GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win

[Frankfooter]

This is good for democracy. Not sure when Congress has ever taken this responsiblity seriously before, but better late than never. Also, I think the vote requires some debate. The debate will be much more important than the vote.

Yes, and now that the debate has turned from whether Trump is insane into whether Trump should be investigated by the FBI for another 'perfect call' it really should go much smoother.
He really did shoot himself in the foot, right through his dick, this time.

 

[Valcazar]

This is good for democracy. Not sure when Congress has ever taken this responsiblity seriously before, but better late than never. Also, I think the vote requires some debate. The debate will be much more important than the vote.

This should be interesting.
How is this good for democracy? What part, specifically, is good and why is it good?

 

[Frankfooter]

Another deception carefully perpetuated in the media. Not all relevant election irregularities are tantamount to fraud, but that doesn't make them any less significant or meaningful.

A simple example. If a ballot tabulator were operated incorrectly, albeit innocently, such that ballots were double counted, that would not constitute election fraud but would justify a decision not to certify the count and to recount all ballots by hand. Most of the irregularities that have been alleged fall in this category. All of the signature verification issues fall into this category. Depending on the state, election workers were either instructed that signature verification on mail-in ballots was not required, or could be cured, or in some cases it may have been omitted innocently.

There are also allegations of fraudulent conduct, but the media is deceiving the public to believe that only fraudulent conduct matters. In the vast majority of cases where fraudulent conduct has been alleged, Trump (or allied) counsel have not retreated from those allegations. Rather, in most (if not all) of those cases, the courts have said that the evidence of fraud offered did not meet the very high standards required for emergency pre-trial relief, or have dismissed the claims on technical grounds (laches, standing, etc.)

Dutch, the onus in on the plaintiff to prove its case. Trump had 60 fucking shots. As we speak, he is taking shot #61. This isn't a case of someone who had one try, fucked it up procedurally and then ran out of cash.

The president of the USA with unlimited financial and legal resources took 60 shots. In none of those cases was he successful. Where he attacked basic arrangements for vote tabulation that had been in place for YEARS, the courts said "Laches - You waited too long!"

Where he had random assholes volunteering to be litigants because the appropriate people refused to join groundless lawsuits, the courts said "no standing".

In NONE of the suits was there a compelling case on the evidence. Indeed, the whole escapade was marked by bad faith wherein Trump and his lawyers LIED during press conferences to raise $$$$$$$$$$$ from idiots and the presented different and far weaker allegations in court.

Now you don't get to fuck up 60 times in court and say "We fucked up so badly that they never actually heard ALL the total horseshit we wanted to tell them in each of our tedious, bogus, dishonest, nuisance-horseshit cases, so now we get to do exactly what we want and overturn the election anyway."

Why?!..... Because that's the sort of shit they pull in Kazakhstan and Somalia. Not a respectable country like the USA.

 

[jalimon]

This should be interesting.
How is this good for democracy? What part, specifically, is good and why is it good?

Since when Trump cares about democracy? He never did. He said upfront, like in 2016, that if the he lost it was because the election was rigged.

 

[Dutch Oven]

This should be interesting.
How is this good for democracy? What part, specifically, is good and why is it good?

It's good that Congress would investigate, or at least debate, allegations of widespread election irregularities in a Presidential election, rather than do what they usually do, rubberstamp whatever corruption is satisfactory to the States. The public deserves to know what their representatives think about these allegations. Information about their views could be very important to public voting choices in upcoming elections. Let's see how many politicians will dare to be as cavalier as the courts in tossing these affiants aside as too insubstantial or unreliable.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Since when Trump cares about democracy? He never did. He said upfront, like in 2016, that if the he lost it was because the election was rigged.

So what? He obviously believed (perhaps supported by internal polling) that he was likely to win, and then subsequently found the results, and in particular how they unfolded over the course of days, to be hard to believe, just like approximately half of America, including a substantial number of registered Democrats.

 

[Dutch Oven]

S

 

[Frankfooter]

It's good that Congress would investigate, or at least debate, allegations of widespread election irregularities in a Presidential election, rather than do what they usually do, rubberstamp whatever corruption is satisfactory to the States. The public deserves to know what their representatives think about these allegations. Information about their views could be very important to public voting choices in upcoming elections. Let's see how many politicians will dare to be as cavalier as the courts in tossing these affiants aside as too insubstantial or unreliable.

The senate ruled that they don't do investigations in the Trump impeachment and now you think they should change that and investigate Trump's Lin Wood's allegations?

 

[Dutch Oven]

The senate ruled that they don't do investigations in the Trump impeachment and now you think they should change that and investigate Trump's Lin Wood's allegations?

S

 

[mandrill]

It's good that Congress would investigate, or at least debate, allegations of widespread election irregularities in a Presidential election, rather than do what they usually do, rubberstamp whatever corruption is satisfactory to the States. The public deserves to know what their representatives think about these allegations. Information about their views could be very important to public voting choices in upcoming elections. Let's see how many politicians will dare to be as cavalier as the courts in tossing these affiants aside as too insubstantial or unreliable.

Dutch, let me help you here.

Congress is not impartial in these investigations. So any "findings" should be disregarded. And the "investigations" - which will be heavily partisan and biased ranting and table-thumping - should not take place.

Investigations should be done by law enforcement agencies and by election security agencies. These have taken place and they all confirmed that the elections were held competently and fairly.

Factual disputes should be resolved by the courts. This has been done 60 times and Trump lost every time.

Allowing Congress to determine the issue of who rules the US simply allows the numerically dominant party to select the president, regardless of the actual popular vote. Like what happens in Kazakhstan and Belarus. So no.

 

[mandrill]

So what? He obviously believed (perhaps supported by internal polling) that he was likely to win, and then subsequently found the results, and in particular how they unfolded over the course of days, to be hard to believe, just like approximately half of America, including a substantial number of registered Democrats.

Biden polled substantially higher than Trump to the extent many Dem supporters thought that Biden would push 400 EV's. If Trump believed he was leading in the polls, it's because he is a fuckskull with delusions.

 

[bver_hunter]

S

T

 

[Leimonis]

Biden polled substantially higher than Trump to the extent many Dem supporters thought that Biden would push 400 EV's. If Trump believed he was leading in the polls, it's because he is a fuckskull with delusions.

but the rallies! Everybody knows whoever has more people at their rallies wins!

 

[toguy5252]

This is just plain wrong as a matter of fact, and it is a deception carefully perpetuated by most media sources. Hardly any of the evidence put forward in support of requests for emergency relief was considered by the court on merit. The vast majority of these preliminary claims failed on technical grounds such as standing or laches, and remainder failed on the very high standard applicable to obtaining this extraordinary type of pre-trial relief.

All of the evidence could still be introduced at a trial on the merits of the claims, unless the courts decide to play their "mootness" card to complete their perfect Catch 22.

Now, by contrast, there is nothing to prevent Congress from considering all of this evidence, either in full session or subcommittee hearings. What they would be prepared to do about proven election fraud is quite another matter.

You are wrong. The evidence was rejected because it was inadmissible. Speculation and hearsay upon hearsay is not evidence.

 

[toguy5252]

No. In some cases, counsel were asked to specify whether a specific claim was a claim of fraud because a different standard of proof applies to these types of legal claims. In other cases, depending upon the State, some courts were of the view that the election statute of that particular state only permitted challenges to election results if they were based on fraud. Therefore, those courts needed to determine if the particular claim was a challenge pursuant to the statute, or rather, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute itself.

No they need to conduct hearings in accordance with the rules of court and the rules of evidence which they did.

 

[Dutch Oven]

T

Interesting choice of music, but not for the reasons you intended.

I surmise that "ST" actually has a specific meaning in this instance, given the extremely repetitive and prevalent snare-tom drum pattern of the song. Just as S has a specific meaning in my responses to Frank.

Also, electronic music, as a genre, is akin to the horror genre of film. It demostrates the vacuous nature of culture and society if you remove the human element. It's also a demonstration of the sterile cause/effect relationship that is achieved by manipulating machinery. It is music for nihilists. Artistically, using electronic music in film can be effective if the point of the film to show a society that has lost touch with its humanity (Clockwork Orange, Blade Runner). Dominion should use this music as a bed track for its promotional sales videos!

You, Beaver, are not input into this machine. You are output.

 

[Dutch Oven]

You are wrong. The evidence was rejected because it was inadmissible. Speculation and hearsay upon hearsay is not evidence.

Wrong. Leaving aside whether the judgments were correct, you are referring, against a backdrop of hundreds of sworn affadavits as well as documentary filings, to a handful of comments made by a handful of judges, some of which were completely obiter to their decisions, about specific allegations that were not even core to the complaints before them. The vast majority of any commentary by judges on the substantive evidence (and there truly is very little of it) is merely their evaluation of whether the evidence offered meets the stringent onus the courts applied to claims for emergency pre-trial relief (much higher than the onus would be at trial).

You can call anything speculation that you don't find sufficiently persuasive, and that's what the courts (in a small number of instances) did. However, the legal issue is what standard of proof should be sufficient for all of the relief sought (not just the most intrusive relief). No court properly explored that issue.

 

[Dutch Oven]

No they need to conduct hearings in accordance with the rules of court and the rules of evidence which they did.

Political issues don't disappear just because courts won't address them. Politicians created the courts, not the other way around. The courts may actually be wise and/or correct to stay out of politics. However, that means the responsibility for democracy rests with politicians. Let's see them do their job for a change.

 

[jalimon]

Political issues don't disappear just because courts won't address them. Politicians created the courts, not the other way around. The courts may actually be wise and/or correct to stay out of politics. However, that means the responsibility for democracy rests with politicians. Let's see them do their job for a change.

That's what they did. If the political issues are non existent there is no way to address them.

 

[toguy5252]

Wrong. Leaving aside whether the judgments were correct, you are referring, against a backdrop of hundreds of sworn affadavits as well as documentary filings, to a handful of comments made by a handful of judges, some of which were completely obiter to their decisions, about specific allegations that were not even core to the complaints before them. The vast majority of any commentary by judges on the substantive evidence (and there truly is very little of it) is merely their evaluation of whether the evidence offered meets the stringent onus the courts applied to claims for emergency pre-trial relief (much higher than the onus would be at trial).

You can call anything speculation that you don't find sufficiently persuasive, and that's what the courts (in a small number of instances) did. However, the legal issue is what standard of proof should be sufficient for all of the relief sought (not just the most intrusive relief). No court properly explored that issue.

You are wrong again. Just because something is alleged in an affidavit does not make the contents necessarily admissible or probative. If I say in an affidavit that someone told me that they saw dutch changing ballots what is that evidence of? That is of course a rhetorical question because it is evidence of nothing at all other than what someone told you. that is not how courts or the justice system works. Everyone of of these so called improprieties has been systematically debunked. Just listen to the Rafensperger or read the transcript.