Stupid people trying to prove voter fraud

[Dutch Oven]

You don't go to court to submit that then, if you know you can't reach those standards for the relief.
You put together an investigation.
The Wisconsin court did consider the evidence and was not kind in its appraisal.

If you have an important cause, and a tight timeline within which you must act, and you believe the Court should grant the relief you are seeking, you go to court regardless of the imperfections of your supporting materials. The comments of the Wisconsin courts (not sure if you are talking about the trial level or the appeal court) are in the context of request for emergency pre-trial relief. It's a unique standard. And, let's remember, the plaintiffs in these cases do not agree that the legal standard has been applied properly.

Now, your argument that they are also submitting (separately) a request to the SC for an advisory opinion so that they can rule that state courts can't judge election law (therefore allowing the state legislature to suppress voting at will) is of course true. The SC isn't supposed to do advisory opinions like that, but it has got to be hard for this crew to not get in some support for voter suppression.

Not sure who you are talking about, but it's not me.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Wrong, bud.

The 'affidavits' were rejected multiple times by judges as hearsay, spam or just opinions.
There is zero legit evidence period.

The easiest way to prove this is to just to ask you to show us all what legit evidence was never considered by any court.
You'll just respond 's' because you don't have any.

S

 

[Fun For All]

FFA, I apply a light hand to you, because you genuinely seem quite distraught that not everyone shares your perspective on these issues, and I don't think you are here to troll anyone or throw gas on any fires. You probably would benefit from taking a break. You seem, honestly, to get a little confused about the point that is being discussed. Unlike Frank, I think that your confusion is genuine.

You clearly are horrified by the ALLEGATION that someone would run another driver off the road to confront them at the end a gun with their claim of election fraud. You have to recognize: 1) it's an allegation, and 2) I haven't commented to defend such conduct, either hypothetically or otherwise. My post was about the insinuation that it would be wrong to take paid employment to investigate fraud claims on behalf of one of the parties. That's entirely different point. If you didn't appreciate that nuance, I'd suggest that your emotions are getting in the way. If the discussions that take place here are that upsetting, take a break.

Veiled insults...what an arrogant response.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Veiled insults...what an arrogant response.

It's hard to help some people. Carry on then. Just quit the whining.

 

[Fun For All]

It's hard to help some people. Carry on then. Just quit the whining.

You are an arrogant human being...I didn't ask and don't require your help...again, you're just being annoying and difficult for your own self-righteousness.

 

[Frankfooter]

FFA, I apply a light hand to you, because you genuinely seem quite distraught that not everyone shares your perspective on these issues, and I don't think you are here to troll anyone or throw gas on any fires. You probably would benefit from taking a break. You seem, honestly, to get a little confused about the point that is being discussed. Unlike Frank, I think that your confusion is genuine.

You clearly are horrified by the ALLEGATION that someone would run another driver off the road to confront them at the end a gun with their claim of election fraud. You have to recognize: 1) it's an allegation, and 2) I haven't commented to defend such conduct, either hypothetically or otherwise. My post was about the insinuation that it would be wrong to take paid employment to investigate fraud claims on behalf of one of the parties. That's entirely different point. If you didn't appreciate that nuance, I'd suggest that your emotions are getting in the way. If the discussions that take place here are that upsetting, take a break.

Oh, dutchie.

Speaking of confusion, this guy is just as confused as you are.

An ex-captain in the Houston Police Department was arrested Tuesday for allegedly running a man off the road and assaulting him in an attempt to prove a bizarre voter-fraud conspiracy pushed by a right-wing organization.

The suspect, Mark Anthony Aguirre, told police he was part of a group of private citizens investigating claims of the massive fraud allegedly funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and involving election ballots forged by Hispanic children. He said the plot was underway in Harris County, Texas, prior to the Nov. 3 election.

Aguirre said he was working for the group Liberty Center for God and Country when, on Oct. 19, he pulled a gun on a man who he believed was the mastermind of the scheme. His victim, identified as "DL" in the police affidavit, is an air-conditioner repairman. Authorities found no evidence that he was involved in any fraud scheme claimed by Aguirre.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said Aguirre "crossed the line from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime and we are lucky no one was killed."

"His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened," Ogg said.

This really sums up your continual posts on the election.
You allege a crime occurred and now have spent weeks trying to prove it happened at all.
And you still have zero proof.

 

[Valcazar]

If you have an important cause, and a tight timeline within which you must act, and you believe the Court should grant the relief you are seeking, you go to court regardless of the imperfections of your supporting materials.

You just said that is the inappropriate place to do it. Make up your mind.

The comments of the Wisconsin courts (not sure if you are talking about the trial level or the appeal court) are in the context of request for emergency pre-trial relief. It's a unique standard. And, let's remember, the plaintiff's in these cases do not agree that the legal standard has been applied properly.

The plaintiffs having trouble with the legal standard is the problem.

Not sure who you are talking about, but it's not me.

Didn't you say that part of the point to this was to put the rules out in a way that even if it can't affect this case they can change the laws going forward to outlaw these things so what they are complaining about doesn't happen again?

 

[Frankfooter]

This guy sounds like he and dutchie would get along great.

Aguirre and two other unidentified companions with the Liberty Center watched the victim for four days prior to the Oct. 19 attack, according to police records. They were convinced that there were 750,000 fraudulent ballots in the man's vehicle and home.

Aguirre said the victim was using Hispanic children to sign the ballots because children's fingerprints wouldn't appear on any database, according to the affidavit. He also claimed Facebook's founder gave $9.37 billion for "ballot harvesting."

Three days before the attack, Aguirre contacted law enforcement with his allegations of the alleged fraud. He called Lt. Wayne Rubio in the Texas Office of the Attorney General for a traffic stop to help in his investigation — a request Rubio denied. Concerned with Aguirre's claims that he would "handle" the situation himself, Rubio contacted police.

Aguirre was also rebuffed when he contacted the Texas Rangers and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Prosecutors say Aguirre decided to take matters into his own hands.

Aguirre and at least two other companions set up a "command post" at a Marriott hotel in Pearland, where they planned their attack, Aguirre told police. He has refused to identify his co-conspirators, claiming he doesn't know who they are, according to the affidavit.

The victim was driving his box truck during the early morning hours of Oct. 19, when he noticed a black SUV pull into his lane, almost hitting him. A few seconds later, the driver of the SUV later identified as Aguirre, allegedly slammed into the back of the man's vehicle. When the victim pulled over and got out to check on Aguirre, the former police officer allegedly pointed a gun at the victim and demanded he get on the ground.

While Aguirre had his knee into the man's back, according to the affidavit, he ordered two other people arrived on the scene to search the victim's truck.

One of them then drove the truck as Aguirre kept the man pinned to the ground. The truck was found abandoned a few blocks away about 30 minutes after the incident. When police searched the victim's truck, only air-conditioner parts and tools were found. No ballots were discovered in the truck or in the man's home.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Oh, dutchie.

Speaking of confusion, this guy is just as confused as you are.

An ex-captain in the Houston Police Department was arrested Tuesday for allegedly running a man off the road and assaulting him in an attempt to prove a bizarre voter-fraud conspiracy pushed by a right-wing organization.
The suspect, Mark Anthony Aguirre, told police he was part of a group of private citizens investigating claims of the massive fraud allegedly funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and involving election ballots forged by Hispanic children. He said the plot was underway in Harris County, Texas, prior to the Nov. 3 election.
Aguirre said he was working for the group Liberty Center for God and Country when, on Oct. 19, he pulled a gun on a man who he believed was the mastermind of the scheme. His victim, identified as "DL" in the police affidavit, is an air-conditioner repairman. Authorities found no evidence that he was involved in any fraud scheme claimed by Aguirre.
Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said Aguirre "crossed the line from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime and we are lucky no one was killed."
"His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened," Ogg said.

This really sums up your continual posts on the election.
You allege a crime occurred and now have spent weeks trying to prove it happened at all.
And you still have zero proof.

Non-stop S

 

[Dutch Oven]

You just said that is the inappropriate place to do it. Make up your mind.

What are you talking about?

Didn't you say that part of the point to this was to put the rules out in a way that even if it can't affect this case they can change the laws going forward to outlaw these things so what they are complaining about doesn't happen again?

Nope, not me. Nor do I see what that point has necessarily to do with referring cases to SCOTUS. Legislative change can be effected by the legislatures or by Congress.

 

[jalimon]

"The reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism."

Full paper here (a very good read): https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

Democracy is hard. It is driven by consensus. To be a good politician means who are willing to accept loosing some battles with humility. But all of that is going down the drain. Funny to think the internet and social media, which was supposed to open us to the world, will actually luck us up in autocracy (this is not from the article I just post, it's my opinion).

 

[Frankfooter]

You clearly are horrified by the ALLEGATION that someone would run another driver off the road to confront them at the end a gun with their claim of election fraud.

Here is someone who is clearly not horrified that someone would run a driver off the road, hold a gun to their head and take off with their truck based on internet conspiracy theories.

If the discussions that take place here are that upsetting, take a break.

Yes, if you are so upset you can only respond 's', perhaps you should take a break.

 

[Valcazar]

Nope, not me. Nor do I see what that point has necessarily to do with referring cases to SCOTUS. Legislative change can be effected by the legislatures or by Congress.

So now you are saying bringing these cases up was pointless since they were never going to win and also couldn't be used to guide future action?

I guess you were just trolling the whole time, like people said.

Sad.

 

[Fun For All]

This guy sounds like he and dutchie would get along great.

Aguirre and two other unidentified companions with the Liberty Center watched the victim for four days prior to the Oct. 19 attack, according to police records. They were convinced that there were 750,000 fraudulent ballots in the man's vehicle and home.

Aguirre said the victim was using Hispanic children to sign the ballots because children's fingerprints wouldn't appear on any database, according to the affidavit. He also claimed Facebook's founder gave $9.37 billion for "ballot harvesting."

Three days before the attack, Aguirre contacted law enforcement with his allegations of the alleged fraud. He called Lt. Wayne Rubio in the Texas Office of the Attorney General for a traffic stop to help in his investigation — a request Rubio denied. Concerned with Aguirre's claims that he would "handle" the situation himself, Rubio contacted police.

Aguirre was also rebuffed when he contacted the Texas Rangers and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Prosecutors say Aguirre decided to take matters into his own hands.

Aguirre and at least two other companions set up a "command post" at a Marriott hotel in Pearland, where they planned their attack, Aguirre told police. He has refused to identify his co-conspirators, claiming he doesn't know who they are, according to the affidavit.

The victim was driving his box truck during the early morning hours of Oct. 19, when he noticed a black SUV pull into his lane, almost hitting him. A few seconds later, the driver of the SUV later identified as Aguirre, allegedly slammed into the back of the man's vehicle. When the victim pulled over and got out to check on Aguirre, the former police officer allegedly pointed a gun at the victim and demanded he get on the ground.

While Aguirre had his knee into the man's back, according to the affidavit, he ordered two other people arrived on the scene to search the victim's truck.

One of them then drove the truck as Aguirre kept the man pinned to the ground. The truck was found abandoned a few blocks away about 30 minutes after the incident. When police searched the victim's truck, only air-conditioner parts and tools were found. No ballots were discovered in the truck or in the man's home.

Dutch is just being annoying...the Houston guy is fucked in the head.

 

[mandrill]

Lots of evidence submitted with these cases. Most of the cases were dismissed based on a lack of standing with no consideration of the evidence submitted. Many cases were dismissed based on insufficient evidence to support signficant pre-trial relief sought (not "no evidence"). There are no cases (that I am aware of) where there was a judicial determination of the facts asserted in these suits. There is a special and difficult standard of proof applied to motions for emergency relief in advance of trial.

If you think that these court rulings mean that the evidence being advanced will never be fully considered, either by courts or by legislative committees, you're going to be frustrated for quite a while. The hearings on the merits of these claims will go on, whether before the courts or before committee hearings.

Dutch, there was never any evidence. Whenever a Trump attorney was asked directly by a judge if there was actual evidence of election fraud, the answer was always "no".

The laches and standing rulings allowed the courts - all 60 of them - to make legitimate procedural rulings ditching preposterous, frivolous lawsuits without having to hold days of tedious, expensive, time-consuming trial into the minutiae of bullshit, bogus claims and then dismissing them as unproven on the evidence.

If there had been REAL SOLID evidence of genuine electoral fraud, ALL of those cases would have been heard on an urgent basis regardless of laches or dubious standing because the judges would have been greatly concerned about a threat to US democracy and anxious to stomp it fast.

You're confused by the BS that the Trump lawyers say at press conferences where they are grifting donations and lying through their teeth with what those same lawyers professionally have to say in front of a judge where suspension and disbarment are real concerns to their livelihoods if they are untruthful.

I posted a Twitter thread about Trump supporters getting so drawn into the "Trump Alternate Reality Game" that they lose touch with the actual reality that the rest of the world believes. And here you are. All your rightie buddies have long since run away. You're claiming that the election litigation is valid and substantiated in the face of 60 losses and no wins. It's beyond fucked that you are doing this. You need to go into some kind of Trump detox, Dutch, because you have completely lost touch and the rest of us are just laughing at you.

 

[mandrill]

If you have an important cause, and a tight timeline within which you must act, and you believe the Court should grant the relief you are seeking, you go to court regardless of the imperfections of your supporting materials. The comments of the Wisconsin courts (not sure if you are talking about the trial level or the appeal court) are in the context of request for emergency pre-trial relief. It's a unique standard. And, let's remember, the plaintiff's in these cases do not agree that the legal standard has been applied properly.



Not sure who you are talking about, but it's not me.

No, Dutch. No real lawyer goes into court and says "I think there may be some evidence there that I maybe could possibly find on discovery, so grant me an injunction, judge." The standards for getting relief are extremely high and the applicant has to meet them, regardless of the circumstances.

Imagine a world where that was not true. I could get an injunction against the NFL holding the Super Bowl just by suggesting to a judge 3 days beforehand that maybe there was a game fixed in the season that impacted seeding and I needed a month to hold discoveries and double-check all my suspicions. After all, it's "not plausible" that Buffalo could upset Pittsburgh in Game 13 and I should be able to examine under oath all the coaches and players until I can prove that the game was fixed. The REAL justice system just doesn't fucking work like that. How could it?!

In the course of this thread, you have repeatedly pretended to be a lawyer even though you clearly have no idea. You have repeatedly told 3 genuine lawyers - me, Perry and Toguy - that we're either not lawyers or incompetent unethical lawyers when we correct you. Get a grip, guy! You are MESSED IN THE HEAD.

You keep coming back to this thread and arguing with a half-dozen other dudes at the same time because you figure that you're right and they're all wrong. YOU HAVE ISSUES, Dutch and they go way beyond who won this election.

 

[Micber]

Trump is going to pardon him. Let's move on.

 

[squeezer]

You keep coming back to this thread and arguing with a half-dozen other dudes at the same time because you figure that you're right and they're all wrong. YOU HAVE ISSUES, Dutch and they go way beyond who won this election.

I'm telling you the Delusional American Dementia virus is crossing over into Canada and there is no use creating a vaccine because the infected folks will not take it.

 

[toguy5252]

Beaver, fraudulent activities can happen outside of counting stations, especially in connection with mail in ballots. Exclamation point. (LOL!)

The operative word in your sentence being "could". There was no evidence that it did. Get over it.

 

[bver_hunter]

Lots of evidence submitted with these cases. Most of the cases were dismissed based on a lack of standing with no consideration of the evidence submitted. Many cases were dismissed based on insufficient evidence to support signficant pre-trial relief sought (not "no evidence"). There are no cases (that I am aware of) where there was a judicial determination of the facts asserted in these suits. There is a special and difficult standard of proof applied to motions for emergency relief in advance of trial.

If you think that these court rulings mean that the evidence being advanced will never be fully considered, either by courts or by legislative committees, you're going to be frustrated for quite a while. The hearings on the merits of these claims will go on, whether before the courts or before committee hearings.

A lot of this so called "evidence" was based on fake observations and doctored videos. That is why they did not bear any credibility to move forward. When even Trump's own handpicked Supreme Court Judges do not want to damage their own reputation by casting their votes against an official hearing, then we know that all The QAnon and Other BitChute types of Conspiracy Theory videos etc is not "real evidence". Even the Republican Governors have condemned such Court Cases as being a threat to true democracy as the voter counts were performed under their jurisdictions. Hence Trump has no real substance in his voter "fraud" allegations!!