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

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


Happy to provide a response but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here--Are you asking why wouldn't Trump submit evidence of fraud in court, or something else?

Yeah the information they presented to the Arizona legislature seems like a big deal even if 1/10th of it is true... So what would be the hold up to present that to a court?

See, that's the entire point of this thread. That stuff presented in AZ sounds like a big deal when the Trump team presents it. And if it is as legitimate and significant as they make it out to be, then they would have every incentive to put it forward in court. And there is no reason that they could not do so immediately. Indeed, there is no reason that they could not have already done so. There is no valid reason that that evidence would not be before a judge if it were legitimate.. Thus, we can deduce that, because the evidence is not before a judge, it is not legitimate. See, the difference between touting so called "evidence" at a hearing and actually putting it before a judge is that the lawyers and parties can face sanctions for putting in evidence that they know to be false, or that they have not reasonably verified as true. That is the only rational reason that Trump and his team would not be putting the evidence forward in court.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: cooperton

Sure.

So much fraud but we'll just sit on it until the day the State's vote gets certified and not present it in court. Makes absolute sense.

You do know this hearing is just a glorified bitch session and nothing will come out of it, right?

Ehhh I'm thinking 60/40. No way you're 100/0.

a reply to: cooperton

No, I'm 100% sure. This is put up or shut up time for all those bozos and they didn't put anything up.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

See, that's the entire point of this thread. That stuff presented in AZ sounds like a big deal when the Trump team presents it. And if it is as legitimate and significant as they make it out to be, then they would have every incentive to put it forward in court. And there is no reason that they could not do so immediately. Indeed, there is no reason that they could not have already done so. There is no valid reason that that evidence would not be before a judge if it were legitimate.. Thus, we can deduce that, because the evidence is not before a judge, it is not legitimate. See, the difference between touting so called "evidence" at a hearing and actually putting it before a judge is that the lawyers and parties can face sanctions for putting in evidence that they know to be false, or that they have not reasonably verified as true. That is the only rational reason that Trump and his team would not be putting the evidence forward in court.

Good points, but given the timeframe would it be possible that a lot of these are recent developments and more information is being accrued as the cases climb to higher courts?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

High tme that they shut up.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


Happy to provide a response but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here--Are you asking why wouldn't Trump submit evidence of fraud in court, or something else?

Yeah the information they presented to the Arizona legislature seems like a big deal even if 1/10th of it is true... So what would be the hold up to present that to a court?

Just adding: None of this has been about my personal opinion as to what I want to happen. I am just offer my view as a seasoned litigator about what we should be seeing in court, if there were legitimate evidence. If Trump were my client and I had rock solid evidence of voter fraud or vote-machine tampering, that evidence would be appended to my opening complaint and my complaint would explain in detail why that evidence is cannot be questioned and establishes fraud, and it would be nearly impossible for such a case to be dismissed. It is what any litigator would do. But that is not what is happening, and the fact that it isn't happening tells us lot about their purported evidence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: cooperton
This is put up or shut up time for all those bozos and they didn't put anything up.

They presented a lot of information to the Arizona legislature:

A load of ballots being hauled off a tractor trailer. Maricopa, AZ didn't validate the signatures of their 1.9 million ballots (republican poll watchers were forced to stay outside while these were being processed). 6,000 voters entered into the Maricopa, AZ database with no gender and a default date of birth. The american imigration council found about 300,000 votes from non-incarcerated felons who were ineligible to vote. Scanners processed potential anomalies in voting machines, and log them as an error in a batch file... which can be voted on by an administrator allowing them to move votes wherever they'd like. Again, remember the republican poll watchers were forced to stay outside. At 8:06;40pm 143,100 votes were injected... which is literally impossible given normal votes being tallied into the machines, therefore it must have been altered from the back end.

Also, AZ only went Biden by 12,000 people.

A tech specialist claims the Dominion voting systems are:
1) accessible online to alter the results, as per their user manual
2) servers being harbored outside of the USA

which is contrary to what the officials have been telling us via MSM

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

High tme that they shut up.

Dude if our elections are being compromised that is a big deal... Inauguration isn't until January there is still time for trial.

originally posted by: cooperton
They presented a lot of information to the Arizona legislature.

If they were serious they'd presenting this all as evidence in court in front of a judge. But they haven't.

Ask yourself why.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

See, that's the entire point of this thread. That stuff presented in AZ sounds like a big deal when the Trump team presents it. And if it is as legitimate and significant as they make it out to be, then they would have every incentive to put it forward in court. And there is no reason that they could not do so immediately. Indeed, there is no reason that they could not have already done so. There is no valid reason that that evidence would not be before a judge if it were legitimate.. Thus, we can deduce that, because the evidence is not before a judge, it is not legitimate. See, the difference between touting so called "evidence" at a hearing and actually putting it before a judge is that the lawyers and parties can face sanctions for putting in evidence that they know to be false, or that they have not reasonably verified as true. That is the only rational reason that Trump and his team would not be putting the evidence forward in court.

Good points, but given the timeframe would it be possible that a lot of these are recent developments and more information is being accrued as the cases climb to higher courts?

I can't say for certain that new stuff won't come out, but the point is that they have been claiming to have this bombshell evidence since the first lawsuits were filed weeks ago, but they have never put any of it forward in court. Moreover, as I explained in the OP, they can't present evidence later. Only trial courts hear new evidence--the trial courts are where the facts of the case are determined. The appellate courts (including the supreme court) are generally limited to questions of law (e.g., what does the law actually mean/say), not fact (i.e., what actually occurred here), and by not submitting evidence to the trial court, Trump waives his right to introduce that evidence to a later appellate court.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


I can't say for certain that new stuff won't come out, but the point is that they have been claiming to have this bombshell evidence since the first lawsuits were filed weeks ago, but they have never put any of it forward in court. Moreover, as I explained in the OP, that can't present evidence later. Only trial courts hear new evidence--the trial courts are where the facts of the case are determined. The appellate courts (including the supreme court) are generally limited to questions of law (e.g., what does the law actually mean/say), not fact (i.e., what actually occurred here), and by not submitting evidence to the trial court, Trump waives his right to introduce that evidence to a later appellate court.

Since multiple prongs of lawsuits are occurring, would the evidence from all the various trial courts across the nation be able to be conglomerated for a hearing from the higher courts?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Also, can you point me to where I can read what they have presented in court?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
High tme that they shut up.

Not going to happen, you better get used to 4-10 years of hearing how they stole the election and wah, wah, wah.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Arizona certified for Biden, I gather.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


I can't say for certain that new stuff won't come out, but the point is that they have been claiming to have this bombshell evidence since the first lawsuits were filed weeks ago, but they have never put any of it forward in court. Moreover, as I explained in the OP, that can't present evidence later. Only trial courts hear new evidence--the trial courts are where the facts of the case are determined. The appellate courts (including the supreme court) are generally limited to questions of law (e.g., what does the law actually mean/say), not fact (i.e., what actually occurred here), and by not submitting evidence to the trial court, Trump waives his right to introduce that evidence to a later appellate court.

Since multiple prongs of lawsuits are occurring, would the evidence from all the various trial courts across the nation be able to be conglomerated for a hearing from the higher courts?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Also, can you point me to where I can read what they have presented in court?

Unfortunately, there is not one central repository. You can find all of the federal court cases on PACER, but unfortunately you have to pay to access documents on the docket (which is not something that the government should be charging for, but that's a different story) and it can be a bit confusing to use their search functions: pacer.uscourts.gov...

The various state court dockets are all separate and run by the various states.

Some of the dockets and documents you will find posted online by journalists, but it's hit or miss.

Here is a quick synopsis of over 40 election-related lawsuits, and you can see that the ones alleging fraud are not even ones that Trump is involved in: www.nbcnews.com...

I didn't post the whole article, but apparently the individual has direct knowledge and was actually a tech support worker. So he was at the scene, he witnessed a crime, and he can explain the means by which the crime was perpetrated. I would therefore assume that if he or she is willing to sign an affidavit that he or she would include these relevant details.

I think you're correct that the Trump campaign doesn't have the required smoking gun, however, I think they are buying time because they believe they're almost there.

Will be an interesting month.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: johnnylaw16


I can't say for certain that new stuff won't come out, but the point is that they have been claiming to have this bombshell evidence since the first lawsuits were filed weeks ago, but they have never put any of it forward in court. Moreover, as I explained in the OP, that can't present evidence later. Only trial courts hear new evidence--the trial courts are where the facts of the case are determined. The appellate courts (including the supreme court) are generally limited to questions of law (e.g., what does the law actually mean/say), not fact (i.e., what actually occurred here), and by not submitting evidence to the trial court, Trump waives his right to introduce that evidence to a later appellate court.

Since multiple prongs of lawsuits are occurring, would the evidence from all the various trial courts across the nation be able to be conglomerated for a hearing from the higher courts?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Also, can you point me to where I can read what they have presented in court?

No, not really. It's possible that a couple highly similar lawsuits are merged into (e.g., two lawsuits challenging the same law in the same state, or two lawsuits from different states challenging very similar state laws), but generally cases will be merged to consolidate legal issues, not factual ones.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Arizona certified for Biden, I gather.

It can be reversed apparently.

Or?
You have been successfully "educated"/trained
enough to NOT know, when you have been swindled?

There's more "evidence" just by casual observation, basic math, and educated intuition. To know/believe that this "election" was more "interfered with", than any election in American history! Other than the "vote" for passing of the 16th. amendment (I don't expect you to know the c.o.t.u.s. or Ameican history.

If J. Biden's side had this much obvious "evidence" against Trump? I'd switch sides!
It's not about B. Or T. It's about my country/nation as a "Republic"!
This is a very sad moment in American history. And not a "Bunker Hill", "Valley Forge" or "Gettysburg" kind of sad.

This is a Karl Marx loves "Democracy" kind of sad.

originally posted by: murphy22
Or?
You have been successfully "educated"/trained
enough to NOT know, when you have been swindled?

There's more "evidence" just by casual observation, basic math, and educated intuition. To know/believe that this "election" was more "interfered with", than any election in American history! Other than the "vote" for passing of the 16th. amendment (I don't expect you to know the c.o.t.u.s. or Ameican history.

If J. Biden's side had this much obvious "evidence" against Trump? I'd switch sides!
It's not about B. Or T. It's about my country/nation as a "Republic"!
This is a very sad moment in American history. And not a "Bunker Hill", "Valley Forge" or "Gettysburg" kind of sad.

This is a Karl Marx loves "Democracy" kind of sad.

Hey man, the point of this thread is simply that Trump has yet to put all of this evidence forward in court, which should raise a red flag with you.