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

originally posted by: Influential358

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

This is just an untrue statement all around. The Court has made no such ruling against mail in voting. The issue will not make it to the supreme court, and no lower court will find any merit in this argument.

OP.
Stop lying to yourself. You want there to be no evidence, I get it. But there is more than enough to warrant a courts consideration AND for the media to be updating you and every other citizen, which they are failing to do miserably. hence your lack of knowledge.

hereistheevidence.com...

Keep track here. Some of this I have serious questions on, other claims seem inconsequential. Go through them. Educate yourself on the actual discussion taking place, the claims being made and the sources of those claims.

Stop being a parrot for the media.

To be clear - I am not saying the election was definitely rigged and i believe the Trump campaign has an uphill battle and have a slim chance of winning the election, BUT questions do need to be answered.

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?

Honest question to the OP:

Does this not apply?

In a civil or criminal case, evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial but that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial's completion. Upon later discovery, a losing party may assert after-discovered evidence, a.k.a. newly discovered evidence, as grounds for a court to reconsider a motion or order a new trial.

originally posted by: QUANTUMGR4V17Y
Honest question to the OP:

Does this not apply?

In a civil or criminal case, evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial but that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial's completion. Upon later discovery, a losing party may assert after-discovered evidence, a.k.a. newly discovered evidence, as grounds for a court to reconsider a motion or order a new trial.

That is a generally true statement, but it's not clear to me how it is relevant here. My point is that Trump is constantly talking about all of the evidence that they already have, and yet, he is not putting forward this evidence in court. Because he is claiming to already have the evidence, it would be difficult to later claim that the evidence was unavailable.

originally posted by: UKTruth
OP.
Stop lying to yourself. You want there to be no evidence, I get it. But there is more than enough to warrant a courts consideration AND for the media to be updating you and every other citizen, which they are failing to do miserably. hence your lack of knowledge.

hereistheevidence.com...

Keep track here. Some of this I have serious questions on, other claims seem inconsequential. Go through them. Educate yourself on the actual discussion taking place, the claims being made and the sources of those claims.

Stop being a parrot for the media.

To be clear - I am not saying the election was definitely rigged and i believe the Trump campaign has an uphill battle and have a slim chance of winning the election, BUT questions do need to be answered.

As you yourself state, the purported "evidence" on that site is largely questionable and/or inconsequential. I've gone through much of the "evidence" on that site, it is not "evidence" that courts will credit. If you believe that specific pieces of evidence are meritorious, please link to them. But as a whole, that site has nothing of consequence. If you disagree, I challenge you to find any "evidence" of voter fraud on that site that has been credited by any court.

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.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

No, my opinion is that you are merely stating what is the usual course of procedure in the courts, but you are adding to that in an attempt at being a psychic who can do precognition and tell everyone what is going to happen even though you don't really know.

The rest of your statements are pure speculation and supposition of future events that haven't happened yet. "If this happened they would have done this or that blah blah blah. Nice guess work but meaningless.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

No, my opinion is that you are merely stating what is the usual course of procedure in the courts, but you are adding to that in an attempt at being a psychic who can do precognition and tell everyone what is going to happen even though you don't really know.

Extrapolation from facts and history is not a psychic power--it is deductive reasoning; it is logic. We can say with confidence what will happen based on the facts and history that we have at our disposal. You can choose to believe that something else will occur, but my analysis is supported, yours is not. In this instance, we can say with confidence that there is not legitimate evidence of mass voter fraud because reason and logic tells us with a high degree of certainty that such evidence would have been filed in court already if it existed.

I wish I were psychic, but this is just the power of normal human cognition.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Alrighty then, lets wait and see what really happens. My intuition tells me it isn't going to turn out like you are expecting it to. Lets wait and see.

a reply to: UKTruth

Sad if there was this much irregularities in any other process there would be audits down to the foundation, and out the wazoo. From taxes to businesses dealings.

But since it’s votes concerning person’s freedom and civil liberties, USA votes on Election Day are half a$$’d counted over night in a mathematical spasm, then called good? With total disregard for “chain of evidence” on controlling the process? And then people have to beg to have quality control and audits conducted. When it should be part of any election.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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!"

Well to be fair, they picked the wrong angle to approach this topic.

I'm sure they'd be met with a lot of praise if they said it looks like all the litigation is going swimmingly for Trump and Co.

Also, they seem too sensible and logical. It's almost like they're not driven by emotion. That's stike two.

Joking aside, thanks for the read OP. Kudos for calmly explaining a position.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

Gore in 2000 didn't think 11/28 was D-day... didn't he recount until the middle of Dec?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Alrighty then, lets wait and see what really happens. My intuition tells me it isn't going to turn out like you are expecting it to. Lets wait and see.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not saying any of this to be mean. But this is not a case of you might be right or I might be right, only time will tell. One of us presenting a fact-based argument. You are stating that your "intuition" tells you something different. You are free to feel that way, and it is your right to state as much. But nonetheless that is not a valid argument, and if should be made clear to anyone that reads this that you view point should not be credited unless and until you present some basis for your beliefs other than intuition.

The same applies to everyone on this thread that continually says that the "evidence" is out there without pointing to any. Stop believing internet videos, Lin Wood, and Sidney Powell. Investigate the actual evidence that has been put forth (or total lack thereof) and not just the summaries and conjecture of others. It can be discomfiting to realize that your sincerely-held belief is not consistent with reality, but challenging your own beliefs in a necessary exercise of any well-informed individual.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I'm sure they'd be met with a lot of praise if they said it looks like all the litigation is going swimmingly for Trump and Co.

Of that I have no doubt, there's actual evidence to support this too, unlike all the lawsuits.

originally posted by: djz3ro
I'd trust the Professional Opinion of a Federal Court Litigator in this case over anyone else. They know the law of the land.

Why do you never see all 9 SC judges vote the same?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UKTruth

Sad if there was this much irregularities in any other process there would be audits down to the foundation, and out the wazoo. From taxes to businesses dealings.

But since it’s votes concerning person’s freedom and civil liberties, USA votes on Election Day are half a$$’d counted over night in a mathematical spasm, then called good? With total disregard for “chain of evidence” on controlling the process? And then people have to beg to have quality control and audits conducted. When it should be part of any election.

Please post links of the irregularities and disregard for rules to which you are referring. People throw out these terms like it is an obvious fact that such things occurred. If that were the case there would be evidence. Hard, verifiable evidence.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why do you never see all 9 SC judges vote the same?

Those 5-to-4 decisions on the Supreme Court? 9 to 0 is far more common.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

Gore in 2000 didn't think 11/28 was D-day... didn't he recount until the middle of Dec?

I think you are missing the point. The point of this thread is that any evidence of fraud would have already been presented in court. In 2000, nothing new came to light in the later weeks preceding the election call. Here too, we can expect that no new evidence will come to light.

Moreover, in 2000, the issue was a difference of hundreds of votes. Here, there is no state in which the margin is even remotely close to the difference in Florida in 2000. None of the recounts has any chance of impacting the results.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

Woe vs Wade was a poor choice for me since it sets Sookie off as she been told her whole life that unless the SC has 9 RBGs her female rights will be ripped back 100 years...

The 14th and 9th can apply to anything if one wants to stretch them to any point with zero precedence in doing do. I do agree they applied the 14th incorrectly, but they did use the 14th as their foundation, so I guess it was constitutional based, but then I could use the 14th to argue about my dog pooping too with such a broad reach I guess...