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

a reply to: johnnylaw16

You're not talking to reasonable people.

obsession, conditioning, and wishful thinking up against logic, clarity, and common sense...and that old thing called honesty.

Still, they won't see what's clear

It's a lesson we should never forget

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

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.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

The supreme court chooses to hear cases based on evidence that has been rejected by lower courts. No lower courts have been presented with evidence.

What Trump supporters believe is Trump.

The majority of Trump lawsuits have been shot down in minor courts since 2016 and many are overturned in the top courts. In an unbiased world your right the judicial branch of government should uphold and determine suits based upon the constitution. This has happened more often than not and just looking through the cases since 2016 till now this should alarm most folks as the appearance of justices determining cases along ideological lines and worse covering for the claimants give the perception of the judicial branch being biased as well as the press and the legislative branch. In addition, given the beurucrats who have developed a strangle hold during the Obama administration should alarm all. The process and functioning of government should be messy due to opposing views in all three branches, but should not be paralyzed by idealogical lines in a sense that the current laws are no longer enforced equally.

In other words, the blocking, obstruction, and ignorance of laws is expected in the minor courts when the fat lady (supreme court) starts throwing out cases or refusing to hear them then its time for Trump to hang it up and stop losing so much money to an ungrateful American Voter base that would rather elect a corrupt,racist, rapist, pedophile to the office and the clowns that elected him and the folks in media that chose to ignore all of the signs on behalf of the DNC deserve what they get. Unfortunately those of us that tried to warn so many ignorant voters of the danger will be punished as well for not being louder.

a reply to: canucks555

Uh oh you missed my reply about the racist rapist pedo

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

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.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

The supreme court chooses to hear cases based on evidence that has been rejected by lower courts. No lower courts have been presented with evidence.

What Trump supporters believe is Trump.

So than you agree with my belief than?

That Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present their evidence.

originally posted by: canucks555
in everyone of these threads when evidence is provided that shows, proves, or even highlights voting fraud,
Show us.
Show us the evidence and perhaps we will be silent.

Yes. But, it can’t be “opinion” evidence.

It has to be evidence proven in court.

So far, that doesn’t seem to have happened.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

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.

I'm not a federal court lawyer I have no way to refute your argument using my own knowledge on the mater. I am simply trying to evaluate the argument you made; and while you did an excellent job explaining why its unlikely for Trump to succeed, your own argument leave the door open.

You used the word "generally" a few times in your argument which means according to you it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear new evidence.

You also say that "Courts can use their common sense when determining whether to credit allegations and testimony." Which means the Supreme Court can use their common sense to credit the speculative Affidavits if they so choose too.

And finaly your argument also does not address the seriousness of the allegations. I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear credible evidence (assuming it exists) on technicality during such an important case. In refusing to hear credible evidence on technicality and procedure would invite chaos across the electorate; I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would allow that... its far more likely that they would allow the new evidence even if doing so is not normally what occurs in appellate cases.

I appreciate the debate, and I hope you can see that I'm trying to be a straight shooter here. I can't say that it is literally impossible for the Supreme Court to consider new evidence because in very rare cases that are not applicable here, they do. You can hang your hat on that fact, but no lawyer would withhold evidence at trial because they were betting on the Supreme Court hearing new evidence--that would be crazy. Think about it this way:

The Supreme Court is a deliberative body that benefits from a well-established record by both the trial and appellate courts below it. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, it is supposed to have been tested and rundown extensively. Both sides have already put their best arguments and evidence forward. With that knowledge in hand, the Supreme Court normally considers a vary narrow issue of law (not fact) that it considers to be important.

The PA litigation is a good example of this: Trump says that ballots received after a certain date cannot legally be accepted, and the other side says that they can be. The facts have already been determined by the trial court: Everyone agrees that ballots arriving after a certain date were still accepted. The question is whether the law allows this. Two courts have now ruled against Trump, and this case may go to the Supreme Court. If it does, the Court will consider the legal question of whether the law allows ballots to be accepted on the dates that they were received.

This can be contrasted with claims of election fraud, where it is the facts (not the law) that are in dispute. When it comes to election fraud, both sides agree that the law does not allow it. The question is whether or not the fraud occurred--a purely factual question. Trial courts determine facts. That is the (only) time to submit evidence--testimony, documents, etc. If those things are not presented, they will be considered waived and no later court will allow new evidence or facts to be presented. To allow new facts and evidence to be presented on appeal would render the lower courts meaningless.

Now, you are right that this is an important issue--the leadership of the country depends on it. But both sides already know this to be true. If Trump has evidence but does not submit it at trial, the importance of the issue will not save him. The Supreme Court will ask not whether the issue is important, but whether Trump had access to the information at Trial. The Court would not ignore important evidence if it was properly submitted (at the trial court), but they would ignore and not look kindly upon new evidence being submitted to them. And even if there were a chance that they would accept new evidence (which there really is not), no lawyer would withhold damning evidence on the impossible chance that the Supreme Court might look at it later.

You are also correct that the Supreme Court can use its common sense when determining whether to credit allegations leveled by Trump's lawyers. But again that can only happen if they even review that evidence, and they will only do so if it was submitted to the trial court.

a reply to: Influential358

Very good summary, have you listened to Jerome Corsi yet? What he is saying is very similar...

When the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices have been traditionally reluctant to pick winners and losers in elections. Also, the Supreme Court is likely to insist that questions of voter fraud had to be settled in state and federal trial courts. In the federal court system, the Supreme Court would expect the federal district courts to have adjudicated whether or not voter fraud occurred and if it occurred in sufficient numbers to award the presidency to Trump. Unfortunately, given the Constitutional deadlines, including the setting of the inauguration day on January 20, 2021, there may not be enough time for the federal district courts to conduct the trials that would be required.

Fortunately, the Constitution provides the Supreme Court a remedy. When the Electoral College fails to vote 270 electors to any one presidential candidate, the solution is for the Supreme Court to throw the election to the Congress.

The Election Goes to Congress

According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as modified by the Twelfth Amendment, the U.S. House of Representatives votes for the president and the U.S. Senate votes for the vice president. In the House of Representatives, each state gets one delegate vote in the vote for president; in the U.S. Senate, the candidate receiving the majority of votes becomes the vice president.

corsination.com...
Trump Wins in House (Jerome Corsi Interview)

a reply to: johnnylaw16

I know next to nothing about court systems....but, what if it didn't make to the supreme court, if the cases are filed at the state level wouldn't they be settled by the newly assigned justices in that district before they ever reached SCOTUS?

For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
For the First Circuit - Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)
For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)
For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Would any of this end up in F.I.S.C. and if so would we know? Not really my area of experstise.

Edit: I say that because if there are National Security implications, perhaps we wouldn't hear about it. Again I have no idea.

www.fisc.uscourts.gov...

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.
Is There Civilization Without Civility

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Influential358
Johnnylaw, I would suggest you stick to whatever day job it is that you stick to.

You are half correct, the Supreme Court does not operate as a trial court. It is a court that determines that constitutionality of our legislature.

However, what you're not understanding is that the precedent was already set in the 14th amendment.

14th Amendment to our constitution states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The mail-in voting, with or without factual evidence, is grounds enough for the Supreme Court to rule that this election was not confidently done.

Furthermore, the 12th amendment left us safeguards in the case of this event. The Supreme Court will NOT say "Trump won because Biden committed fraud". They will say "there are way too many problems that have arose because of this, we are kicking it to the legislature, defined in the 12th amendment as a check-and-balance to potential corruption and fraud".

Furthermore, Judge Roberts wrote the majority opinion in 2018 regarding this very fact.

When this arises, you do NOT have to prove a thing except that mail-in voting disenfranchised millions of voters, and at which point, you may present evidence to back that claim.

My day job is a federal court litigator. You seem to have a number of misgivings about our law and constitution. I can assure you that no court will find mail-in voting to be an abridgment of any constitutional right. And while my better judgment says I shouldn't even ask this, please do explain your theory on how mail-in voting disenfranchised any voter?

originally posted by: Hogleg
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I know next to nothing about court systems....but, what if it didn't make to the supreme court, if the cases are filed at the state level wouldn't they be settled by the newly assigned justices in that district before they ever reached SCOTUS?

For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
For the First Circuit - Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)
For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)
For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

No, state court cases go through their own appellate courts, usually culminating in a state supreme court decision. Decisions by state supreme courts can are then appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

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.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

The supreme court chooses to hear cases based on evidence that has been rejected by lower courts. No lower courts have been presented with evidence.

What Trump supporters believe is Trump.

So than you agree with my belief than?

That Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present their evidence.

I agree you believe that, yes.

But your belief is misguided at best. As said, the Supreme Court chooses the cases they hear - cases aren't just brought to them as people desire. And they don't hear cases that have not already been heard, seen evidence, and rejected by a lower court.

The key there being "seen evidence". There has been none. The Supreme Court won't bother with this nonsense.

a reply to: canucks555

HERE

The story in that link was from November 9th, and here are the important quotes:

In fact, whether or not a candidate concedes defeat has no effect on the counting of ballots in the state’s 39 counties, which have until Nov. 23 to process ballots which are still trickling in by mail.

And in fact mail in ballots were still be accepted on November 22nd.
In a discussion with Culp:

In a “chat” with supporters on Facebook Live, he tried to cast doubt on the validity of the state’s election system, saying supporters have found thousands of registrations in a single county where some voters listed addresses that don’t exist and others listed voters registered in two states.

The State Secretary states:

Wyman said she hasn’t seen any of Culp’s evidence, but suggested several possible explanations that don’t point to voter fraud. Homeless people are assigned a residential address close to where they live, even if it’s under a bridge, to determine which local candidates and issues they can vote on, and can have their ballots mailed to a shelter, a post office or a courthouse, she said. People who list a mailing address that doesn’t exist will have their ballots returned to the local elections office by the post office.

So homeless were just given addresses to use as their residents for voting purposes. Then she follows that up with:

People do sometimes move, register at their new address and fail to cancel their old registration. As long as they only cast a ballot at one address, that’s not voter fraud, she said.

Key words here, "only cast a ballot at one address" she won't say that it's voter fraud. So these address which many don't exist in real life are given to homeless to vote from, and as long as they only cast one vote per location it's counted.

Oh and one more thing, if you don't think that the homeless are being used to pad political agendas, look at this story:
Seen here

A whistleblower in a leadership position at Nickelsville is accusing organizer Scott Morrow of coercing residents of the organization’s tiny home villages into participating in political rallies.

Naming herself simply as Jane, the whistleblower claims that Morrow required homeless residents to participate in activism, demonstrations, and political rallies “as a condition for housing.” That, she alleges, was labeled as “PC,” or “participation credit” by Nickelsville.

One of those rallies was in support of Councilmember Kshama Sawant’s recent push back against Mayor Durkan’s nomination of interim Human Services Director Jason Johnson.

For many other rallies, one resident notes that Nickelsville participants were recruited merely to fill out crowds.

“We really don’t even know what it’s about [or] what’s going on — (Morrow) just wants the numbers and we’re there,” a resident told KIRO Radio.

Nickelville is a city ran tiny house village that is used for housing people that are suppose to be in a Homeless situation. These tiny house villages are funded by the city and are managed through a co-op with the city. That can be read about HERE
from the above link:

LIHI began forming homeless encampments over the past couple years under a contract with the city — they are among the city’s nine authorized homeless encampments. Nickelsville was subcontracted to manage the communities (Nickelsville formed in 2008 as organized homeless communities).

Lee’s letter was sent to request a series of items and documents pertaining to the operation of the camps.

“We are giving you one week to wind down operations at Othello, Georgetown, and Northlake Villages. Provided you cooperate with us we will pay for (Nickelsville) staff and expenses through March 25,” Lee wrote.

LIHI = Low Income Housing Institute


So Three Card Monty using the homeless as the Queen card while the voting addresses are the other cards. Are you saying that this is legal? This is voter fraud.

originally posted by: tinktinktink
a reply to: midnightstar

To be honest your side is the only one making a list of folks to reeducate in the future. Our voice is billboards and car parades and rally's. The democratic voice is to burn loot and assault to get their base moving. Happened in 2012 2016 and again in 2020. Its funny how racism only becomes an issue in the election years. In addition, the method in which supreme court justices are treated by the left is mobilizing sexual assault narratives. It is unfortunate that the left has no platform to run on but demonize the right while running a proven racist, rapist accused pedophile for president.

Heck just by the actions for the last 8 years by the democrat party even without evidence its more likely they would cheat than not.

Add the testimonies and the statistical impossibilities among other evidence and discoveries its a sure thing it was cheated.

Again, not here to debate people opinions on what they choose to believe. But if you want to allege cheating and fraud, show where Trump has proven this in court (or even attempted to prove it). No evidence is being submitted because no evidence exists. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see anyone doing so.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

I think I’ve heard the SCOTUS will take a case that’s of imperative importance to the country.
But isn’t it also true, they need a constitutional issue to take up a case? This is a very different case, but for example, in 2000 Bush used the assertion that his 14th amendment rights were being violated in some form.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I wonder if all these threads asking for evidence should be combined into one super thread. I can repost the actual evidence that votes in Washington State are being done illegally, our State Secretary even went as far as to outline why she thinks what she is doing is legal, even though it isn't. If I do repost this, will the OP actually read the evidence? I doubt it, I doubt it because in everyone of these threads when evidence is provided that shows, proves, or even highlights voting fraud, the OP will either stop posting and start a new thread, or will just ignore the evidence and go on stating nonsense about there not being any.

It's great that these people can express their personal opinion about voter fraud. It's too bad though that if these same people get their way, they will only be allowed to express what the State Opinion is.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that this supposed "evidence" has not been submitted to courts and that should raise a red flag for anyone buying into the claims of fraud and rigging. If there was evidence, it would have been submitted.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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.

You should get a new screen name, because you are woefully wrong.

You would be right if this had actually gone to trial, but it hasn't.

This is civil litigation. Guess what is one the biggest and baddest parts of a civil case?

DISCOVERY.

What is the purpose of DISCOVERY?

To gain access to the real, actual evidence.

Unless and until there has been a thorough discovery phase, there is always room for more evidence to be presented. A lot more room.

Trump has repeatedly failed to offer any evidence to the trial court,

That is because these suits have only been dismissed in their initial stage, there has never been any discovery granted, let alone a trial.

This is my objective analysis based on years of federal court litigation experience, but if you believe I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Yes, but to get to discovery, you have to survive dismissal. There is a reason we aren't seeing evidence of fraud or even allegations of fraud--those allegations won't survive dismissal. Discovery is not license for a fishing expedition. To even get there, you must first give the judge reason to believe that your claims are plausible. Trump has not done this in any litigation to date, with regard to voter fraud.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

If you are truly looking into funny business with the courts, you might want to see how Washington State's AG fights court cases. They will refuse to hear cases that point to wrong doing by the State, they have disputed anti-Constitutional laws by stating that people don't have to follow the laws that are written, and my favorite tactic is the secret city council meetings with the Governor involved that end up punishing people for speaking out against rules that Inslee puts out there for people to follow.

From a national election standard, Washington State isn't in the news, but the level of corruption here is mind boggling.

a reply to: johnnylaw16


Pretty busy for 3 days on ATS...lol

All I can say is I don't care... I'll wait until this all plays out...