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

a reply to: tanstaafl

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.

That is incorrect.

The Pennsylvania constitution makes it the job of the legislature to make general laws about the operation of the election - and specifically names 'absentee voting' law as the legislature's job.

The PA Constitution creates a framework conditions, like the date of the election, who is eligible, immunity from arrest while voting, etc, but it leaves it to the State legislature to fill in the details of how that framework is to be implemented.

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: 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.

Well I'm willing to guess that the Texas Attorney General is a bit more qualified than you and he disagrees with you.

Have a good day!

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Well I'm willing to guess that the Texas Attorney General is a bit more qualified than you and he disagrees with you.

Have a good day!

The Texas AG isn't more qualified than any other ambulance chaser in the street - he just adhered to the GOP line in a GOP state long enough to get elected and even the Governor has disowned him.

This play by Paxton is 100% about distracting from his very real problems with an FBI investigation. He is pure and simply trying to angle for a pardon and do a bit of retirement fund raising.

The Supremes will not get involved.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Isn't that a bit like comparing Leo Terrell to Saul Goodman?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Well I'm willing to guess that the Texas Attorney General is a bit more qualified than you and he disagrees with you.

Have a good day!

The Texas AG isn't more qualified than any other ambulance chaser in the street - he just adhered to the GOP line in a GOP state long enough to get elected and even the Governor has disowned him.

This play by Paxton is 100% about distracting from his very real problems with an FBI investigation. He is pure and simply trying to angle for a pardon and do a bit of retirement fund raising.

The Supremes will not get involved.

Eighteen states have joined Texas. Do you suppose all 19 AG's are just seeking pardons? 🤣 🤣

Have a nice day!

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: 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.

Eighteen states have joined Texas. Do you suppose all 19 Attorney Generals will present zero evidence to be considered by the Supreme Court? 🤣 🤣

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Well I'm willing to guess that the Texas Attorney General is a bit more qualified than you and he disagrees with you.

Have a good day!

The Supremes will not get involved.

Texas is saying that every voter they have has been disenfranchised by 4 states not following their own Constitutions during this Presidential election.

Which is true.

SCOTUS has to hear it.

Simply because they are the only ones Constitutionally that can resolve it.

So buckle up Sparky....

This isn't going to end well for the Democrats.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: tanstaafl
"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."

That is incorrect.

The Pennsylvania constitution makes it the job of the legislature to make general laws about the operation of the election - and specifically names 'absentee voting' law as the legislature's job.

The PA Constitution creates a framework conditions, like the date of the election, who is eligible, immunity from arrest while voting, etc, but it leaves it to the State legislature to fill in the details of how that framework is to be implemented.

Yeah... ummm, no. You just made all of that up.

The PA Constitution enumerates 4, and exactly 4, conditions that allow for absentee voting.
Pa. Const. Art. VII, § 14(a)

The 'no excuse' reason added by an Act of the State Legislature, without amending the Constitution, is void ab initio. They knew this, because they started the process of amendment, then realized that it wouldn't accomplish their goal, because the change wouldn't apply unless/until after the 2020 election.

Suggestion: learn to read.

Suggestion 2: learn to read with comprehension.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Texas is saying that every voter they have has been disenfranchised by 4 states not following their own Constitutions during this Presidential election. Which is true.

I don't understand.

Are you saying that those 4 states came into Texas and somehow shut down the Texas election?

Disenfranchisement of Texas voters has been done quite effectively by TEXAS over the last few years, they don't need help from Georgia or Pennsylvania to gerrymander its precincts and shutdown voting booths in high black and latino population counties.

Get a grip for crying out loud.

Texas has no business trying to tell any other state how to run their election, especially since Texas is the poster state for corrupt elections.

The Supremes will not get involved.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Nope. Facts are facts."

Too bad Alito already disagreed with you.

Except, he didn't. H merely denied the relief sought. Maybe because he knew something bigger and better was coming...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
H merely denied the relief sought. Maybe because he knew something bigger and better was coming...

Sure. You keep on LARP'ing.

Looking forward to the next round of excuses.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You just made all of that up.

No I didn't. I read it from the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania; ARTICLE VII ELECTIONS

§ 14. Absentee voting.

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

The Constitution says exactly what I said it says: the Legislature is responsible for general law about elections in general and absentee voting in particular.

a reply to: tanstaafl

As for your claim:

The 'no excuse' reason added by an Act of the State Legislature, without amending the Constitution, is void ab initio.

Well the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagrees with you. The 'no excuse' law came into effect a full 12 months before the election, and it was not challenged. It was only challenged when it was clear that the absentee voting, which in most years favors Republicans by the way, was not going to the usual pattern.

From Wikipedia: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election - Kelly v Pennsylvania

On November 22, 2020, U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and six other Republican representatives filed a suit in state court that claims that the General Assembly had no authority under the state constitution to enact no-excuse mail-in voting.[139] They sued to stop the certification of electors until the issue could be resolved. Judge Patricia McCullough ruled to halt further state certifications pending a hearing. The state attorney general responded by filing an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court,[140] which triggered an automatic stay on Judge McCullough's order....

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on November 28 to unanimously overturn the Commonwealth Court's order to block the certification of election results in Pennsylvania.[271] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also dismissed with prejudice the requests of the Republicans to either invalidate all 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, or to invalidate all 6.9 million ballots in the state and have the state's Republican-controlled Legislature choose the presidential electors for the state.[272][273] The rationale for the decision was that the Republicans were challenging the law too late; they had been able to challenge the law since it came into force in October 2019, but only filed the lawsuit when the results of the November 2020 election were "becoming seemingly apparent". Hence, the Republicans had failed to act with "due diligence" in their handling of the case.

Kelly appealed to the US Supreme Court,...

On December 8, 2020 the Supreme Court rejected the request in a one-sentence, unsigned order...

See, the thing is that the rule was in effect for a year, enacted by a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEGISLATURE, a year in which you had the opportunity to challenge it and didn't.

Hundreds of thousands of voters relied on that rule and cast their ballot. Declaring them void AFTER the election is massive voter disenfranchisement and it ain't gonna happen. Period.

You are, of course, free to challenge the Pennsylvania 'no excuse' law WELL BEFORE the next election (I never liked the idea of tilting at windmills, but go ahead), and you may even have a chance to win it, who knows? But THIS election operated under the rule and it will not be overturned.

And the US Supreme Court will not get involved.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: tanstaafl
"You just made all of that up."

No I didn't. I read it from the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The answer is right there in the text you quoted but either did not read, or did not comprehend.

Here, let me help you. Note the bolded text, but, also note the one little word that is also underlined...

§ 14. Absentee voting.

(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

The Constitution says exactly what I said it says: the Legislature is responsible for general law about elections in general and absentee voting in particular.

Yessiree, it did say that, but you totally ignored or failed to comprehend everything that came after that first declaration, that restricts who can vote by absentee to just those meeting one of the 4 specific conditions.

Any modifications to those conditions must be made by Constitutional Amendment.

PERIOD.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: tanstaafl

As for your claim:

"The 'no excuse' reason added by an Act of the State Legislature, without amending the Constitution, is void ab initio."

Well the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagrees with you. The 'no excuse' law came into effect a full 12 months before the election, and it was not challenged.

Rotflmao! Dude, give the TDS a rest, you're going to give yourself a heart attack.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't immediately challenged. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the law attempts to modify rules laid down by their own Constitution.

Not only that, there is a secondary aspect. Even ass-u-me-ing that the law didn't violate the PA Constitutioon (which it clearly does), it in no way extended the deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots past 8pm on election day. That decision was made unilaterally by the PA Supreme Court, in direct violation of both the Federal Constitution (mandating that only State Legislatures make the election rules) and the PA State Legislature (Act 77 did not extend or modify or attempt to extend or modify the election day deadline).

See, the thing is that the rule was in effect for a year, enacted by a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEGISLATURE, a year in which you had the opportunity to challenge it and didn't.

Irrelevant.

Hundreds of thousands of voters relied on that rule and cast their ballot. Declaring them void AFTER the election is massive voter disenfranchisement and it ain't gonna happen. Period.

Justice Alito disagrees with you.

If any disenfranchisement occurred, it was a direct result of the PA legislature violating their own Constitution, and the PA Supreme Court violating the Federal Constitution.

The only remedy is vacating the popular election results for President and VP, and requiring the PA legislature to appoint the electors directly.

And in case you were wondering, this does not disenfranchise anyone, because the PA electorate also voted for their State Reps and Senators.

And the US Supreme Court will not get involved.

They already are involved. The case was not dismissed, and will still be heard.

Maybe you should actually go read Justice Alito's decision, wherein he explicitly says this.

Note: the decision to deny the relief sought (stay) was the result of a 4-4 tie, because Justice Barrett did not participate in the decision. So, 4 Justices wanted to grant it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Nope. Facts are facts.

Too bad Alito already disagreed with you.

Did he? Got any evidence to back that up?

Hint: I have real, actual evidence that he agrees with me...

"Shall we play a game?"

a reply to: tanstaafl

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Hopefully it's where he wrote that if there was a problem with the segregated ballots that weren't counted they could ask for relief and then the writ regarding that was DENIED.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
He merely denied the relief sought. Maybe because he knew something bigger and better was coming..."

Sure. You keep on LARP'ing.

Looking forward to the next round of excuses.

Oh, my apologies... Justice Alito did not deny the relief. The decision to deny the relief was only because it was a tie - 4-4.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh all wanted to grant the relief requested.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Hopefully it's where he wrote that if there was a problem with the segregated ballots that weren't counted they could ask for relief and then the writ regarding that was DENIED.

Denied... by whom?

Go ahead, stick your neck out further... this is fun...

a reply to: tanstaafl

It takes four Justices to hear a petition, the Pennsylvania petition was DENIED because MATH.