• 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.
DevilsAdvocate said:
A guy walking down East Capitol Street is looking around like he is lost and walks up to a pedestrian.

Q: Hey, mister, how do I get to the Supreme Court of the United States?

A: Law practice, law practice, law practice.
Click to expand...

Ouch:D. That was bad. A little pun twist to the Carnegie Hall joke. I like it.
 
Tweeted:

Ben Collins
@oneunderscore__

The President just can't get enough of retweeting OAN segments where the expert on voting machines is Ron Watkins, a man from the Philippines who has no experience with voting machines and ran a website where white supremacists dumped manifestos before they committed mass murder.
Click to expand...

A sizable portion of this country is just gobbling up voter fraud conspiracies with big, inscrutable explanations. They have no idea that the guy who is pushing it is the 8Chan/QAnon guy, which is exactly what both Ron Watkins and the president's team are both banking on.
Click to expand...

f this sounds nuts, it is. Here's a whole story on the origins of this conspiracy theory and who's pushing it.

QAnon's Dominion voter fraud conspiracy theory reaches the president
Click to expand...
 
rdaneel said:
Tv and movies really do give people a misconception about appeals don't they?
That a lawyer who loses a case can almost magically get an appeal to the next higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Not sure how your system works, but here, while you have a right to file an appeal, the appellate court is under no obligation to grant "leave to appeal" (meaning they believe you might have a valid case to argue). IIRC, in the US, the appellate court simply returns the case to the lower court.

If the case is clearly frivolous, the lower court judge is likely to word his decision in such a way that it would be very unlikely the appellate court would grant leave to appeal. He basically leaves no room in his written decision for an appeal to even be heard. If the appellate court declines to hear the case, its all over Rover, you cannot leapfrog to the next higher court.

Is this how it works in the US?
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Mark my words, there is no way this is not going to the Supreme Court if the election can be overturned. If the election cannot be overturned then the cases will die in the lower courts.

I wouldn't worry as a Biden supporter until or unless the Trump lawsuits reach SCOTUS. At that point engage hand-wringing and possibly pearl-clutching.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Checkmite said:
Tweeted:
Click to expand...

These people are nutz.

Sidney Powell can't get her lies...er 'facts'... straight:

POWELL: “The Dominion Voting Systems, the Smartmatic technology software, and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out.”

POWELL: “Smartmatic has been associated with the Venezuelan government led by Hugo Chavez, which is openly hostile to the United States.”

THE FACTS: To be clear, Chavez is not leading the Venezuelan government because he is dead, He died in 2013.

As well, Dominion does not have any ties to Venezuela, according to Eddie Perez, a voting technology expert at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election technology research and development nonprofit. Dominion was founded in Canada. The company says it is a competitor with Smartmatic, not a partner.
Smartmatic is incorporated in Florida by Venezuelan founders. The company states on its website that it’s not associated with governments or political parties of any country.
Click to expand...


POWELL, on reports that a U.S. voting server is in Germany: “That is true, it’s somehow related to this but I do not know whether good guys got it or bad guys got it.”

THE FACTS: No, it’s not true. Powell is referring to a fictitious story that a server hosting evidence of voting irregularities in the Nov. 3 U.S. election was in Germany.

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas this month circulated the rumor that “U.S. Army forces” seized a server from a Frankfurt office, though he acknowledged it was something he saw on Twitter and “I don’t know the truth.” The Army said the claim was false.
Still, Powell presented the bogus story as fact
Click to expand...

Louie Gohmert is the stupidest man in Congress and that is saying something. He's the Bozo who thinks he caught Covid from his mask, who thinks gun control could lead to bestiality and polygamy, and suggested terrorists are sending pregnant women to have anchor babies in the US, then raising them in Islamic countries only to send them back as adults to commit terrorist crimes.
 
smartcooky said:
Not sure how your system works, but here, while you have a right to file an appeal, the appellate court is under no obligation to grant "leave to appeal" (meaning they believe you might have a valid case to argue). IIRC, in the US, the appellate court simply returns the case to the lower court.

If the case is clearly frivolous, the lower court judge is likely to word his decision in such a way that it would be very unlikely the appellate court would grant leave to appeal. He basically leaves no room in his written decision for an appeal to even be heard. If the appellate court declines to hear the case, its all over Rover, you cannot leapfrog to the next higher court.

Is this how it works in the US?
Click to expand...

It seems similar. Any case can be appealed. The appellate court will review the appeal. But it could be tossed out if there isn’t a valid case.

An appellate court is not a second chance to review a case. The district court makes the decision, and that is the decision. You can’t really ask an appellate court to review that decision.

You can appeal if there is a reason that the lower court did not handle the case properly. For example, if there is a criminal case and the judge does not allow the defense to enter certain evidence and the person is convicted, that could be appealed to argue that the judge erred and the evidence should have been admitted. The appellate court does not review the decision on the case. They just review on whether the judge made an error. If they sustain the appeal, they remand the case back to the lower court to try the case again with instructions to allow that evidence.

But that can get a bit confusing. The appellate court, in some circumstances, may make a final decision. That is especially true if the case is really about an interpretation of the law or the constitution. The appellate court determines the interpretation, which essentially decides the case, so the appellate court just issues a final ruling.

For cases that are clearly frivolous, the lower court will usually toss out the case base on the easiest first grounds. That is usually improper filing, jurisdiction, standing, failure to state a claim, etc. The court doesn’t go into all the other details of the case. That can be appealed, and the appellate court will review the appeal, but if you don’t have a real argument that the judge made an error in dismissing the case, the appeal gets denied.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a bit of an odd duck. Originally there was just the federal district courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justices would “ride the circuit” in their assigned district to hear appeals of the cases decided by the federal court judges. As more states were added to the union, that became impractical and the circuit court system (now called the court of appeals) was established.

That allowed the Supreme Court to only hear the really important cases. The Supreme Court only hears a tiny fraction of the cases presented to it. It really only deals with cases where there is a controversial issue among the appellant courts that has a national interest.

The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction, meaning they rarely hear case for the first time. The mostly hear appeals. That almost always is an appeal to a decision by a federal appellate court or a sate supreme court. Many of the cases they review are matters of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I don't know why it took so long. I think the court had to give some time for Rudy to file yet another motion to amend. And then maybe allow the defense to file a motion to disallow or dismiss that amendment. I'm not sure. I recall that Rudy did file another motion to amend.



In the opinion the judge said that Rudy's complaint and arguments were so messed up that he had to try to piece together some reasonably coherent argument to address. He implies that he did that, in part, by reviewing all of the other recent lawsuits concerning the election.



The judge's opinion is rather lengthy and detailed. As I said in one of my posts speculating on why the case would be dismissed, the answer was basically "all of the above".



It is basically: You don't have standing, but if you did you don't have injury, but if you did the equal protections clause doesn't apply, but if it did you haven't shown how it affects the plaintiffs, but if you had you haven't shown why it would be reasonable to toss out all the votes instead of allowing the votes by voters (plaintiffs) were not allowed to be cured, and if you had throwing out all the votes for the state would be stupid and insane.



On appeal Rudy would have to jump back through all of those hoops.
Click to expand...
Have you got a link, my Google fu is weak today.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"If" their strategy is to get to SCOTUS, they've been doing everything right.



"If" they are incompetent hacks, liars and frauds, the appearance would be the same.
Click to expand...
No they haven't. The legal system doesn't work that way, the SC rules on matters of law.
 
Darat said:
Have you got a link, my Google fu is weak today.
Click to expand...

It's a beauty. One of many nice excerpts:
In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise
almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which
a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms
of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when
seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with
compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this
Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief
despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained
legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this
cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its
sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At
bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
Click to expand...

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

And while this judge was nominated by Obama, he is a conservative Republican, member of the Federalist Society.
 
Last edited:
rdaneel said:
Tv and movies really do give people a misconception about appeals don't they?
That a lawyer who loses a case can almost magically get an appeal to the next higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's like the bombshell evidence the prosecution or defence pull out with a minute to go that takes the other side by surprise. Makes good TV.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I can't see what criminal charges would apply.

Court could start issuing sanction for filing frivolous lawsuits. I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the reasons behind recently dropping a number of lawsuits (but I doubt that is the only reason). That is also probably one of the reasons why the lawsuits are filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. instead of by Trump himself (which has caused him some problems with issues on standing). Trump doesn't want any personal liability if the courts decide they have had enough of this nonsense and start getting tough.

But I doubt that will happen. I think the courts are kind of wearing kid gloves here because they want to make sure their dismissals are rock solid and not give any reason for them to get overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...

I think it all makes sense if you look at it not as an attempt to bring a serious legal case, but instead as a way to create a narrative in the eyes of the right section of the public. They're not going to pay attention to any details - including that the cases have been dropped. They're just going to know that Trump is "fighting" and being thwarted by the Deep State.

If you view it not through the lens of actually trying to accomplish anything legally or electorally, but instead of trying to get re-elected in 2024 and raise money to pay off campaign debt and create influence after the presidency, then it makes perfect sense. It doesn't even matter that Guiliani doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in court, because neither do the people his performance is aimed at.
 
Trump team paid 3 million for "recount" but is only there to slow the recount so the whole count can be thrown out and the decision would be thrown to state government. But election law in WI would not do that.
At one recount table, a Trump observer objected to every ballot that tabulators pulled from a bag simply because they were folded, election officials told the panel.

Posnanski called it “prima facie evidence of bad faith by the Trump campaign.” He added later: “I want to know what is going on and why there continues to be obstruction.”

Joe Voiland, a lawyer speaking to commission members on behalf of the Trump campaign, denied his side was acting in bad faith.

“I want to get to the point of dialing everything down … and not yelling at each other,” Voiland said.

At least one Trump observer was escorted out of the building by sheriff’s deputies Saturday after pushing an election official who had lifted her coat from an observer chair. Another Trump observer was removed Friday for not wearing a face mask properly as required.

Trump paid $3 million, as required by state law, for the partial recount that began Friday and must conclude by Dec. 1.

His team is seeking to disqualify ballots where election clerks filled in missing address information on the certification envelope where the ballot is inserted, even though the practice has long been accepted in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/election...in-elections-dcb7da95578fc7289122c6d372575a9b

Ink color on envelope and signature could mean something! Madison totals so far: 20 rejected ballots
And Neil Albrecht from the City of Milwaukee said one Trump campaign observer was moving from table to table objecting to every ballot cast in the city.

Poll workers already have been instructed to set aside envelopes where the ink doesn't match on an envelope - for example, if the witness signature and address are filled out in a different color ink. They have also been instructed to set aside votes cast by "indefinitely confined" voters.

When Milwaukee County election officials questioned Trump campaign attorneys about the flurry of objections, Voiland said the campaign would not be arguing that every folded absentee ballot is invalid -- as every single absentee ballot is folded to be placed in its envelope.

But Trump attorneys said the issue indicates that election workers were overreaching by asking observers why they were objecting -- rather than simply setting aside ballots and envelopes after an objection was made.
Click to expand...

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...n-recount-dane-milwaukee-counties/6353846002/
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think it all makes sense if you look at it not as an attempt to bring a serious legal case, but instead as a way to create a narrative in the eyes of the right section of the public. They're not going to pay attention to any details - including that the cases have been dropped. They're just going to know that Trump is "fighting" and being thwarted by the Deep State.

If you view it not through the lens of actually trying to accomplish anything legally or electorally, but instead of trying to get re-elected in 2024 and raise money to pay off campaign debt and create influence after the presidency, then it makes perfect sense. It doesn't even matter that Guiliani doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in court, because neither do the people his performance is aimed at.
Click to expand...

This. The whole thing is an effort to get their case out of any venue where facts backed by evidence to show fraud in the process matter, and into one where the assumption of fraud is the only thing that does matter.

And for what? In four years, the GOP gets another bite at the big apple (and, in two years, a bite at a smaller one). In a free market of honestly-presented ideas, they could simply submit their product then in competition with Democrats in the same process that has served, with necessary refinements, for generations- the electoral machine, where the people do indeed get a voice in saying who has the best product. But instead, in short-sighted service of keeping Donald godamm Trump in the White House right now, they're selling a narrative, that that machine is entirely broken; and if they have to actually break the machine to sell the narrative, by god, that's what they'll do. The future cost doesn't matter, the nature of the present product doesn't count- what they're banking on is an absolute brand loyalty to ignore the future and to overlook the present.
 
Last edited:
Firestone said:
It's a beauty. One of many nice excerpts:


https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

And while this judge was nominated by Obama, he is a conservative Republican, member of the Federalist Society.
Click to expand...
Thanks. There's one sentence that I know was used in a specific legal meaning sums it all up "redress,116 a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted"

Unhinged sums it up so well.
 
Related to PA shenanigans....


How the heck is act 77 Constitutional? Why is that republican incorrect that it is unconstitutional?

It seems like it clearly violates PA's constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom