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

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
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.

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

Yes and no. It is being appealed to the 11th Circuit because the district court that heard that case already denied it.

Sidney Powell has filed a number of lawsuits lately. Some have not had time to be dismissed yet, but they are quickly heading that way. Her complaints are filled with wild and outlandish allegations, and supported by speculation and conjecture--this is a clear recipe for early dismissal. There is a reason that the Trump team has distanced themselves from Powell and her lawsuits--even they realize that her theories are indefensible and without merit.

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.

Yes and no. I present facts and opinion based on those facts. The facts here are quite simple:
- Courts will dismiss outlandish claims without specific facts and evidence to support them.
- Appellate courts, including the supreme court, do not hear new evidence
- Because of this, lawyers do not "save" evidence for important evidence for later.

From these facts, I draw the conclusion, that if Trump's lawyers had any evidence of fraud, they would have alleged it in court and offered hard evidence to support it. This is an opinion, but based on facts.

Your opinion seems to be that this is not true, and appears to be based on the notion that "surprises often happen." Regardless whether that statement is true (in real litigation, big surprises really aren't that common), it hardly undercuts anything that I have said.

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.

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.

If you cannot see and comprehend this, then you are lost.

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: Sookiechacha
originally posted by: Xtrozero
"Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example."

Of course it was.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it was... and that very same argument can easily be made to support the womans right to terminate her unwanted child one day or one year after birth, too. Sick, sick, sick.

This thread is priceless and a microcosm of ATS.

Federal attorney offers fact-based critical analysis of Trump's legal efforts and that critique upsets the cognitive dissonance: "You're wrong, I studied law at Google U and derpa derpa derpa!"

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...

Exactly.

Otherwise, Sookie, by all means, point to the Article:Section:Clause in the federal Constitution that delegates this power to the federal government.

This was precisely Ron Pauls position as well. It is a States Rights issue, as should be most things like this.

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.

Yep, that reason being... FRAUD.

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.

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. Similarly, if you submit an affidavit claiming voter fraud, you must present some very credible testimony of facts to back it up if you want the court to credit it. This is where Ms. Powell's affidavits run into trouble. She is actually submitting witness affidavits, but they do not amount to evidence of actual fraud. Her "witnesses" state vague facts like a handful of ballots were placed in an incorrect pile, or I think I saw something suspicious. Those types of allegations will not save Ms. Powells cases from dismissal.

2. Please link to any evidence and/or allegations of voter fraud that have been accepted by any court. I think you will be hard-pressed to find any. Indeed, as far as I am aware, Trump's team has put forward exactly ZERO evidence even purporting to show fraud, let alone any evidence that has been credited. Ms. Powell has put forth what she claims is "evidence" but her "evidence" does not support her wild claims and certainly do not support the relief that she is seeking, which is to decertify state-wide election results.

3. I think we agree on discovery: Discovery is a limited process by which parties can gain access to relevant facts possessed by the other side, but this will not occur if their case is dismissed for failure to state a claim, or any other reason.

4. Plausibility is literally the standard by which courts determine whether a complaint should be dismissed or proceed. This standard was set forth in the seminal Supreme Court cases, Twombly and Iqbal. Here are links to both:

scholar.google.com...
scholar.google.com...

If you allege massive voter fraud and submit a sworn affidavit stating "it happened," your case will be thrown out. You need allege specific facts that allow a court to determine that your claims are plausible, not merely possible. While the court will not generally weigh the credibility of an affiant at the dismissal stage, it can and will use common sense to determine whether the testimony offered meets the minimum requirements of admissibility and reliability.

5. You say that I am being ignorant yet offer no evidence that I am incorrect. Again, if you can show that Trump has submitted evidence of voter fraud, or even explicitly alleged it, please do so. I am happy to be proven wrong. I am offering fact-based statements; you are offering petty attacks and no support. Which of us is being deliberately ignorant?

a reply to: Influential358

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.

So we are moving away from fraud and trying to throw out votes made by american citizens due to a technicality?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
My day job is a federal court litigator.

Civil or criminal?

Civ.

You seem to have a number of misgivings about our law and constitution.
As do you.

So far, you have yet to show this to be true.

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.

You don't have to believe me, but based on my experience, I can tell you that it is undeniably true.

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?

I was responding to an earlier post that used the term "mail-in voting"; those were their words not mine. I am not employing a "leftist tactic."

Absentee ballots are a form of mail-in voting, and these can be done reasonably securely and fairly, and does not disenfranchise anyone.

Glad to see we agree on that.

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.

We really went off the rails quickly here, didn't we . . .

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.

So, in your mind, you have just established that we created a recipe for mass voter fraud. Cool. That's incorrect for a number of reasons, but let's just assume that you are correct--the recipe has been made. Where is the evidence? You say that it is "right in front of you" but you provide none. Trump has submitted no evidence of this. And no court has yet credited any purported "evidence" submitted by Powell or others. And as I have repeatedly done with your posts, I invite your again to prove me wrong. I am happy to look at whatever evidence you believe is out there. But much like Trump's attorney's, claiming that the evidence exists without putting it forward will get you nowhere.

There is not currently, nor will there ever be, a credible lawsuit seeking to overturn the election results based on mail-in voting, regardless of your definition of the term. Alleging a "recipe" for fraud is not enough; you need to show real evidence of fraud to get anywhere in court. We have not seen in-court evidence of fraud at all, and we certainly haven't seen evidence that mail-in voting led to massive fraud.

And bringing us back to the origin of this topic, you still have not shown how mail-in voting (however you wish to define it) generally disenfranchises voters. Utah, a strong republican state, has been conducting universal mail in voting for years without issue. Have all of Utah's voters been disenfranchised for years? No. There is simply no court in this country that would overturn any election results on the basis of mail-in voting having occurred (be it limited mail-in voting, or universal mail-in voting, or any other form of mail-in voting).

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).

Shifting gears from mail-in voting I see. You know who else is not looking at this problem: The courts. Why? Because no one but Sidney Powell is even alleging it, much less attempting to prove it. Her case will be dismissed very shortly--it suffers from all of the flaws set forth in the opening post; it is based on conjecture and inference, not fact or evidence. But ask yourself, if voting-machine theory was true and the evidence was as clear as you believe it to be, why has Trump himself not attempted to prove it in court? Why is Trump's team distancing themselves from Powell? The answer is that they are well aware that her voting machine ideas are completely indefensible and meritless. I can't make you believe in reality, all I can do is offer my analysis based on years of federal litigation experience.

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.

I'm not sure what you are even suggesting here. Are you saying that the election should be overturned if one illegal vote is found? No one is arguing that illegal votes should be counted. But unless you have evidence of illegal votes occurring in numbers large enough to affect the outcome of the election, the results will stand.

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.

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. The affidavits they have submitted are either filled with conjecture and surmise, based on opinion and not fact, or are otherwise non-credible. These cases will almost undoubtedly be dismissed very quickly. If you think that there is specific evidence that they have submitted that is credible evidence of fraud, by all means, please post a link.

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: 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.

I hope you can see the great irony here: I started a thread explaining that we can deduce that no true evidence of voter fraud exists because Trump has not yet put any such evidence forward while simultaneously claiming that there is tons of evidence *out there*, and you are attempting to argue that the evidence really is *out there* while also failing to put any forward.

But again, I have looked at the "evidence" submitted by Powell and Wood. It is without merit. A Georgia court already denied Lin Wood's case, and Powell's cases will soon be dismissed too. And again, if these theories had any merit at all, why would Trump not be making them himself? They are meritless. Just reading the complaints you can tell that they are meritless. No judge will allow these cases to move forward. Full stop. If you think that there is any convincing evidence that they have put forward, link to it. But please stop simply saying that the evidence is *out there.* It is not, and I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to your current view of reality, but it is true. As the original post in this thread showed, if the evidence was there, we would have seen it already.

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: 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.

You keep making claims with nothing to back them up.

You state "All that needs to be done is demonstrate a strong likelihood that [mass voter fraud] occurred. That will invalidate [the election]." Setting aside the issue of whether "strong likelihood" the standard of proof that a court would use, the bigger issue is that no one has offered any evidence of mass voter fraud. Even the Wood and Powell cases, while maybe making suggestions of mass voter fraud, do not offer actual evidence of it. And Trump has not even alleged this in court, much less tried to prove it. Provide links if you believe that any of this untrue.

You also state "The PA State Legislature is now getting ready to invalidate theirs and appoint their electors per long and well established Constitutional Process." Where are you even hearing these things? This is simply not true. Please, show us your sources, post links, or admit that you just heard this on a random youtube video and took it as fact.

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...

No, this is all being publicly filed.