It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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-
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.
originally posted by: Hogleg
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: NoCorruptionAllowed
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.
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?
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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: johnnylaw16
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.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
originally posted by: Xtrozero
"Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example."
Of course it was.
en.wikipedia.org...
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"Of course it was."
Yep...but it was a poor decision...should have been left up to the states...
originally posted by: Xtrozero
But that is at the State constitution level. Those rules are done at the state level and one state had a few 100k votes that were not asked for and that was against the state level constitution, so for one state Trump can win that state on this alone. I do think those vote will be thrown out and for some reason they are extremely heavy Biden.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Yes, but to get to discovery, you have to survive dismissal.
Which is why the judge is not to make judgement on whether or not the content of an affidavit is true, only that it is within the realm of possibility (ie, plausible), and if it is, and would constitute a valid complaint upon which relief may be granted, then it survives dismissal.
There is a reason we aren't seeing evidence of fraud or even allegations of fraud-
The only reason that you would not see those is if you are being deliberately ignorant.
Discovery is not license for a fishing expedition.
Actually, it is (albeit a limited one), but in order to engage in it, you must first prove that you have a valid complaint upon which relief may be granted.
To even get there, you must first give the judge reason to believe that your claims are plausible.
No. All you need to do is make a sworn statement of a valid complaint which, if true, makes a claim upon which relief may be granted (thank god for multi-clip, retyping these phrases over and over would be very tiring).
Trump has not done this in any litigation to date, with regard to voter fraud.
Again, only if you are being deliberately ignorant.
Incidentally, deliberate ignorance is, in my book, one of the worst sins you can engage in. Please stop it.
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.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
My day job is a federal court litigator.
Civil or criminal?
You seem to have a number of misgivings about our law and constitution.
As do you.
I can assure you that no court will find mail-in voting to be an abridgment of any constitutional right.
Your assurance is irrelevant, since your claim is wrong.
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?
That is extremely easy.
But first, you know (or should know) you are engaging in a typical leftist tactic of arguing a very broad term, ignoring the fact that the term 'mail-in voting' can mean more than one thing, and only arguing the side that fits your narrative... right?
Absentee ballots are a form of mail-in voting, and these can be done reasonably securely and fairly, and does not disenfranchise anyone.
However, this ludicrous 'mass mail-in vote' scheme that was engaged in by many States at the behest of the plandemic fakers is not even remotely in the same galaxy as absentee ballots.
Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of such things knows that voter rolls of the vast majority (or all) of the States are extremely, woefully out of date and filled to overflowing with inelegible names (dead people, people who moved ten years ago, etc etc ad nauseum.
Sending out ballots to these names/addresses, combined with insane removal of any and all safeguards that are in place for absentee ballots - security envelopes, signatures on the inner and outer envelopes matched to each other, the ballot, and the voter registration entry, ballot harvesting (whether allowed by law - which is insane - or not), and finally, preventing observers from both parties being given meaningful access to verify each and every ballot is a recipe for voter fraud to the extreme - and the evidence is right in front of you, if you choose to look.
And this doesn't even look at the problem with the voting machines and software being owned and controlled by foreign interests (again, all you have to do is look to see the proof of this).
Even one illegal vote - whether by a dead or fictitious person, illegal alien, or by someone illegally voting for someone else, disenfranchises each and every one of us.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
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.
Seeing as you claim to be a federal litigator, you should have access to all of the court filings, right?
Have you even peeked at the filings from the people on his team or working on this issue but not directly on his team (Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, etc)? They have included tons of evidence - but you actually have to go look, not take the word of the CNN talking heads.
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Okay, let's go point by point to explain why each is wrong:
1. We have not seen any affidavits alleging fraud submitted by the Trump campaign and credited by any court. If you believe that this is wrong, please provide a link.
And courts will use their common sense when determining whether or not allegations in affidavits are too outlandish to be credited.
If you submit a sworn affidavit that the sky is red, not blue, courts do not need to consider your testimony true merely because discovery has not occurred.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Okay, let's go point by point to explain why each is wrong:
1. We have not seen any affidavits alleging fraud submitted by the Trump campaign and credited by any court. If you believe that this is wrong, please provide a link.
Sorry. For someone claiming to be a federal litigator, with the experience and tools at their disposal, you would be able to find this easily enough on your own.
It exists. It has been attached to the cases (filed by the Trump Team and/or Sidney Powell's and Lin Wood's cases).
If you can't find it, then you are not what you claim to be and are simply trolling.
And courts will use their common sense when determining whether or not allegations in affidavits are too outlandish to be credited.
There is nothing outlandish about claims of massive voter fraud, when there are literally hundreds and hundreds of affidavits outlining many different avenues of fraud they themselves witnessed.
If you submit a sworn affidavit that the sky is red, not blue, courts do not need to consider your testimony true merely because discovery has not occurred.
I agree, but that is irrelevant. No one has made any demonstrably false claims like that.
Again, your claims that no evidence has been submitted is very simply wrong. Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't make it disappear.
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
I think you need to use quotes when talking about the "evidence" submitted by Powell and Wood.
They submitted a lot of stuff; none of it is reliable evidence of voter fraud.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: johnnylaw16
I think you need to use quotes when talking about the "evidence" submitted by Powell and Wood.
You do you, I'll do me.
They submitted a lot of stuff; none of it is reliable evidence of voter fraud.
I was going to compose a long, rational response to your other inane response to my proof that even one illegal vote disenfranchises all of us, at least to an extent. I never made the claim that it should invalidate an election, I was answering your question about how it disenfranchises anyone. It does, even if it is a microscopic percentage. The more illegal votes, the larger that percentage grows. We are talking about potentially millions of illegal votes.
So, between those two extremes - one illegal vote, vs millions - at what point does it invalidate an election.
All that needs to be done is demonstrate a strong likelihood that it occurred. That will invalidate it.
The PA State Legislature is now getting ready to invalidate theirs and appoint their electors per long and well established Constitutional Process.
This is the first domino. Once they do, the others will follow suit. They know they are in for a world of hurt otherwise.
originally posted by: Gravelbone
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...