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

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
He was just interviewed by Greg on
Newsmaxtv.com.




reply to: johnnylaw16

In case anyone else needs clarification on this point: random person on Newsmax claiming voter fraud is not evidence that voter fraud occurred.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

Ah, ok.

Yes. In some instances, if the evidence was not available at trial, you may be able to convince an appellate court to consider it. It’s a rare occasion and the evidence would have to have been truly unavailable. Which would be had to prove in Trump’s case, where he has claimed to have the evidence since the beginning.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Thank you.

originally posted by: djz3ro
I'd trust the Professional Opinion of a Federal Court Litigator in this case over anyone else. They know the law of the land.

You have no idea who this yahoo is. He's some rando internet guy making a sketchy claim about being a lawyer. He doesn't demonstrate the knowledge and experience he claims to have.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

Ah, ok.

Yes. In some instances, if the evidence was not available at trial, you may be able to convince an appellate court to consider it. It’s a rare occasion and the evidence would have to have been truly unavailable. Which would be had to prove in Trump’s case, where he has claimed to have the evidence since the beginning.

Interesting that your response reads almost exactly like where I read my information from. Keywords are important and googles a blast,yeah?
....and I’m going leave it at that.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Is a sworn affidavit evidence?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Someone says Trump is going to the Supreme Court and they will declare him the winner and you believe it, without questioning it.

Someone provides post after post of well thought out explanations on why Trump has essentially no legal leg to stand on, who has demonstrated immense legal knowledge and then you some and you write the guy off full of crap because it does not align with your confirmation bias.

You are just another example of the cognitive dissonance on display by many of those who are still in denial that Trump lost.

What are you doing to say when Biden becomes president?

Thirty-three pages in, the Trump Fan Club still scores a nice fat zero.

I wonder how long this thread will go on.

It is apparent they used every voting method to add votes.

It was the only way to spread out and attempt to hide it.

The constitution gives state legislature authority to look into this. The governor and secretary have no legal right to push through certification.

Why wouldn't anyone want to side with the constitution? The people involved become irrelevant. The left has a hard time with being to use to bashing The President, they didn't realize The Constitution is what this boils down to.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Your media rant is still without merit. My analysis is based off years of experience as a litigator in state and federal court. I know how these processes work, and all that I have said can be verified.

You have to have your head buried deep in the sand not to see all the voter fraud right in front of your face and if you’re an attorney, you’re not a very good one. Anyone one with half a brain cell can see there’s massive fraud being perpetrated on the American people. You’re being complicit as complicit can be.

US AG Bill Barr, who is hardly a RINO or a lacklustre supporter of Trump, has said that there is no evidence of electoral fraud. Anywhere. So there. Good grief people, get a grip and stop swimming in the kool-aid.

I don’t need anyone including Barr to tell me if there’s election fraud or not. I can see and hear for myself. You seriously think all the evidence being compiled and being brought forth is nothing but lies and made up fantasies? That all the people coming forward are willingly and knowingly committing perjury? That all the expert data analyst are all wrong and have no clue what they’re talking about?

Yeah nothing to see here.....oh look a butterfly.........

If there was anything to see here, it would be seen by the courts. Republican judges and Democrat judges alike are throwing these out.

Where is the evidence?

a reply to: djz3ro

What makes you think there are no active cases or any litigation going on? Because the media says so. Like how they reported the DOJ is not looking into anything. Like they reported Guiliani is looking for a pardon? Like they reported Trump is going to pardon himself? Like they reported there is no path to overturn states?

See, that is what this is about. No overturning an election. If any of these cases go to the SCOTUS, and they will, it does not mean they will rule that the election goes to Trump. It is the validity of each vote in multiple states.

If there was no fraud where are Biden and Harris holding a press conference on that? Nope. Instead we hear about a broken foot from a dog and a bunch of old crusty people from the Obama admin being appointed. BLM is pissed. AntiFa is pissed. They were all used by the Progressive's and now forgottten...like always. This is why Trump pulled in the minority vote at a record number...and Biden still won? BS.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Is a sworn affidavit evidence?

If submitted in court, yes it can be evidence. It must first be deemed to be admissible, which means that it will not contain hearsay and that it meets the basic requirements of reliability. After that, yes it can be considered evidence. Evidence of something, however, is not determinative of that thing; the evidence of both sides is reviewed, weighted appropriately, and then a judgment is rendered.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

State Supreme Court

Ah, ok.

Yes. In some instances, if the evidence was not available at trial, you may be able to convince an appellate court to consider it. It’s a rare occasion and the evidence would have to have been truly unavailable. Which would be had to prove in Trump’s case, where he has claimed to have the evidence since the beginning.

Interesting that your response reads almost exactly like where I read my information from. Keywords are important and googles a blast,yeah?
....and I’m going leave it at that.

All you're proving is that I know what I am talking about.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: djz3ro
I'd trust the Professional Opinion of a Federal Court Litigator in this case over anyone else. They know the law of the land.

You have no idea who this yahoo is. He's some rando internet guy making a sketchy claim about being a lawyer. He doesn't demonstrate the knowledge and experience he claims to have.

If you doubt me, feel free to test my knowledge. But I think my many explanations of legal processes across this thread and many others should speak for themselves.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Thirty-three pages in, the Trump Fan Club still scores a nice fat zero.

I wonder how long this thread will go on.

My time is much more limited during the work week, but I'll try to make time to respond as long as people keep posting. I'm also happy to take question from anyone (not just the nay-sayers) about the legal processes that are playing out, or how different legal mechanics work, etc.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
If you doubt me, feel free to test my knowledge.

Fine, I will. Two questions.

1) Please explain why the United States Supreme Court almost never takes up appeals from State Supreme Courts.

2) What's the difference between a dead rabbit in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: djz3ro

What makes you think there are no active cases or any litigation going on? Because the media says so. Like how they reported the DOJ is not looking into anything. Like they reported Guiliani is looking for a pardon? Like they reported Trump is going to pardon himself? Like they reported there is no path to overturn states?

See, that is what this is about. No overturning an election. If any of these cases go to the SCOTUS, and they will, it does not mean they will rule that the election goes to Trump. It is the validity of each vote in multiple states.

If there was no fraud where are Biden and Harris holding a press conference on that? Nope. Instead we hear about a broken foot from a dog and a bunch of old crusty people from the Obama admin being appointed. BLM is pissed. AntiFa is pissed. They were all used by the Progressive's and now forgottten...like always. This is why Trump pulled in the minority vote at a record number...and Biden still won? BS.

Biden and Harris aren't holding press conferences on voter fraud because they don't need to. They and the rest of the country are moving on and preparing for what is next. T

here aren't even any cases that have a chance of overturning the election at this point. The only case that the Supreme Court might hear right now would be one about whether PA could count mail-in ballots received after election day but post marked on or before--and that case wouldn't change the outcome of the state election.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
If you doubt me, feel free to test my knowledge.

Fine, I will. Two questions.

1) Please explain why the United States Supreme Court almost never takes up appeals from State Supreme Courts.

This is mostly a jurisdictional issue. The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated. Most state supreme court cases do not involving these things. But even if a federal law or constitutional question is implicated, the Supreme Court still will not get involved if there is an independent state law basis upon which the state supreme court decision is based. This latter point, incidentally, is why the Supreme Court is less likely to intervene in the recent PA supreme court decision regarding PA's mail in balloting initiative. While it involves a federal election, the challenge to the law in question fails under independent state law grounds, meaning that even if the federal/constitutional questions were resolved, state law would still mandate the outcome dericted by the PA state supreme court.

Another reason is federalism. SCOTUS is weary of treading on state supreme courts. Thus, it will want to ensure that any appeal it takes from a state supreme court fits squarely within its jurisdiction. Is there is doubt, the court may prefer to err on the side of caution.

2) What's the difference between a dead rabbit in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

Drivers passing by feel bad for the rabbit? lol

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
This is mostly a jurisdictional issue. The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated. Most state supreme court cases do not involving these things. But even if a federal law or constitutional question is implicated, the Supreme Court still will not get involved if there is an independent state law basis upon which the state supreme court decision is based. This latter point, incidentally, is why the Supreme Court is less likely to intervene in the recent PA supreme court decision regarding PA's mail in balloting initiative. While it involves a federal election, the challenge to the law in question fails under independent state law grounds, meaning that even if the federal/constitutional questions were resolved, state law would still mandate the outcome dericted by the PA state supreme court.

Another reason is federalism. SCOTUS is weary of treading on state supreme courts. Thus, it will want to ensure that any appeal it takes from a state supreme court fits squarely within its jurisdiction. Is there is doubt, the court may prefer to err on the side of caution.

Thanks for that very comprehensive answer, you sound like you may be an actual attorney.

Drivers passing by feel bad for the rabbit? lol

WRONG! There's skid marks in front of the rabbit, Mr. Fake Attorney!