There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

Just to clarify for anyone holding out hope that mysterious affidavits and yet-unseen evidence is going to reverse the election results: It's not going to happen. Here's why:

- In court, when you file a complaint, you need to allege specific facts that allow a judge to determine that the allegations in your complaint are plausible, not merely possible. If you do not meet this standard, your complaint will be dismissed. The more outlandish and serious your claims, the more detail and evidence you will likely need to put forward in order to avoid dismissal of your complaint. When you are alleging massive voter fraud on a scale never before seen in this country, you need to come to the table with a lot of facts and evidence. Trump has not done this. Thus, his lawsuits have been dismissed left and right. If Trump's lawyers had any serious evidence, they would have submitted with their complaints to avoid this result. They have not done so. Accordingly, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that no such evidence exists.

- Yes, Trump's lawyers have said that they have tons of evidence and affidavits. And yes, there are a lot of videos out there purporting to explain exactly how this election was stolen. But literally none of that matters unless it is put before a judge and a judge deems it admissible. That has not happened. No one has come forward in court with credible evidence (affidavits or otherwise) of election fraud.

- Trump is not saving his evidence to surprise the other side. That is not how real litigation works. To have a case at all, Trump's lawyers need to survive the dismissal stage (the first point at which courts determine whether or not to allow a complaint to move forward). In order to do so, as noted above, they need to support their allegations with specific facts and evidence. They have not done so, and as a result, their cases are being dismissed. Because of this, they will not have the opportunity to submit any further evidence, much less surprise the other side. If they had any evidence at all, they would have submitted it in order to avoid dismissal of their cases.

- Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. Some on this forum speculate that Trump is saving the really good affidavits and evidence for the Supreme Court. That is also not how litigation works. Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, are generally limited to considering the evidentiary record established by the trial court. Accordingly, if you do not present certain evidence or facts to the trial court, those evidence or facts are generally considered waived and will be inadmissible later. Thus, any evidence that Trump has will have been presented to the trial courts, and we have seen almost no evidence presented to the trial courts.

- Affidavits that are speculative, contain conjecture, or are based on hearsay are generally not going to be credited. Courts can use their common sense when determining whether to credit allegations and testimony. Trump's lawyers claim to have many affidavits, but we have seen surprisingly few filed in court and the ones that have been filed are based on conjecture and speculation. That is not going to be enough for any court to take their allegations seriously.

If you still believe that it is so obvious that this election was stolen, ask yourself: Why is it so hard for Trump's lawyers to prove it in court?

The Trump legal team has accumulated and presented more viable/suitable evidence for Election Fraud, than what Congressman Adam Schiff presented for successfully Impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

originally posted by: carewemust
The Trump legal team has accumulated and presented more viable/suitable evidence for Election Fraud, than what Congressman Adam Schiff presented for successfully Impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

By all means, please share the links to all of this presented evidence. Trump and his lawyers have talked a big game but they have presented very little (if anything at all). Prove me wrong if you can.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

If you still believe that it is so obvious that this election was stolen, ask yourself: Why is it so hard for Trump's lawyers to prove it in court?

Simply because he is taking the time to put it before the only court that is going to matter.

/thread

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: johnnylaw16

If you still believe that it is so obvious that this election was stolen, ask yourself: Why is it so hard for Trump's lawyers to prove it in court?

Simply because he is taking the time to put before the only court that is going to matter.

/thread

I'm sorry, but that just is not how litigation works. You can't submit new evidence to the Supreme Court that you fail to introduce to the trial court. Trump has repeatedly failed to offer any evidence to the trial court, and as a result, he will not be able to do so in front of the Supreme Court. This is my objective analysis based on years of federal court litigation experience, but if you believe I am wrong, please enlighten me.

That was an awfully long post for someone with confidence.

Trump will win.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
That was an awfully long post for someone with confidence.

Trump will win.

Look, I'm a long-time lurker that came here for the aliens, and just now felt like I finally had some information that could be useful in these debates. Feel free to disregard my take, but I have a good deal of experience in this area and feel confident in my analysis.

Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

In case you missed it in the other thread, this site is the only one I know of attempting to compile all the info in one place

a reply to: johnnylaw16


Are you aware of the media lying about dismissed cases, being no evidence etc?

The dominion thing hasn't been addressed, for starters.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

a reply to: Gnawledge
That's what the MSM keeps repeating to us anyways.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Gnawledge
That's what the MSM keeps repeating to us anyways.

The mere fact that the media reported something does not make it false. Do you have any reason to doubt Gnawledge's point?

a reply to: johnnylaw16
The mere fact the media reported something also don't make it true. Any reason to doubt the MSM? Serious question?

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

Again, that is simply not something that happens. The Supreme Court will not hear new evidence in these cases, and Trump's lawyers are well aware of this fact. If you have any reason to doubt this, then by all means, please explain.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: johnnylaw16
The mere fact the media reported something also don't make it true. Any reason to doubt the MSM? Serious question?

I think you missed my point. I am not defending nor deriding anything reported by the media. Gnawledge correctly pointed out that Trump's lawsuits are regularly being dismissed because they have failed to present facts and evidence. You suggested that this is not true and is something that the "MSM" has conditioned us to believe. I was asking whether you have any facts to back up your suggestion that Trump's lawsuits are not regularly being dismissed because they have failed to present facts and evidence.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Which lawsuits have been dismissed?