• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
That does seem to be a big part of the problem. shuttlt has been claiming that when we don't know who is making the claim, we can't trust the claim. He's pointed out how wrong media organizations have been over this. What he's glossing over is that the error, fabrication, and outright falsehoods are happening almost exclusively from the media sources he chooses to get his information from, and almost never from the well respected news organizations he keeps disparaging.

He doesn't know who signed any affidavits, what any affidavits say, how many people signed these affidavits, nor how many have already been thrown out of court. But that's not a problem. The problem is that he doesn't know which member of the House Oversight Committee wrote the official communication that shoots down a big claim he was counting on.
Click to expand...

16 lawsuits have been heard and Trump is 0 for 16.
 
acbytesla said:
16 lawsuits have been heard and Trump is 0 for 16.
Click to expand...

It proves the Republicans have no shame whatsoever - it's gone past the embarrassing stage to outright insanity.

Just a selection of judges' comments:

I regret to inform you that your submission is defective

inadmissible hearsay within hearsay

I'm sorry, then what's your problem?

The Court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7.00pm on election day

I'm denying the request and dismissing the petition
 
Meadmaker said:
Fortunately, that constitutional process has a deadline, so the Trump team won't be able to drag this out forever.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm worried about--that he'll drag this out all the way to the deadline, and then say that the pending court cases mean that the results can't be certified, and argue to throw it to the House for one vote per state. I've suspected these lawsuits weren't filed because he was expecting to win all of them, but to run out the clock.
 
gnome said:
This is what I'm worried about--that he'll drag this out all the way to the deadline, and then say that the pending court cases mean that the results can't be certified, and argue to throw it to the House for one vote per state. I've suspected these lawsuits weren't filed because he was expecting to win all of them, but to run out the clock.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that state law is pretty clear about the certification process. Trump having open litigation won't stop that, he actually needs to convince a judge to issue an injunction.
 
Meadmaker said:
Yeah, two hours is a bit much, so I'll be looking forward to somebody picking out the good parts.
Click to expand...
The first 50 mins is them establishing report, lulling him, making sure he doesn't have legal representation. He signs some paperwork. He restates his claim, they get him to agree that theoretically one can never be truly certain that what one thought one heard is actually what was said or meant. If there is anything significant, I'll provide the timestamp.
 
shuttlt said:
The first 50 mins is them establishing report, lulling him, making sure he doesn't have legal representation. He signs some paperwork. He restates his claim, they get him to agree that theoretically one can never be truly certain that what one thought one heard is actually what was said or meant. If there is anything significant, I'll provide the timestamp.
Click to expand...

And getting him to agree there was only one ballot postmarked November 4th?
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It's quite another thing to say, "WAHHHHH! WE WON!!! THEY CHEATED!!!!!" (Those may not be an exact quote, but it's close.)
Click to expand...

It's almost as if you are suggesting that Republicans have done anything other than making false accusations of electoral fraud. They are just following Trump by example. Republican voters have shown that they approve of Trumps constant lying, dishonesty, gaslighting and outright nihilism.
 
Interesting piece this... it seems that lawyers who support Trump's frivolous lawsuits could find themselves in front of their relative Bar Association Ethics Committee submitting to "please explain" hearings.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trumps-lawyers-election/617064/

Most, if not all, of Trump's lawsuits are frivolous and evidence-free - and there are rules about that...

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct stipulates that a lawyer shall not bring an action unless a basis exists in law and fact for doing so. This rule implies that lawyers must do due diligence to inform themselves of the facts of the case and reasonably determine that a good-faith argument can be made in defense of the client’s legal claim.
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—many of which are designed to serve as “gatekeepers” against frivolous lawsuits—requires lawyers to ensure that their arguments are not frivolous, and that factual contentions either have or are reasonably likely to have evidentiary support. Although the courts do not often exercise their discretion to enforce it, Rule 11(c) provides judges with the authority to impose sanctions against lawyers who have violated Rule 11(b).
 
Darat said:
shuttlt said:
As has been stated many, many times.... we have to see what happens with these cases.
Click to expand...
Why?
Click to expand...
Because I'm assuming none of us have the power to to interview the witnesses, or audit the election ourselves.... so given that we have no power to make the facts come out, we have to wait and see if people who do have that power deliver. If you want to not wait and go get some of this information yourself, I will be as pleased as anybody.
 
gnome said:
This is what I'm worried about--that he'll drag this out all the way to the deadline, and then say that the pending court cases mean that the results can't be certified, and argue to throw it to the House for one vote per state. I've suspected these lawsuits weren't filed because he was expecting to win all of them, but to run out the clock.
Click to expand...

He has to win a lawsuit first. He's 0 for 16 so far.

Neither the President nor the Senate has any control over the election. He can "say" whatever he wants. Unless he gets a court to agree, he's got nothing.
 
shuttlt said:
Because I'm assuming none of us have the power to to interview the witnesses, or audit the election ourselves.... so given that we have no power to make the facts come out, we have to wait and see if people who do have that power deliver. If you want to not wait and go get some of this information yourself, I will be as pleased as anybody.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to ignore Trump's specific history to making baseless claims of voter fraud when it comes to assessing the credibility of such claims.

Sure, the public has no way of knowing if any such evidence might exist, but it's abundantly clear that Trump and his lackeys have been telegraphing their intentions to propagate such a self-serving lie months in advance of the election should it not go their way.
 
shuttlt said:
I've only just started listening to it, so I can't speak to what it says, but Veritas just dropped the recording of the postal whistle-blower being interviewed and presumably recanting.

https://youtu.be/QkNkQ2nDQfc
Click to expand...
https://youtu.be/QkNkQ2nDQfc?t=3394
56 mins in they are talking about his contact with Veritas, and being advised by Veritas to set up the GoFundme and how to give the money back if he doesn't lose his job. After his statement went out anonymously, he says the office management went into some kind of huddle and started asking him about what I presume is old performance evaluations or disciplinary cases... PPI/PPT.
 
smartcooky said:
....like the links to the 70 affidavits Darat asked you for in post #977?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13291228&postcount=977
Click to expand...
You guys are slippery. I didn't say there were 70 affidavits, certainly not that I had access to 70 affidavits. I said that the claim was that there were 70 poll watchers making the claims. You guys were talking as if Giuliani was claiming, what 5 or some number like that poll watchers having seen something. I've provided the quote of Giuliani saying 50-60 and explained where I had heard that he'd upped that to 70. As I said earlier, you folks were grossly underplaying the scale of the allegations and the number of claimed witnesses.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I see no reason to ignore Trump's specific history to making baseless claims of voter fraud when it comes to assessing the credibility of such claims.
Click to expand...
These aren't Trumps claims. We aren't relying on Trump's word. The claims are being made by witnesses who claimed to have observed fraud and other issues. I'm happy for the purposes of this discussion to assume Trump lies with every breath he takes. It doesn't matter since none of this relies on testimony or evidence from Trump.

SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, the public has no way of knowing if any such evidence might exist, but it's abundantly clear that Trump and his lackeys have been telegraphing their intentions to propagate such a self-serving lie months in advance of the election should it not go their way.
Click to expand...
OK. Well, the best approach here then might be for the Democrats to pull a judo move and rush this to court as quickly as possible so that the Republican lack of evidence can be revealed.
 
shuttlt said:
You guys are slippery. I didn't say there were 70 affidavits, certainly not that I had access to 70 affidavits. I said that the claim was that there were 70 poll watchers making the claims. You guys were talking as if Giuliani was claiming, what 5 or some number like that poll watchers having seen something. I've provided the quote of Giuliani saying 50-60 and explained where I had heard that he'd upped that to 70. As I said earlier, you folks were grossly underplaying the scale of the allegations and the number of claimed witnesses.
Click to expand...

Some of that is just thread cross-traffic, where claims and counter claims get mixed up, but another part of it is that Giuliani doesn't exactly have a great record of delivering what the says he has lately. I'm thinking of a couple of laptop related stories where he assured people that there was a bunch of really important stuff, but he couldn't give anybody copies right now because....ya know.....uhh.....something.

So anyway, when it comes to witnesses whose identity and existence has actually been verified, we have a very small number. Plus, we also have Rudy Giuliani's word for it that there are a lot more where those came from.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom