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

One thing we can agree on, this will be settled on Dec. 14th when the electorates cast their votes. Unless there is some legit game changing evidence, the court cases will be over before the 14th. like it or not that's D-day

originally posted by: Hogleg
a reply to: Xtrozero

No, it's in the US constitution.

Mark Levin

Affidavits from credible individuals that raise a reasonable question are enough to establish a need for expedited discovery per the rules of civil procedure. Concerning the Constitutional challenges, per Article II Section II Clause II, each state’s legislature has the power over election laws. State courts, County officials, Governors, or their appointees do not. Moreover, all voters must be treated the same under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Thanks, so it is in two places. I guess my point is it is written in some state's Constitutions that you must request a ballot period, so some states just did mass mailings anyways. The process is to have the people vote on it and if it passes then mass mailings are legal. As fast as mass mailings happened this time it went against their own state constitution.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not debating that at all.

But something like abortion as far as I know originally held laws against it violates the 14th amendment.

Sure, many say the unborn have rights under the 14th clause, that Row denied. That may be the basis to overturn it soon with a conservative 6 -3 edge

True, the argument against it by many is they stretched the 14th with zero precedence supporting it in doing so, but I'm not a scholar. And it is actually 5 to 4...Roberts has not voted "conservative", but Row vs Wade will never be over turned even though it was a bad decision as it has set decades of precedence now and all 9 SC judges have said so.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: johnnylaw16

A very well put together argument; and I do accept that you are being a straight shooter here.

But your arguments still only explains what routinely occurs during cases of this type; but does not at all speak to the peculiarities of these particular few cases and the seriousness of the implications.

For example you say:

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.

And with a typical case that gets to the Supreme Court its often months or even years for a the well-established record to galvanize.

In these cases regarding election fraud and election law; there hasn't been years or even months for a well-established record to have been created. And your own arguments state the Supreme Court can, if it chooses, hear the new evidence.

I fully accepte that under normal circumstances your arguments would hold water. But I am not convinced that your arguments slam the door on Trumps path forward. I highly anticipate that there will be a few more unprecedented actions that will occur before this is over ... the Supreme Court agreeing to hear new evidence seems like a rather mundane peculiarity if it occurs.

Even if it were true that the Supreme Court might hear new evidence (which again, it will not), the fact still remains: No lawyer (Trump's included) would bet on that being the case. You seem to recognize that at the very least, it is not the normal practice for the Supreme Court to hear new evidence. Because of this, no lawyer would risk their case-winning, smoking-gun evidence being thrown out and would still present any evidence that they had at trial; they would not "save" it for the Supreme Court and risk the Court following its normal practice of not hearing new evidence. And from this, we can still infer that because Trump has not submitted any evidence of voter fraud, no such evidence will be later exposed at the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
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)

Jerome Corsi has no idea what he is talking about. The Supreme Court will not throw out the election because of the inaugural deadlines, and it will not send the election to the House when no fraud has been proven. The only true statement in that excerpt is the following: "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." That sentence is true--if the Supreme Court will expect that courts to adjudicate whether fraud occurred. Full stop.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Willtell

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.

They should, but I don't think it is an absolute... Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example.

That's not quite right. Roe v. Wade was based on a constitutional question: Whether the constitution provided for a right to privacy that included the right to have an abortion. The Court held that the constitution did provide for such a right, even though it was unenumerated.

originally posted by: carewemust

Only those of you who have, and know how to use your "Common Sense", will understand this:

Biden lost Ohio and Florida.

Biden lost 18 of 19 bellweather counties.

Biden won 200 fewer counties than Obama in 2012.

The GOP picked up 14 House seats.

Yet a basement dweller (Joe Biden) somehow managed to get 80 million votes?

Source: twitter.com...

All others...please disregard this post. Thank-you.

P.S. twitter.com... a.k.a. #BidenCheated

Instead of relying on your "common sense," I prefer to rely on facts. And as already noted, Trump has put forth very little in the way of facts concerning voter fraud in court.

originally posted by: Hogleg
a reply to: Willtell


The constitution part is related to the Democrats changing election procedures in the swing states illegally. According to the constitution any changes to the voting process must be approved by the state legislature. They made several key changes that opened up this election for mass fraud, and the did it without approval of the state(s) legislatures.

#ery afoot

This isn't actually true. Trump's lawsuits have largely failed, and the ones that are still being litigated don't affect enough votes to impact the election. As the opening post on this thread points out, if there were evidence of large-scale illegalities or fraud on a scale that could affect the election results, we would have seen it already.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I'm reading now that the Pennsylvania trial court has ruled the election likely unconstitutional and the state legislatures will choose the electors.
pdf

Not sure what this is even referring to, but it's not true.

originally posted by: Hogleg
a reply to: Xtrozero

No, it's in the US constitution.

Mark Levin

Affidavits from credible individuals that raise a reasonable question are enough to establish a need for expedited discovery per the rules of civil procedure. Concerning the Constitutional challenges, per Article II Section II Clause II, each state’s legislature has the power over election laws. State courts, County officials, Governors, or their appointees do not. Moreover, all voters must be treated the same under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But we haven't seen any "affidavits from credible individuals' . . .

originally posted by: Hogleg
One thing we can agree on, this will be settled on Dec. 14th when the electorates cast their votes. Unless there is some legit game changing evidence, the court cases will be over before the 14th. like it or not that's D-day

My point is that D-day has come and gone. This has been decided, and there is nothing that will change the outcome. If there were, we would have seen it already.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Has this one been kicked out of court yet? honest question

twitter.com...


And Sidney has filed suit in GA and MI that I know of, you can see parts of those law suits on her twit account

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
y 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?

Again, the precedent has already been set in the 14th amendment for the Supreme Court to hear.

Implementation of mail-in voting falls under the jurisdiction of a state or other localities legislature. Courts superseding their respected government bodies and arbitrarily enacting legislature from the bench.

A courts cannot write nor pass law. They can only go as far as establishing your rights.

Like I said before, you can ignore it or not, Judge Roberts has ALREADY ruled on this precedent in the 14th amendment.

He argued in his majority opinion, even without evidence, you can make a model determination. The case is irrelevant, but the precedent Roberts set remains. Probability, statistics, regression equations and mathematics can be used to prove that a scheme from a state or court action was effecting someones rights.

For Judge Roberts to argue against Trumps lawyer, would mean he'd have to go back and recant his majority opinion on the case.

authors.library.caltech.edu... ty.pdf

Civil law x= Constitutional law

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.

That argument doesn't hold water it would seem.

If the evidence doesn't appear before the lower courts you can't present it to the Supreme Court.
.
Either you didnt read the OP in it's entirety or you simply misunderstand.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

[snip]

your own argument leaves 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.

But he already told you...

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
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. 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 think the cognitive dissonance is occurring because your beliefs don't stand up to johnnylaw16's knowledge.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Which lawsuits have been dismissed?

Pennsylvania for a start. You do realise at least 26 out of the 41 cases Trump has filed have been denied, dismissed, settled or withdrawn?

a reply to: Guyfriday

This OP is giving his professional knowledge of the subject, not an opinion

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: Guyfriday

This OP is giving his professional knowledge of the subject, not an opinion

LOL no, it is still just an opinion.

Anything can happen in court. Surprises often happen there.

Plenty of other angles to consider here.

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