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

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.

This is what is called a Logical Fallacy.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

I appreciate what you're trying to do here man. These posts are well written, factual and precise.

But you'd have a better chance of successfully teaching my 4-month-olds C++ programming than getting anyone here to understand this whole thing is just a fantasy put on by Trump to salvage his crumbling brand after he's no longer in office.

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
a reply to: johnnylaw16

www.washingtonexaminer.com... Dm_yJacTRei6T8DLkYHMc2mt1I

Why won't they let them see the machines ? I don't get it ? This should be a fully transparent process.

Citing "intellectual property" tells me they really are hiding something.

I'm not sure what the concerns are and it sounds like the judge isn't either--but that is why he has ordered briefing on the subject. Like the judge, I'll see what the briefing says and form an opinion after. It's hardly unbelievable that there may be intellectual property concerns at play, but I can't confirm that. Let's see what they say in their briefs.

originally posted by: JusticeIsComing
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I appreciate what you're trying to do here man. These posts are well written, factual and precise.

But you'd have a better chance of successfully teaching my 4-month-olds C++ programming than getting anyone here to understand this whole thing is just a fantasy put on by Trump to salvage his crumbling brand after he's no longer in office.

Just trying to do my part to introduce some facts and logic into the discussion. I may not convince the most vocal people on these forums, but I hope that there are some lurkers that read what I am saying and at least start to question why Trump's legal strategy isn't tracking he claims of mass voter fraud.

That tech specialist is an owner of a message board who read the manual btw.

I read a manual on finding the G spot so according to cooperations logic I’m the worlds greatest lover.
a reply to: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: simbrono
Dudes got deep ties to a convicted sex trafficker and Pedophile and even went to court as a defendant accused with Epstein for raping a kid. He used his money to get out of it.

Except so do/did the Clintons and I'd bet you voted for Hillary in 2016.

originally posted by: JusticeIsComing
...this whole thing is just a fantasy put on by Trump to salvage his crumbling brand after he's no longer in office.

But it's not. This is a response to how he was treated in November 2016 and after.

I'm waiting for someone to say: "Not My President-Elect" in retaliation. He was Sh!t on for 4 years. Whether he deserved it or not isn't the point. I didn't vote for him - but he deserved respect as President of the United States of America.

And some of the Sabotage was almost Treason.

I've already posted some of the stuff. But I want to point out one particular problem: If someone talks about Kamala Harris' hair like they talked about Pence's hair, there will be cries of Sexism and Racism.

I will bet you good money.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: JusticeIsComing
...this whole thing is just a fantasy put on by Trump to salvage his crumbling brand after he's no longer in office.

But it's not. This is a response to how he was treated in November 2016 and after.

I'm waiting for someone to say: "Not My President-Elect" in retaliation. He was Sh!t on for 4 years. Whether he deserved it or not isn't the point. I didn't vote for him - but he deserved respect as President of the United States of America.

And some of the Sabotage was almost Treason.

I've already posted some of the stuff. But I want to point out one particular problem: If someone talks about Kamala Harris' hair like they talked about Pence's hair, there will be cries of Sexism and Racism.

I will bet you good money.

Not sure how any of this is relevant. Trump hasn’t put forward evidence of fraud in court but keeps ranting and raving about it outside of court. That should raise a red flag for anyone inclined to believe his claims of fraud.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Not sure how any of this is relevant. Trump hasn’t put forward evidence of fraud in court but keeps ranting and raving about it outside of court. That should raise a red flag for anyone inclined to believe his claims of fraud.

Only responding to people.

Just a question, tho.

How many Biden supporters get to celebrate while this is going on? This has been stretched out for almost a month now. Stephen Colbert was crying on National TV about it. While most Elections are resolved on Election Night.

Don't you think Trump and probably a lot of Republicans are secretly laughing their asses off that the Democrats can't celebrate?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
He has lost this battle. That is the point of the thread. If there were any legitimate evidence of fraud, we would see it put forth by Trump. He has not put it forward. Do you have any cogent response to this fact?

Yes. You are deluding yourself.

But don't worry, your delusion will be exposed soon.

Tick-tock.

I'd love to make a friendly wager. At what point do you think that Trump will be declared our next president?

On January 20 he will be confirmed, by the 18th, it will be VERY clear that Trump has won. tanstaafl was right BTW, you ARE deluding yourself, honestly I think you already KNOW this though. The MSM lost ALL credibility on election night 2016. The same thing will be happening right here on January 20. One would have to be EXTREMELY gullible to believe anything else they have to say. That single reason ALONE causes me to disregard everything you have said here on ATS so far...

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: JusticeIsComing
...this whole thing is just a fantasy put on by Trump to salvage his crumbling brand after he's no longer in office.

But it's not. This is a response to how he was treated in November 2016 and after.

I'm waiting for someone to say: "Not My President-Elect" in retaliation. He was Sh!t on for 4 years. Whether he deserved it or not isn't the point. I didn't vote for him - but he deserved respect as President of the United States of America.


And some of the Sabotage was almost Treason.

I've already posted some of the stuff. But I want to point out one particular problem: If someone talks about Kamala Harris' hair like they talked about Pence's hair, there will be cries of Sexism and Racism.

I will bet you good money.

Not sure how any of this is relevant. Trump hasn’t put forward evidence of fraud in court but keeps ranting and raving about it outside of court. That should raise a red flag for anyone inclined to believe his claims of fraud.

You know that theory.......... When you keep saying the big lie (no proof of election fraud) enough times people are suppose to be brainwashed and believe you. Well I'm here to tell you..................It doesn't work. You're sounding very deranged.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

In this case they may have not had all the proof they needed due to the ASAP nature of the election. They are probably collecting tons of evidence every day. They have to sort it out. So a judge would obviously be derelict in their duties to not hear all the new evidence.

I can't tell if you're joking, but for clarity's sake: No, a judge would not be derelict in refusing to hear new evidence that was not submitted at trial. That is not how these things work. And if they were sorting through evidence each day, we would expect to see that evidence being filed in court. We are not seeing that.

That's just your opinion. That's how a kangaroo court works. Not allowing all the evidence to be heard.

You think you know better than a Federal Court Litigator just because he doesn't share your opinion. The fella has owned everyone who has argued against him. At this point in the discussion (Page 21) nobody has presented a single shred of evidence.

The OP has been tried, tested and still stands strong.

No evidence has yet made it to court! Largely because it doesn't exist.

a reply to: Bloodworth

But it isn't just Democrats. Rep judges and governors have also dismissed Trumps claims.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Thank you very much for proving our case!

The case at hand is that there is no verifiable evidence of mass voter fraud.

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: PurpleFox

If it's that simple then it should be easy to overturn the result in Court.

Let's see how that pans out, shall we?

This is exactly what all of us have been telling you lol

You may have been telling us it's easy to prove in court but the proof is in the pudding. Instead of the usual nothingburgers you're gonna get a great big Nothingcake.

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: johnnylaw16
The title of your OP actually makes you factually illogical and unreasonable, seeing how there is ample evidence available of voting irregularities, let alone fraud.

Is that why Trump is winning all the court cases, the stacks of evidence he has? Where is the proof?

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: simbrono
hereistheevidence.com...

Enjoy

That website should be called thereisnowvidence.com because it contains none. If there is any in there, bring it to this discussion and johnnylaw16 will talk you through it. He said this the 1st time this link surfaced here.

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: simbrono
I believe that POTUS is using all legal avenues at his disposal... before dropping the bomb

You can believe all you want but without proof it's a Nothingburger.

Can you explain how this would pan out in court? This bomb that Trump is going to drop...

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: simbrono
You asked me to show you evidence, I did so. Obviously not everything in there can be 100% verified but its also impossible for everything on that list to be complete BS.

1 dead person voting is election fraud, btw.

So the only proven voter fraud has been at the hands of 2 Trump supporters trying to vote for dead relatives...

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: vonclod
All that has to be proven is that a concerted effort took place to effect the outcome of the 2020 election by a foreign entity. Then, the EO I posted from 2018 comes into affect.

Read it, understand what it means, then come back to me.

And yet no proof has emerged.

Read what that means and come back to us.