Texas lawsuit shot down by Supreme Court December 11th 2020

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I thought that no evidence was considered. Isn't that what you said?

Now you're saying that the judges who considered it were just "stupid?"

Trump lost. Get over it.

originally posted by: Phage
No evidence has been presented in court.

Since when are affidavits of of first-hand physically present eyewitness no evidence? It wasn't hearsay, but was dismissed as it by biased judges.

The sooner you come to terms to that, the sooner we can start fixing our justice system.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Since when are affidavits of of first-hand physically present eyewitness no evidence?

Sorry, I meant physical evidence.

It wasn't hearsay, but was dismissed as it by biased judges.

Some was hearsay, some was misinterpretation of the facts. Some was just plain not credible. According to the judge. And the judge is the judge.

You said no evidence was considered. You were wrong. You just said so.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I thought that no evidence was considered. Isn't that what you said?

Now you're saying that the judges who considered it were just "stupid?"

Trump lost. Get over it.

No I said no evidence was looked at. Get your facts straight.

They dismissed affidavits as hearsay when they clearly and factually were not. Statements from first-hand physically present witnesses are not hearsay. The lawyers were stepped on, mocked and railroaded by the judge when trying to explain that.

The judge basically put his fingers in his ears and closed his eyes and said "hearsay, hearsay, hearsay!". Didn't even bother too ask or look at anything else.

Trump didn't lose. Cheating isn't winning.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

No I said no evidence was looked at.

Affidavits are not evidence? Seems like the judge must have read them to have said anything about them.

The judge basically put his fingers in his ears and closed his eyes and said "hearsay, hearsay, hearsay!".

Were you there?

originally posted by: Phage
Sorry, I meant physical evidence.

Yeah, keep moving the goal post.

Tell me, what physical evidence was available to the plaintiffs?!

That is the main problem that they argue.

Paper ballots and electronic data are locked away from the plaintiffs. They don't have access to it. During an election, one with "observers", there is only witness testimony.

Those "observers" are not allowed to just walk up and start downloading the cheated data from the tabulators, or start taking pictures and physical ballots for evidence! GET REAL!

originally posted by: PhageSome was hearsay, some was misinterpretation of the facts. Some was just plain not credible. According to the judge. And the judge is the judge.

Biased judges don't judge. They just rule.

originally posted by: Phage
You said no evidence was considered. You were wrong. You just said so.

No, I said no evidence was looked at. All we had were biased blind "judges" with their fingers in their ears baselessly calling everything hearsay.

originally posted by: Phage
Affidavits are not evidence?

Affidavits are evidence.

originally posted by: Phage
Seems like the judge must have read them to have said anything about them.

You would think so! That clearly wasn't the case. More like the judge pretended to read them, and decided to call them hearsay when they were not. The judge just called it all hearsay. Even ones that were first-hand witness testimony. How can first-hand witness be legal hearsay? It can't.

originally posted by: Phage
Were you there?

Were you?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Yeah, keep moving the goal post.

Not really. Since affidavits are and have been the only evidence presented.

Those "observers" are not allow to just walk up and start downloading the cheated data from the tabulators, or start taking pictures and physical ballots for evidence! GET REAL!

Is that required by law? Was it different for Democrats and Republicans? Could observers in Texas have that access? Why not sue Texas?

originally posted by: Phage

Yeah, keep moving the goal post.

Not really. Since affidavits are the have been the only evidence presented.

I noticed you dodged the question. What physical evidence was available to the plaintiffs? They don't have legal access to the ballots or elections systems unless the judge allows discovery.

What physical evidence do you expect from a paper and electric election? You think they are going to walk in with 100s of thousands of real ballots and go through each one? Nope. Walk in with the election database and tally files? Nope. They can't legally do any of that.

One judge actually did allow discovery, and did allow them to look at Dominion Voting Machines. Then the judge sealed the findings!

originally posted by: Phage
Is that required by law?

Is what required by law? Observing is required by law. If an observer can't see what they are supposed to observe, then they are not technically observing. Being present only is not observing.

originally posted by: Phage
Was it different for Democrats and Republicans?

What would that matter? Your question is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Phage
Could observers in Texas have that access? Why not sue Texas?

Irrelevant.

The US elections are a joke. Why even have "observers" when any legal challenges brought up are brushed off as "hearsay" by biased judges?

Then the ignorant ask for "physical evidence" when the plaintiffs don't have legal access to ballots or voting systems without the judge's approval?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I noticed you dodged the question. What physical evidence was available to the plaintiffs?

No. I just don't know the answer.

One judge actually did allow discovery, and did allow them to look at Dominion Voting Machines. The the judge sealed the findings!

Is that the case that involved the marijuana thing?

Observing is required by law. If an observer can't see what they are supposed to observe, then they are not technically observing.

What are they supposed to be able to observe? According to law? Ballot counters going the the restroom to make sure they don't do something nefarious?

Irrelevant.

Hardly. The fact that Trump won Texas and yet Texas has not been subject to the same nonsense that states where he lost have indicates that it not a concern of legality or fraud at all.

originally posted by: Phage
No. I just don't know the answer.

Well then figure it out. We'd all like to know.

originally posted by: Phage
Is that the case that involved the marijuana thing?

I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Phage
What are they supposed to be able to observe? According to law? Ballot counters going the the restroom to make sure they don't do something nefarious?

Well for one, if they are "curing" ballots observers need to be able to see any markings or changes made. You can't see that from 50 feet away behind a gate.

Read more.
www.ncsl.org...

originally posted by: Phage
Hardly. The fact that Trump won Texas and yet Texas has not been subject to the same nonsense that states where he lost have indicates that it not a concern of legality or fraud at all.

Time is of most importance. Trump's legal team should only focus on states where irregularities or concerns were actually reported. I don't know of any observed issues in Texas.

Regarding your comment about indication "that its not a concern of legality or fraud at all". That is debunked.

www.freep.com...

Trump easily won Antrim County, MI. However, his lawyers still asked to audit the Dominion Voting Machines there. That is because very troubling events took place on election night where it was first announced that Biden won, but later changed to Trump. That is very suspicious, like they got caught trying to cheat and tried to cover it up.

That is when ACTUAL HEARSAY came out that it was user error while using the Dominion tabulation software. No evidence of user error, just real hearsay. The judge granted the audit of the machines, but then sealed the findings due to "national security".

the audacity and brazzenness of you, to openly lie and pretend like the regime stealing the election represents the will of the people. Reading posts like yours and being reminded people like you exist, honestly you are the reason there will be no reconciliation. Only a civil war. you are beyond hopeless. I will not be participating in this rigged electoral system anymore.

reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: Bearmonger

Your side lost. The majority won. The will of the people won.

I know this is an emotional time for you and in four years you'll probably be back voting again.
Just take some time to process your failure. The American people have stood up and said no more to Trump's regime and no more to the hate and divide he's sown throughout the country.

Now is the time to come together and unite.... or if you don't like it you are free to leave. Bye.

originally posted by: carewemust
We might as well hand the Georgia Senate races over to the Democrats.

They have blanketed the state with over 5 million ballots already.

The election officials do not need to be worried about any reprisals or enforcement.

With no actual post election audits to ensure accuracy and authenticity of ballots, and no independent means to verify the voting machines tallied correctly. Able to change voter law outside the legislature. With no desire to clean up voter registrations to remove the dead, and those that moved.

What comes around goes around....

blockclubchicago.org...

Here are a few of the tricks the Machine used:

• Electoral rolls are supposed to keep track of who is registered to vote. The rolls would be rigged so dead people’s names still appeared on them, Crawford said, meaning others could vote for the candidate of their choice in the dead person’s name.

Sometimes, people working for the Machine would even go into cemeteries and take the names off of tombstones, then go back and fill out voter registration cards with the dead person’s names as if they were still alive, Crawford said.

• Election judges are supposed to keep an eye out for anything fishy at the polls. Republicans had a small presence in the city, though, and it was difficult to find Republican volunteers for the post, Crawford said.

Democrats would pretend to be Republicans and would volunteer, meaning there were actually two Democrats at polling places. Officers who provided security got their jobs from the Machine and weren’t going to say anything about what happened, Crawford said.

• People would be promised $5, a warm meal or a drink at the local pub to vote for the “right” people, said Crawford and Simpson.

Sometimes, the precinct captain would steal a ballot, mark it and give it to someone to turn in, Simpson said. That person would then bring the blank ballot they’d been given at the polling place back to the captain, who’d fill it out for the next person to come in, and so on.

And I use to hate when people said my vote doesn’t matter. And they might have been right all along.

originally posted by: Hamlin
a reply to: Bearmonger

Your side lost. The majority won. The will of the people won.

I know this is an emotional time for you and in four years you'll probably be back voting again.
Just take some time to process your failure. The American people have stood up and said no more to Trump's regime and no more to the hate and divide he's sown throughout the country.

Now is the time to come together and unite.... or if you don't like it you are free to leave. Bye.

This is the side that won.

Schumer Flashback: "You Take On The Intelligence Community, They Have Six Ways From Sunday of Getting Back At You"

charliekirk.com...

Those that make sanctioned threats.

originally posted by: Hamlin
a reply to: Bearmonger

Your side lost. The majority won. The will of the people won.

I know this is an emotional time for you and in four years you'll probably be back voting again.
Just take some time to process your failure. The American people have stood up and said no more to Trump's regime and no more to the hate and divide he's sown throughout the country.

Now is the time to come together and unite.... or if you don't like it you are free to leave. Bye.

The majority won.The will of the people won.American people have stood up and said,no more...
Trump's regime? No more to the hate and divide he's sown through out the country...
I don't know what planet you're yapping about but it's not Earth.The ones spreading the hate and
division through our country was the democrats and their brown shirt minions! WE are not the ones
burning down cities,looting,harming others...WE will finish what your side started when push comes
to shove!

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: Hamlin
a reply to: Bearmonger

Your side lost. The majority won. The will of the people won.

I know this is an emotional time for you and in four years you'll probably be back voting again.
Just take some time to process your failure. The American people have stood up and said no more to Trump's regime and no more to the hate and divide he's sown throughout the country.

Now is the time to come together and unite.... or if you don't like it you are free to leave. Bye.

The majority won.The will of the people won.American people have stood up and said,no more...
Trump's regime? No more to the hate and divide he's sown through out the country...
I don't know what planet you're yapping about but it's not Earth.The ones spreading the hate and
division through our country was the democrats and their brown shirt minions! WE are not the ones
burning down cities,looting,harming others...WE will finish what your side started when push comes
to shove!

Only if you view it as a Traditionalist (basically, white, Midwest, Christian, patriotic, etc). Traditionalists are easier to control, because they’re already controlled. They just can’t see it.

Non-Traditionalists are fighting for equality, as they should. And you’re right, many are not controlled. They are the free ones. The free thinkers.

Some are Left, many are Other.

a reply to: Annee

Well,I am basically white,live in Ohio,Christian and Patriotic.
Easier to control,wait until January 20,2021 if Biden gets sworn
in! I won't accept him as my president,he didn't win fair and
square.

Well, luckily most of the morons on this thread do not know anything about the legal process. When the Supreme Court said Texas did not have standing to bring all the states court challenge, what it means (listen up morons) is that Texas cannot do everyone's work. Each state they named must file suit themselves.
So, what this does is give up to 16 separate court cases for the Supreme Court to process.

God bless President Trump and my the atheistic, communist & socialist criminals get what they deserve.