Confirmed that Biden won the State of Georgia by 12,284 votes in the recount.
Another loss for loser Trump!!
Another loss for loser Trump!!
The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
True, nobody expected today's Rudy Surprise!
I didn't think he'd be able to up himself after Borat, but I have to hand it to him.
This sums up the presser today.
Sidney Powell is a nut...she want's five swing states turned over and Trump to be declared the winner of the election...she is full of conspiracy theories with no evidence...Trump found her when she appeared on FOX news, even Tucker Carlson is bailing on her.
Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
On Thursday, Rudy Giuliani and a number of the president's other lawyers held a press conference on the topic of voter fraud. If you didn't actually see it, you've probably heard about it by now.
www.foxnews.com
Last edited:
Carlson says she stopped responded when asked for proof.Sidney Powell is a nut...she want's five swing states turned over and Trump to be declared the winner of the election...she is full of conspiracy theories with no evidence...Trump found her when she appeared on FOX news, even Tucker Carlson is bailing on her.
Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
On Thursday, Rudy Giuliani and a number of the president's other lawyers held a press conference on the topic of voter fraud. If you didn't actually see it, you've probably heard about it by now.
The Trump legal team filed an appeal of their suit in Pennsylvania:
thehill.com
Seems, for all the talk that there is "no evidence", the lower court wasn't prepared to actually hear any of the evidence outlined in the affidavits. It seems the standard that is being applied by the lower courts is "if you can prove, without calling witnesses, that votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted, THEN we'll listen to your evidence to prove votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted" - a seemingly illogical and impossible standard for a litigant, who is claiming that fraud is being concealed by those in public office, to meet.
On to the state appeal courts.
Trump campaign appeals dismissal of Pennsylvania election challenge
President Trump’s campaign on Sunday filed a notice of appeal after a federal judge dismissed Trump’s attempt to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania.Attorneys for the president’s …
thehill.com
Seems, for all the talk that there is "no evidence", the lower court wasn't prepared to actually hear any of the evidence outlined in the affidavits. It seems the standard that is being applied by the lower courts is "if you can prove, without calling witnesses, that votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted, THEN we'll listen to your evidence to prove votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted" - a seemingly illogical and impossible standard for a litigant, who is claiming that fraud is being concealed by those in public office, to meet.
On to the state appeal courts.
Here is the actual appeal motion:
It appears to be narrowly focussed on the lower court's denial of permission to amend the Trump campaigns original complaint.
It appears to be narrowly focussed on the lower court's denial of permission to amend the Trump campaigns original complaint.
Nothing in your article says that.The Trump legal team filed an appeal of their suit in Pennsylvania:
Trump campaign appeals dismissal of Pennsylvania election challenge
President Trump’s campaign on Sunday filed a notice of appeal after a federal judge dismissed Trump’s attempt to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania.Attorneys for the president’s …
Seems, for all the talk that there is "no evidence", the lower court wasn't prepared to actually hear any of the evidence outlined in the affidavits. It seems the standard that is being applied by the lower courts is "if you can prove, without calling witnesses, that votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted, THEN we'll listen to your evidence to prove votes were switched, illegally added, or unlawsfully counted" - a seemingly illogical and impossible standard for a litigant, who is claiming that fraud is being concealed by those in public office, to meet.
On to the state appeal courts.
Why be so coy? LOL! What do you think is really going on?
I linked the actual appeal motion in my next post.
Dutch -
Lawyers dumping conspiracy theories is not evidence.
Getting “expert” testimony from joe jerkoff explaining a conspiracy theory is not evidence.
Getting any affidavit from jimmy jerkoff to sign off on a conspiracy theory they believe In is not evidence.
What lawyers state as fraud in press conferences is not evidence. Especially when they are not willing to make the same claims in the court of law under the fear of professional penalty.
Lawyers dumping conspiracy theories is not evidence.
Getting “expert” testimony from joe jerkoff explaining a conspiracy theory is not evidence.
Getting any affidavit from jimmy jerkoff to sign off on a conspiracy theory they believe In is not evidence.
What lawyers state as fraud in press conferences is not evidence. Especially when they are not willing to make the same claims in the court of law under the fear of professional penalty.
They had to withdraw all the affidavits as they admitted lots were faked and they couldn't tell if any were legit.
Now they just want all the 'illegal' mail votes that went for Biden because they have a feeling they can't possibly be real.
Maurice,
Affidavits have been filed in support of many of these suits, and in some cases (like Pennsylvania) the Trump team sought to add additional affidavits and/or claims in support of their suits. Brann denied their motion to amend their complaint.
The term "conspiracy theory" has no meaning in the law. Factual claims are either provable, or not. Legal theories based on factual contentions are either supported by the law, or not. No claim is, per se, a "conspiracy theory". It's either proven/provable, to the standard of proof required by the law, or it's not.
Expert witnesses are either accepted as helpful to the determination of facts by the court, or they aren't. No expert is, per se, a "jerkoff" without a judge reviewing their qualifications and the persuasiveness of their analysis. Their testimony is evidence. A court decides whether to accept it and what weight to give to it.
People who swear affidavits expose themselves to perjury charges. Sometimes what they say is relevant to the legal framework of the issues, sometimes not. Sometimes what they are saying is factually reliable, sometimes not. That assessment takes place on examination of the affidavits by the court, not by the court of public opinion. Their testimony is evidence. A court decides whether to accept it and what weight to give to it.
You are right that what lawyers say in a press conference is not evidence. However, they may choose to describe the contents of affidavits, the proposed testimony of expert witnesses, and either the known or anticipated contents of documents (anticipated, because the person in control of them has not yet produced or disclosed them). In doing so, they are describing the evidence they wish to put before the courts.
Not all of the suits involve the same claims. Some allege fraud (willfully counting votes that are unlawfully cast). Others allege practices which render election results unreliable, even if electoral staff were working in good faith without seeking to influence the result. You can't extract arguments or statements from one suit or one issue and seek to apply them to other suits that are advancing different types of claims.
Last edited:
thank you, that gives me so much confidence that all the trumps claims are going to succeed! glory to trump and his beautiful family!
It seems you didn't understand a word I said. My guess is that you didn't want to.
Here's another new(ish) Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans (not the Trump legal team):
news.yahoo.com
Pennsylvania Republicans File Emergency Lawsuit to Block Certification of Election Results
A group of Pennsylvania Republicans filed a lawsuit over the weekend to block certification of the state's election results in an eleventh-hour attempt to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the key battleground state.The emergency petition, filed in state court, takes issue with a voting reform...
My God...Here's another new(ish) Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans (not the Trump legal team):
Pennsylvania Republicans File Emergency Lawsuit to Block Certification of Election Results
A group of Pennsylvania Republicans filed a lawsuit over the weekend to block certification of the state's election results in an eleventh-hour attempt to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the key battleground state.The emergency petition, filed in state court, takes issue with a voting reform...
Yes, it's stupid but true.
Rudy and his crack team of investigators had to withdraw all the affidavits in their suit in Pennsylvania.
The only one still referring to them is you.
Pennsylvania Election Boards Torch Trump and Giuliani's Appeal | Law & Crime
Legal experts already said on Monday that the manner in which the Trump campaign went about appealing a resounding Pennsylvania loss to the Third Circuit is not even designed to reach SCOTUS. Worse yet, Pennsylvania's election boards and Secretary Kathy Boockvar (D), the defendant-appellees...
