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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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?

That happens quite often actually. In fact 9-0 decisions are much more common than the 5-4 partisan splits.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

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.

I fully understand your point and agree with you based on what we know today. I even said last week that time is running out and this is not a case of holding the good stuff until the end. If Trump/team doesn't provide evidence soon and at a level that would actually make a difference...such as 1000 voters frauds means nothing if the split is 60,000 then Trump is done.

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.

I agree, but I don't think all evidence is possible at the snap of one's fingers. We are talking about an extremely short period of time here to collect. Lets just say there was mass voter fraud... How long does it take to get vote machines, servers in other countries etc and analyze the software for hidden tools, manual recount votes to match up as what is on the server, even if possible? Even with voter fraud this could be a losing battle that could take a very long time to gather the evidence well past Biden being President.

One other area of interest is a number of states have in their constitution that a citizen of their state has the right to vote in person or request a ballot by mail, nothing else is a legal ballot. There is nothing that allows for mass mailing, and if the state wanted to do that then that would need to be put to a vote first. So the question I have in this area is whether some states over stepped their constitution in this urgent decision for mass mailing?

Lastly I think the voting process is much bigger than who is actually elected this time, so I hope in the end all this focus on it will prove more open and better paths for it to be done right so that all can have faith in the process all the way down to collecting votes at voting drop off points with bipartisan oversite, storing them securely, verify signatures/date stamps/inconsistencies by all parties, transferring to a electronic vote with electronic signature of place/time when it was transferred, saving all the paper information better, not using thumb drives to collect votes, or have any way "human error" can move 1000s of votes, or even having any possibility to touch an electronic vote in anyway, secured servers here in our country, use different software that doesn't have such a history or owned by foreigners.

I personally can see the possibility of fraud at each and every step I wrote above and I'm sure many other do to, to include Warren and a group of her democratic cohorts a few years ago, so maybe today this is a Conservative concern, but it is truly a bipartisan event.

a reply to: johnnylaw16
The affidavits allege fraud. The fact that deceased voters cast votes is undeniable fraud. Are you suggesting that the courts are dismissing these cases because they are not being presented with fraudulent ballots, or just that the judge does not believe the fraud is wide scale enough to effect the outcome?
Fraud is obvious, the scale of fraud is what needs to be determined. Do all ballots need to be subpoenaed for this case to get legs, or is it possible that a judge may ask for a sampling? It would seem that there are special parameters surrounding a private ballot.
As an American, I have been disenfranchised, and the justice system does owe me recourse

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

That happens quite often actually. In fact 9-0 decisions are much more common than the 5-4 partisan splits.

I agree but I was thinking along those partisan lines... In any event 9-0 is still only in about 30% of the cases, and that leaves a lot of grey area open with very little true black and white.

Once again, there are multiple issues with these statements.

originally posted by: Xtrozero


I agree, but I don't think all evidence is possible at the snap of one's fingers. We are talking about an extremely short period of time here to collect. Lets just say there was mass voter fraud... How long does it take to get vote machines, servers in other countries etc and analyze the software for hidden tools, manual recount votes to match up as what is on the server, even if possible? Even with voter fraud this could be a losing battle that could take a very long time to gather the evidence well past Biden being President.

Getting voting machines and servers in other countries is never going to happen. To even get to point where that was remotely conceivable, you would need evidence of fraud having occurred, and we don't have that. If that evidence existed, then it would already be present. It is not present because it does not exist. Pinning hopes to some mass conspiracy involving dominion et al. is an exercise in futility.

One other area of interest is a number of states have in their constitution that a citizen of their state have the right to vote in person or request a ballot by mail. There is nothing that allows for mass mailing, and if the state wanted to do that then that would need to be put to a vote first. So the question I have in this area is whether some states over stepped their constitution in this urgent decision for mass mailing?

This is not true. Just because a state constitution specifically allows certain things, that does not mean that others are disallowed. The fact that a citizen can expressly request a ballot does not mean that the state cannot send them one without a request. There is no constitutional issue (state or national) based on the fact that you have set forth.

Lastly I think the voting process is much bigger than who is actually elected this time, so I hope in the end all this focus on it will prove more open and better paths for it to be done right so that all can have faith in the process all the way down to collecting votes at voting drop off points with bipartisan oversite, storing them securely, verify signatures/date stamps/inconsistencies by all parties, transferring to a electronic vote with electronic signature of place/time when it was transferred, saving all the paper information better, not using thumb drives to collect votes, or have anyway "human error" can move 1000s of votes, or even having any possibility to touch an electronic vote in anyway, secured servers here in our country, use different software that doesn't have such a history or owned by foreigners.

There are a lot of catchphrase here and buzzwords but very little in the way of substance. There has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. If there was, there would be court cases easily won on the issue. It's fine to want the things that you have set forth, but it is irrefutable that the status quo has yielded no evidence of mass fraud or exploitation by anyone. If you disagree, please show us where any such evidence has been credibly set forth.

I personally can see the possibility of fraud at each and every step I wrote above and I'm sure many other do to, to include Warren and a group of her democratic cohorts a few years ago, so maybe today this is a Conservative concern, but it is truly a bipartisan event.

What you can "personally [] see" makes no difference. The point of this thread is to take out of the equation what people on either side are "feeling," or "believe," or "intuit." Those things are meaningless. Facts and evidence are what prove one's points. You have offered neither.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: johnnylaw16
The affidavits allege fraud. The fact that deceased voters cast votes is undeniable fraud. Are you suggesting that the courts are dismissing these cases because they are not being presented with fraudulent ballots, or just that the judge does not believe the fraud is wide scale enough to effect the outcome?
Fraud is obvious, the scale of fraud is what needs to be determined. Do all ballots need to be subpoenaed for this case to get legs, or is it possible that a judge may ask for a sampling? It would seem that there are special parameters surrounding a private ballot.
As an American, I have been disenfranchised, and the justice system does owe me recourse

Please, link to "the affidavits" to which you refer. There are no affidavits setting forth direct evidence of mass voter fraud. The courts are not being presented with the evidence (because the evidence does not exist). All of these cases are publicly filed and the evidence is searchable. Find one case where these purported affidavits and evidence of which you speak are being presented to courts. Trump is certainly not doing it. Wood and Powell claim to be doing but a close review of their purported "evidence" shows that they cannot substantiate their allegations. If you have any facts or evidence to contradict my statements, please link to it. But simply stating that the evidence exists without showing it is the very falsehood that this thread was created to disprove.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: johnnylaw16

As an American, I have been disenfranchised, and the justice system does owe me recourse

I should add: You can breathe a sigh of relief. You have not been disenfranchised. There was no mass voter fraud. If there was, there would be evidence. We would see it in court. We are not seeing evidence in court, and thus, we can determine that the evidence does not exist. Congratulations! Your vote counted, just as it was supposed to; it was not diluted by thousands of dead people voting or illegal ballot tampering or the anything of the like.

You may not want to or even be capable of believing this, but it makes it no less true. if you want to debate the accuracy of the statement above, please come to the table with facts and evidence--not statements that the facts and evidence are out there somewhere but actual facts and evidence.

So where are we at here? Johnny 50 points, Trumpers at ..hmm..zero points.

Never seen the floor cleaned so eloquently here. The beauty of truth is that you cannot argue against it. Though you can try, I suppose...

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Getting voting machines and servers in other countries is never going to happen. To even get to point where that was remotely conceivable, you would need evidence of fraud having occurred, and we don't have that. If that evidence existed, then it would already be present. It is not present because it does not exist. Pinning hopes to some mass conspiracy involving dominion et al. is an exercise in futility.

Well it is suggested they already have the servers... Also did you read my last line...lol

this could be a losing battle that could take a very long time to gather the evidence well past Biden being President.

This is not true. Just because a state constitution specifically allows certain things, that does not mean that others are disallowed. The fact that a citizen can expressly request a ballot does not mean that the state cannot send them one without a request. There is no constitutional issue (state or national) based on the fact that you have set forth.

I don't know if it is true or not. That is why I said it is a point of interest... It seems others think there is...I find it kind of illogical to specifically allow certain things, but then say the constitution didn't specifically disallow mass mailings so that is good too. It didn't specifically disallow smoke signals either...Going to be a hell of a long list of disallows..lol

There are a lot of catchphrase here and buzzwords but very little in the way of substance. There has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. If there was, there would be court cases easily won on the issue. It's fine to want the things that you have set forth, but it is irrefutable that the status quo has yielded no evidence of mass fraud or exploitation by anyone. If you disagree, please show us where any such evidence has been credibly set forth.

True, but we never had a election like this either, so suggesting something doesn't match historically is moot.

irrefutable that the status quo has yielded no evidence of mass fraud or exploitation

"Yet"...you forgot that word in your statement...You might be 100% correct, but also 100% wrong...we will see.

What you can "personally [] see" makes no difference. The point of this thread is to take out of the equation what people on either side are "feeling," or "believe," or "intuit." Those things are meaningless. Facts and evidence are what prove one's points. You have offered neither.

I'm a voter, right? Convince me there is no mass fraud, then do it to 74 million others, and a few years ago to the Democrat leadership and 80 million of their voters when they lose the House in 2022.. You missed my point...

Convince 330 million that OJ was innocent...Good luck

a reply to: johnnylaw16
So you are of the opinion that voter rolls are botched and that dead people did not actually vote? You presented yourself as unbiased, is this not the case? I have seen some of the affidavits, and as such I can assume that the source reporting 182 affidavits is reliable... if I had more time on my hands I would put together my own investigation, unfortunately I am a working stiff and have little time on my hands

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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

I was thinking in terms of partisan cases, but 9-0 is about 30%...I never suggest 5-4 was the most common.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I was thinking in terms of partisan cases, but 9-0 is about 30%...I never suggest 5-4 was the most common.

9-0 is the most common.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Getting voting machines and servers in other countries is never going to happen. To even get to point where that was remotely conceivable, you would need evidence of fraud having occurred, and we don't have that. If that evidence existed, then it would already be present. It is not present because it does not exist. Pinning hopes to some mass conspiracy involving dominion et al. is an exercise in futility.

Well it is suggested they already have the servers... Also did you read my last line...lol

this could be a losing battle that could take a very long time to gather the evidence well past Biden being President.

This is not true. Just because a state constitution specifically allows certain things, that does not mean that others are disallowed. The fact that a citizen can expressly request a ballot does not mean that the state cannot send them one without a request. There is no constitutional issue (state or national) based on the fact that you have set forth.

I don't know if it is true or not. That is why I said it is a point of interest... It seems others think there is...I find it kind of illogical to specifically allow certain things, but then say the constitution didn't specifically disallow mass mailings so that is good too. It didn't specifically disallow smoke signals either...Going to be a hell of a long list of disallows..lol

There are a lot of catchphrase here and buzzwords but very little in the way of substance. There has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. If there was, there would be court cases easily won on the issue. It's fine to want the things that you have set forth, but it is irrefutable that the status quo has yielded no evidence of mass fraud or exploitation by anyone. If you disagree, please show us where any such evidence has been credibly set forth.

True, but we never had a election like this either, so suggesting something doesn't match historically is moot.

irrefutable that the status quo has yielded no evidence of mass fraud or exploitation

"Yet"...you forgot that word in your statement...You might be 100% correct, but also 100% wrong...we will see.

What you can "personally [] see" makes no difference. The point of this thread is to take out of the equation what people on either side are "feeling," or "believe," or "intuit." Those things are meaningless. Facts and evidence are what prove one's points. You have offered neither.

I'm a voter, right? Convince me there is no mass fraud, then do it to 74 million others, and a few years ago to the Democrat leadership and 80 million of their voters when they lose the House in 2022.. You missed my point...

Convince 330 million that OJ was innocent...Good luck

Again, this thread is all about what evidence is out actually out there. You said it is suggested that they have "the servers." They do not. If they had servers and anything incriminating was on them we would know about it because there would be evidence of it filed court.

You seem to misunderstand how state constitutions and laws work. If universal mail in voting is not prohibited by a state constitution, then the state can enact it. Voting by smoke signal is not prohibited, so the state could enact it. The state would not choose to enact voting by smoke signal because that makes no sense. Thus, the need to expressly state that voting by smoke signal is prohibited under the state constitution is not necessary.

You say that we have never had an election like "this" but that is not really true. In fact we have had election much closer than this one. This one, like all the ones before it, does not have any indications of mass voter fraud. To repeat myself, we know this because evidence of such voter fraud has not been presented in court. Thus, this election is strikingly similar to the ones that have preceded it. What is different is this election has many people talking about voter fraud without any evidence and that is a fact without consequence.

I have done my best to convince you that there is no voter fraud, but I cannot do more than present you with facts and logic. If that is not enough for you, that is a problem that you should likely explore deeper on your own. It is unfortunate that so many believe these hysterical claims of voter fraud when no evidence of such fraud is being put forward. If the evidence existed we would see it in the courts. Trump is free to put forth any evidence that he wants, and he as every incentive to do so. His lack of evidence demonstrates that the purported evidence does not exist.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: johnnylaw16
So you are of the opinion that voter rolls are botched and that dead people did not actually vote? You presented yourself as unbiased, is this not the case? I have seen some of the affidavits, and as such I can assume that the source reporting 182 affidavits is reliable... if I had more time on my hands I would put together my own investigation, unfortunately I am a working stiff and have little time on my hands

Yes, yes--the oft repeated refrain of the evidence exists, but I just don't have the time to find it.. Is that true of everyone on this entire site, because no one has come for with links to specific, credible evidence. Dead people did not vote. You may find a one-off instance of where this occurred but you will not find evidence of wide-spread fraud, be it by dead people or otherwise. If you believe this is false, prove it (or continue to burry your head in the sand and trust "your gut.")

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

9-0 is the most common.

My point was not which combination was the most common it was that the system isn't black and white, there is a lot of grey in it otherwise 9-0 would happen in almost every case, but its about 30%...So as I said that leaves a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's not even remotely close to what you typed.

They do not.

I don't know, but you seem 100% sure...

You seem to misunderstand how state constitutions and laws work. If universal mail in voting is not prohibited by a state constitution, then the state can enact it.

I guess my point is why list anything if everything is not prohibited and just let the state enact what it wants. From what I read the Constitution lists the two ways of in person and mail-ins if requested... That is the illogical part to me in they really do not need to list anything then, and each election they can enact whatever they see fit.

You say that we have never had an election like "this" but that is not really true. In fact we have had election much closer than this one.

How close was not my point it was the sheer magnitude of mass mail-ins. We have never seen that before and that opened up doors for fraud not available before.

I have done my best to convince you that there is no voter fraud, but I cannot do more than present you with facts and logic. If that is not enough for you, that is a problem that you should likely explore deeper on your own. It is unfortunate that so many believe these hysterical claims of voter fraud when no evidence of such fraud is being put forward. If the evidence existed we would see it in the courts. Trump is free to put forth any evidence that he wants, and he as every incentive to do so. His lack of evidence demonstrates that the purported evidence does not exist.

No you can't...I want to see all the cards on the table, you telling me what the cards are is not enough... Even if Trump fails it doesn't instantly rule out voter fraud and irregularities that need to be addressed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

That's not even remotely close to what you typed.

The post line went 4 or 5 deep..

This is what johnnylaw16 said..

That happens quite often actually. In fact 9-0 decisions are much more common than the 5-4 partisan splits.

this is me in reply...

I agree but I was thinking along those partisan lines... In any event 9-0 is still only in about 30% of the cases, and that leaves a lot of grey area open with very little true black and white.

As I said I wasn't trying to suggest which combination was the most common 8 -1 through 5-4 is still all grey area.

I guess my point is why list anything if everything is not prohibited and just let the state enact what it wants. From what I read the Constitution lists the two ways of in person and mail-ins if requested... That is the illogical part to me in they really do not need to list anything then, and each election they can enact whatever they see fit.

Here's a good article explaining why a recent lawsuit on this topic in PA was dismissed: www.law360.com...

No you can't...I want to see all the cards on the table, you telling me what the cards are is not enough... Even if Trump fails it doesn't instantly rule out voter fraud and irregularities that need to be addressed.

And my point is that all of the cards are already on the table. Anything of significance would have been already submitted to a court.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Anything of significance would have been already submitted to a court.

I'm thinking there could be things that carry on well after Biden is President, unless you feel 2 weeks is enough to investigate everything fully.