward]

This just popped into my newsfeed. I literally see this stuff pop up every day. I'll keep posting here as I see them. Also worth noting, the judge quoted below was appointed by Trump.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zo ... a-election

In a 3-0 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit rejected the campaign’s effort to get a do-over of its lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania, which a lower court had already tossed out last week.

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in a 3-0 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

[Maddy]

I'll add one more thing. . .

When was the election? Less than four weeks ago?

Please tell me, even hypothetically, how you file a complaint, receive an answer (typically 30 days later), bring a motion for summary judgment replete with documentary evidence and affidavits (at least 4-6 weeks later, assuming a well-funded and experienced legal team), receive a response (21 days later), file a reply (5 days later), schedule a hearing with oral argument (2-6 weeks later, depending on court's schedule) and obtain a decision (another 2 weeks plus later) all within that time period? And that assumes (fictionally, of course, because many months of discovery and investigation ALWAYS occur) that there is no discovery at all and that your own witnesses were waiting outside your office door the day after the election with declarations in hand.

Keep in mind--that's the most expeditious route to a judgment on the merits.

[pmward]

And more comments deeper on in that link above, once again from a judge appointed by Trump: “Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter.”

[Maddy]

And more comments deeper on in that link above, once again from a judge appointed by Trump: “Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter.”

Uh, that's a comment regarding the question of state versus federal jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the question whether the evidence supports the allegations in question.

[pmward]

And more comments deeper on in that link above, once again from a judge appointed by Trump: “Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter.”

Uh, that's a comment regarding the question of state versus federal jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the question whether the evidence supports the allegations in question.

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in a 3-0 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

And here is a copy of the full official ruling statement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ ... l_manual_6

[SomeDude]

And more comments deeper on in that link above, once again from a judge appointed by Trump: “Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter.”

Uh, that's a comment regarding the question of state versus federal jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the question whether the evidence supports the allegations in question.

There won't be any evidence of fraud until after the Trump wins the election and the lefties say it's because of fraud.

At this point trolls and TDS victims are indistigushable.

[Maddy]

Google is your friend.
Lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_ ... l_election

You DO know the difference between a case dismissed on procedural grounds as opposed to a case dismissed on the merits? Lordy.

[SomeDude]

Consider the silliness that fraud must be proven before legitimate examination of the votes can take place. That is literally how stupid the lefty argument is. No proof of votes needed, you are supposed to prove they're bad before you see them.

Isn't it obvious these people can't be reasoned with? They have no interest in reason or justice, just power.

Why did they hide the vote counting in those cities and deliberately co mingle mail in votes, destroy records and block attempts to examine them?

It's obvious the fraud is massive. To say otherwise means you're not paying attention, trolling, or suffering horribly from TDS.

[Maddy]

Internet Forum Summary Judgement only takes a headline snippet and a few minutes of time. I bet you even type your briefs up on a typewriter, you're so 20th century.

I don't have a clue what you mean by "Internet Forum Summary Judgment." However, if what you're saying is that a motion for summary judgment can be prepared in a few minutes, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[pmward]

Consider the silliness that fraud must be proven before legitimate examination of the votes can take place. That is literally how stupid the lefty argument is. No proof of votes needed, you are supposed to prove they're bad before you see them.

Isn't it obvious these people can't be reasoned with? They have no interest in reason or justice, just power.

Why did they hide the vote counting in those cities and deliberately co mingle mail in votes, destroy records and block attempts to examine them?

It's obvious the fraud is massive. To say otherwise means you're not paying attention, trolling, or suffering horribly from TDS.

Name one time me or anybody here have said that there should be no "legitimate examination"? I've said numerous times I'm all for investigation if there is question. I've also said my opinion goes with the evidence. I see not any real evidence of fraud. I will again link for you a copy of the official statement filed today by Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed by Trump (ie not a "leftie" judge) https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ ... l_manual_6

This is not a news article. This is not "blogspot.com". This is not "crowdsourced". This is a copy of a legal document filed by a judge in PA. Even just the very first paragraph proves my point “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” I challenge you to find real official legal evidence to your point like this.