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

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible?

It would be; these lawsuits are all being filed publicly.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible before they file the lawsuit?

No, but they have filed many lawsuits already. Time is of the essence to Trump's attorney's. If they had damning evidence, that evidence would have been submitted in the cases that have already been filed.

Could have would have should have is your opinion not a fact. Your title should have been changed to "In my opinion there is no actual evidence of voter fraud, here's how we think so".

Anyway in light of evidence having been shown, your thread is now moot.

I am sorry that our education system has failed you so badly. The entire point of this thread is that "evidence" of fraud has to be put before a judge and credited for it to mean anything. That has literally not happened. Indeed, the thesis of this thread has been proven correct time and again as courts continue to throw out Trump's and his allies' meritless law suits. My take is based on an objective and experienced analysis of how legal practice works in this country. You don't have to believe it, but I am right, and time has only proven this.

Your thread title is incorrect. There is in fact evidence. Whether there is a preponderance of evidence is a different story. However you cannot simply say there was no evidence just because a case got thrown out. Murderers have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone in some cases. Further, murderers have had there cases thrown out even though there were loads of evidence. You saying this is like saying O.J. Simpson's case was thrown out so therefore there was no evidence against him.

Your petty attempt at insulting me won't change the facts.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible?

It would be; these lawsuits are all being filed publicly.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible before they file the lawsuit?

No, but they have filed many lawsuits already. Time is of the essence to Trump's attorney's. If they had damning evidence, that evidence would have been submitted in the cases that have already been filed.

Could have would have should have is your opinion not a fact. Your title should have been changed to "In my opinion there is no actual evidence of voter fraud, here's how we think so".

Anyway in light of evidence having been shown, your thread is now moot.

I am sorry that our education system has failed you so badly. The entire point of this thread is that "evidence" of fraud has to be put before a judge and credited for it to mean anything. That has literally not happened. Indeed, the thesis of this thread has been proven correct time and again as courts continue to throw out Trump's and his allies' meritless law suits. My take is based on an objective and experienced analysis of how legal practice works in this country. You don't have to believe it, but I am right, and time has only proven this.

Your thread title is incorrect. There is in fact evidence. Whether there is a preponderance of evidence is a different story. However you cannot simply say there was no evidence just because a case got thrown out. Murderers have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone in some cases. Further, murderers have had there cases thrown out even though there were loads of evidence. You saying this is like saying O.J. Simpson's case was thrown out so therefore there was no evidence against him.

Your petty attempt at insulting me won't change the facts.

There literally isn't evidence. Evidence has to be admissible; nothing Trump and his allies has put forward has been admissible. Circumstantial evidence is still admissible evidence. In OJ's case there was a lot of evidence; it was admissible, and the jury still did not vote to convict--it has no similarity to the present case. Here, there has been no admissible evidence.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Data is kinda funny. Most data is not considered valid until verified my an independent third party? Or complete independent system.

Please kindly state what post election audit was done to ensure the ballots are legal, accuracy of the election day counting, and what means is used to verify the dominion machines tabulated correctly.

Your entire premise is nonsense. I think the same as about 20 other attorney generals. Have you read their brief? Shall I post it here? Every single state (being sued) has illegally ran their elections, it is fraud, it is a violation of the constitution, so just sit down, shut up, and watch the show kid.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Has Trump lost yet?

what a terrible choice you all had at the election - Biden (effectively Kamala Harris seeing as he doesn't know where he is most of the time) or another 4 years of trump pissing everyone off.

wonder if Biden will meet with North korea as well......

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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?

Are you still sticking to your story that the Supreme Court will not hear any case relating to the 2020 election irregularities now that 18 States are suing for not following proper election protocols ?

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
Are you still sticking to your story that the Supreme Court will not hear any case relating to the 2020 election irregularities now that 18 States are suing for not following proper election protocols ?

It's only 1 State, Texas, there are no other plaintiffs.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
Are you still sticking to your story that the Supreme Court will not hear any case relating to the 2020 election irregularities now that 18 States are suing for not following proper election protocols ?

It's only 1 State, Texas, there are no other plaintiffs.

True but they’ve signed a brief backing the suit. So they’re in agreement that these states violated the constitution by ignoring state and federal law. A simple claim. Either the rule changes were legal or not. If not then the results are invalid and they’ll have to either redo or take some other measure to remedy the situation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
Are you still sticking to your story that the Supreme Court will not hear any case relating to the 2020 election irregularities now that 18 States are suing for not following proper election protocols ?

It's only 1 State, Texas, there are no other plaintiffs.

True but they’ve signed a brief backing the suit. So they’re in agreement that these states violated the constitution by ignoring state and federal law. A simple claim. Either the rule changes were legal or not. If not then the results are invalid and they’ll have to either redo or take some other measure to remedy the situation.

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
True but they’ve signed a brief backing the suit. So they’re in agreement that these states violated the constitution by ignoring state and federal law. A simple claim.

And? Does that get outweighed by the 22 States that filed as amici for the Defendants?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
True but they’ve signed a brief backing the suit. So they’re in agreement that these states violated the constitution by ignoring state and federal law. A simple claim.

And? Does that get outweighed by the 22 States that filed as amici for the Defendants?

I'm not saying anything gets outweighed. All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case, which is what the person that started this thread said likely wouldn't happen. If they do hear the case, it's a simple binary decision. If they do their job they will decide the rule changes were unconstitutional. I'm not sure what the remedy will be but clearly this isn't over yet.

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case...

Well I guess you'll find out shortly.

If they do their job they will decide the rule changes were unconstitutional.

Sounds like you don't want a legal opinion from them, you want a bias confirmation appeal from authority.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case...

Well I guess you'll find out shortly.

If they do their job they will decide the rule changes were unconstitutional.

Sounds like you don't want a legal opinion from them, you want a bias confirmation appeal from authority.

No, from the opinions I've read the Constitution leaves any new laws relating to voting to the State Legislature. Since it was not the State Legislature that made the last-minute changes (which likely led to voter fraud although that's not the topic of the suit) the changes were unconstitutional. So there's nothing bias about it any decision they might make, just the law.

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
No, from the opinions I've read...

Here's the thing, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, you're not one of the Justices petitioned.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
No, from the opinions I've read...

Here's the thing, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, you're not one of the Justices petitioned.

You are correct Sir ! And neither does yours. We'll see what happens !

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Sounds like you don't want a legal opinion from them, you want a bias confirmation appeal from authority.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

The Constitution clearly states that it is the State Legislatures that have absolute authority over election laws.

These States also have their own Constitutions that mandate certain things. For example, in PA, changes to election laws can not even be made by the legislature, they must actually amend their Constitution.

It is a fact that in all 4 of these States, election laws were 'changed' by or were ignored on orders of Governors and/or Elections officials in the executive branch.

This is contrary to their own State Laws and/or Constitutions, as well as the Federal Constitution.

You can pretend that the above is not true unless some court says so, but you would be ignorant and wrong.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
This isn't a matter of opinion.

Sure it is, the Supreme Court's.

Let me know when you present your so amazingly thought out legal argument to them. Have you filed as a plaintiff?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"This isn't a matter of opinion."

Sure it is, the Supreme Court's.

Nope. Facts are facts.

Whether or not they take the case is another matter.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Nope. Facts are facts.

Too bad Alito already disagreed with you.