2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[Joe Fan]

I wanted to write something about claims by the media and some posters of "no proof" or "no evidence." They are wrong. There is a lot of evidence, they just dont like it.

Let us briefly cover the statistical analysis. Much of it indicates something is amiss. None of this is, of course, conclusive. This is always the point with statistics. Using stats alone you can never prove anything with any exact absolution. But you can show something with a level of confidence. So while you can never achieve 100%, you can still show something is highly probable. This is how DNA results work at trial. Here, using stats alone, you cant say "these stats show 100% proof of fraud," but you could testify to something like, "the stats indicate a 98% likelihood fraud was committed." In a trial going over numbers, the question becomes what is the evidence to otherwise explain away and/or dispute the anomalies and interpretations of them? Once the numbers and stats are introduced into evidence, the burden shifts to the other party to provide that other explanation. This is how trials work.

Now let us deal with the affidavits. I think Team Trump has over 300 affidavits (maybe 400+ by now) from election observers and participants, signed under penalty of perjury. This is all "evidence." It might not be conclusive or dipositive, and it might still be subject to cross-examination, but it is eyewitness testimony, which is evidence. In fact, eyewitness testimony is among the best evidence and has high value in any trial.

Here are a handful of my favorite examples, all sworn to under oath --

Jessy Jacob of Detroit stated in an affidavit she personally witnessed fraud and saw some workers instructed to backdate thousands of absentee ballots. This happened the day after the election, where workers were instructed to make the ballots appear legal even though they were not in the Qualified Voter File and had not arrived by the deadline as outlined in Michigan law. This is evidence. See Gofile

Robert Cushman was a poll watcher in Detroit. His affidavit described behavior almost identical to that which the city worker Jacob said she engaged in. This is evidence.
See Gofile

Zachary Larsen is a lawyer who worked for the state of Michigan as an assistant AG. He swore in his affidavit he witnessed poll workers peeking at ballots to see who a voter voted for before deciding whether to put them in a pile of rejected ballots. This is evidence.
See Gofile

Shane Trejo was a poll monitor in Detroit. He will testify in court as to the statistical anomalies. This is evidence.
​

This is how trials work. The burden is on the plaintiff to build a case. It's a process. It's doesnt happen with one witness but it happens witness after witness after witness. And the introduction of tangible evidence after tangible evidence. I think on this forum we have some people giving opinions about how trials work who dont actually have much, if any, trial experience. Anyway, on the issue of voter fraud in 2020, we have plenty of witnesses already going on the record, with sworn testimony, with affidavits, who claim they were eyewitnesses to fraud.

So the folks claiming there is no evidence are wrong and you can safely ignore them. I dont know if they are relying upon CNN or tweets from liberals only, or maybe they have never actually been in trial in their entire lives. But, here, they are not paying attention. It's probably that they are just not willing to put in the time to actually look at what is already in the public sphere.

None of this means Team Trump will win its cases. All it means is that those people saying there is "no evidence" do not know what they are talking about.

 

[Joe Fan]

Now let's deal with what i think is perhaps the best pure legal argument in this entire situation.

Dems filed lawsuits all over the place regarding the rules and procedures for this election. Over 100 of them. Somewhere I read said over 200 sperate legal actions. They were already suing before the virus from China but then really picked up the pace considerably once it landed in America. Why did they do this? What were they after?

Their first problem was the Constitution. Article II establishes that it is up to state legislatures to set election rules and policy. This was not a random idea. Just like with the Electoral College, they knew what they were doing.

The problem for Democrats is that Republicans control the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Arizona and Texas. The Left was unable to get lax voting rules past these state bodies. And so this is why they started suing. And, despite the R-controlled state legs, many of these states have alot of Dem judges. You probably already know about the Penn state supreme court which is full of partisan liberal judges (reminiscent of the FL state SC being in the bag for Al Gore back in the day)

Republicans did not fight these lawsuits as hard as they should have, in part due to money issues. Dems get essentially bottomless funding from Soros, Bloomberg, Wall Street and Big Tech. And so all over the country liberal state judges were approving all sort of weird and lax voting rules. It was a big mistake for Rs not to fight back harder (even Texas threw in the towel on some items). It's a problem and that problem is eventually going to get dropped back in John Roberts' lap (his earlier refusal to take a strong stand directly led to the problem we have right now. Kavanaugh also wobbled).

What is that problem? It is that the judicial branches in the these states started making new election rules, not the state legislatures, as required by the Constitution. So here we have a Article II issue (and probably a Separation of Powers issue).

The SCOTUS is going to be put on the spot because of this. They do not want to touch this mess with a ten foot pole. They hate being forced to dip into politics. But it is their own fault. Roberts could have and should have shut it all down earlier. But he didn't (hint: he's not a very good Chief Justice)

How will it go?
Justices who stick to strict construction will probably do just that. My best guess is that they will be willing to throw out a lot of these rules as unconstitutional (Alito, Thomas for sure, plus probably ACB and Gorsuch). What about Roberts (and Kavanaugh)? I dont know. Those two (+ the remaining 3 liberals) are not going to want to undue the results of the election. They will, as a group, look for any excuse to wiggle out of having to rule (such as "lack of standing" or "lack of a complete record" whatever they can cling to). On the other hand, from my perspective, Trump has a strong legal case - the clear and unambiguous words in the face of the Constitution. A virus doesn't change the words.

Assuming R attorneys do their jobs and get good trial records in all these cases, then it wont matter what the trial court decided or the Cir Ct decided (if they even get the chance). Trial court judges dont like making Constitutional rulings, so don't worry about the outcome of these cases. That will only be temporary.

I think the whole outcome of this election could turn on this one issue. Were all the voting rules set by the various state court judges (Vote-by-Mail, extended deadlines, no signatures required and so on), bypassing the state legislatures, legal?

I say in no way were they Constitutional. The courts lacked the legal power to make these rules in the first place. Those courts should have sent it all back to the state legislatures. Most of them probably knew this but did it anyway (as an example, see the 9th Cir, which knowingly makes bad law all the time, and gets smacked down for it all the time. Yet keeps doing it). I think this is Trump's best best legal argument and he can win on it even without showing fraud (which is always hard to prove). In some ways, its an easy decision for the SCOTUS. While the ramifications will be huge (and may even affect their own personal lives), the legal issue is clear. All of these state judges were making law in an area specifically reserved for state legislatures by the US Constitution. All of those different opinions Dems got from Dem state court judges in their massive effort to skirt state legislatures were wrong on the law. But, do the Supremes have the cajones to actually say so? We will see.

 

[Horn6721]

JF
You took the emotion out of it and explained it well.

 

[Joe Fan]

Third Cir granted Team Trump expedited review of their appeal from Penn

 

[Seattle Husker]

Jessy Jacob of Detroit stated in an affidavit she personally witnessed fraud and saw some workers instructed to backdate thousands of absentee ballots. This happened the day after the election, where workers were instructed to make the ballots appear legal even though they were not in the Qualified Voter File and had not arrived by the deadline as outlined in Michigan law. This is evidence. See Gofile

Robert Cushman was a poll watcher in Detroit. His affidavit described behavior almost identical to that which the city worker Jacob said she engaged in. This is evidence.
See Gofile

Zachary Larsen is a lawyer who worked for the state of Michigan as an assistant AG. He swore in his affidavit he witnessed poll workers peeking at ballots to see who a voter voted for before deciding whether to put them in a pile of rejected ballots. This is evidence.
See Gofile

All 3 of these affidavits were part of Cheryl Costantino and Edward McCall vs. City of Detroit (and a range of others). That case was lost at Circuit Court and again in the Michigan Court of Appeals (which 2 of 3 judges were Republican appointed). They've appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny’s opinion had this to say about said evidence.

“Ms. Jacob’s information is generalized. It asserts behavior with no date, location or frequency or names of employees,” he wrote. “In addition, [she] offers no indication of whether she took steps to address the alleged misconduct or to [alert] any supervisor about the alleged voter fraud. Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.”

"No formal challenges were filed. However, sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the city of Detroit,...Plaintiff's interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible."

For anyone that is interested, here is a good summary of the public affidavits in that case (which are also the ones Guiliani continues to cite) and the defendants responses. Ultimately, 2 courts so far have sided with the defendants, in this case the local election officials.

 

[Joe Fan]

I wanted to write something about claims by the media and some posters of "no proof" or "no evidence." They are wrong. There is a lot of evidence, they just dont like it.

Let us briefly cover the statistical analysis. Much of it indicates something is amiss. None of this is, of course, conclusive. This is always the point with statistics. Using stats alone you can never prove anything with any exact absolution. But you can show something with a level of confidence. So while you can never achieve 100%, you can still show something is highly probable. This is how DNA results work at trial. Here, using stats alone, you cant say "these stats show 100% proof of fraud," but you could testify to something like, "the stats indicate a 98% likelihood fraud was committed." In a trial going over numbers, the question becomes what is the evidence to otherwise explain away and/or dispute the anomalies and interpretations of them? Once the numbers and stats are introduced into evidence, the burden shifts to the other party to provide that other explanation. This is how trials work.

Now let us deal with the affidavits. I think Team Trump has over 300 affidavits (maybe 400+ by now) from election observers and participants, signed under penalty of perjury. This is all "evidence." It might not be conclusive or dipositive, and it might still be subject to cross-examination, but it is eyewitness testimony, which is evidence. In fact, eyewitness testimony is among the best evidence and has high value in any trial.

Here are a handful of my favorite examples, all sworn to under oath --

Jessy Jacob of Detroit stated in an affidavit she personally witnessed fraud and saw some workers instructed to backdate thousands of absentee ballots. This happened the day after the election, where workers were instructed to make the ballots appear legal even though they were not in the Qualified Voter File and had not arrived by the deadline as outlined in Michigan law. This is evidence. See Gofile

Robert Cushman was a poll watcher in Detroit. His affidavit described behavior almost identical to that which the city worker Jacob said she engaged in. This is evidence.
See Gofile

Zachary Larsen is a lawyer who worked for the state of Michigan as an assistant AG. He swore in his affidavit he witnessed poll workers peeking at ballots to see who a voter voted for before deciding whether to put them in a pile of rejected ballots. This is evidence.
See Gofile

Shane Trejo was a poll monitor in Detroit. He will testify in court as to the statistical anomalies. This is evidence.
​

This is how trials work. The burden is on the plaintiff to build a case. It's a process. It's doesnt happen with one witness but it happens witness after witness after witness. And the introduction of tangible evidence after tangible evidence. I think on this forum we have some people giving opinions about how trials work who dont actually have much, if any, trial experience. Anyway, on the issue of voter fraud in 2020, we have plenty of witnesses already going on the record, with sworn testimony, with affidavits, who claim they were eyewitnesses to fraud.

So the folks claiming there is no evidence are wrong and you can safely ignore them. I dont know if they are relying upon CNN or tweets from liberals only, or maybe they have never actually been in trial in their entire lives. But, here, they are not paying attention. It's probably that they are just not willing to put in the time to actually look at what is already in the public sphere.

None of this means Team Trump will win its cases. All it means is that those people saying there is "no evidence" do not know what they are talking about.

Here is another affidavit
I like this one bc it is hand-written, which doesn't matter, still counts
Alexandra Seeley Gofile

 

[Joe Fan]

Domain Name: http://dominionvotingsystems.com
Registrant State/Province: Hunan
Registrant Country: CN (China)

 

[Joe Fan]

Now let's deal with what i think is perhaps the best pure legal argument in this entire situation.

Dems filed lawsuits all over the place regarding the rules and procedures for this election. Over 100 of them. Somewhere I read said over 200 sperate legal actions. They were already suing before the virus from China but then really picked up the pace considerably once it landed in America. Why did they do this? What were they after?

Their first problem was the Constitution. Article II establishes that it is up to state legislatures to set election rules and policy. This was not a random idea. Just like with the Electoral College, they knew what they were doing.

The problem for Democrats is that Republicans control the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Arizona and Texas. The Left was unable to get lax voting rules past these state bodies. And so this is why they started suing. And, despite the R-controlled state legs, many of these states have alot of Dem judges. You probably already know about the Penn state supreme court which is full of partisan liberal judges (reminiscent of the FL state SC being in the bag for Al Gore back in the day)

Republicans did not fight these lawsuits as hard as they should have, in part due to money issues. Dems get essentially bottomless funding from Soros, Bloomberg, Wall Street and Big Tech. And so all over the country liberal state judges were approving all sort of weird and lax voting rules. It was a big mistake for Rs not to fight back harder (even Texas threw in the towel on some items). It's a problem and that problem is eventually going to get dropped back in John Roberts' lap (his earlier refusal to take a strong stand directly led to the problem we have right now. Kavanaugh also wobbled).

What is that problem? It is that the judicial branches in the these states started making new election rules, not the state legislatures, as required by the Constitution. So here we have a Article II issue (and probably a Separation of Powers issue).

The SCOTUS is going to be put on the spot because of this. They do not want to touch this mess with a ten foot pole. They hate being forced to dip into politics. But it is their own fault. Roberts could have and should have shut it all down earlier. But he didn't (hint: he's not a very good Chief Justice)

How will it go?
Justices who stick to strict construction will probably do just that. My best guess is that they will be willing to throw out a lot of these rules as unconstitutional (Alito, Thomas for sure, plus probably ACB and Gorsuch). What about Roberts (and Kavanaugh)? I dont know. Those two (+ the remaining 3 liberals) are not going to want to undue the results of the election. They will, as a group, look for any excuse to wiggle out of having to rule (such as "lack of standing" or "lack of a complete record" whatever they can cling to). On the other hand, from my perspective, Trump has a strong legal case - the clear and unambiguous words in the face of the Constitution. A virus doesn't change the words.

Assuming R attorneys do their jobs and get good trial records in all these cases, then it wont matter what the trial court decided or the Cir Ct decided (if they even get the chance). Trial court judges dont like making Constitutional rulings, so don't worry about the outcome of these cases. That will only be temporary.

I think the whole outcome of this election could turn on this one issue. Were all the voting rules set by the various state court judges (Vote-by-Mail, extended deadlines, no signatures required and so on), bypassing the state legislatures, legal?

I say in no way were they Constitutional. The courts lacked the legal power to make these rules in the first place. Those courts should have sent it all back to the state legislatures. Most of them probably knew this but did it anyway (as an example, see the 9th Cir, which knowingly makes bad law all the time, and gets smacked down for it all the time. Yet keeps doing it). I think this is Trump's best best legal argument and he can win on it even without showing fraud (which is always hard to prove). In some ways, its an easy decision for the SCOTUS. While the ramifications will be huge (and may even affect their own personal lives), the legal issue is clear. All of these state judges were making law in an area specifically reserved for state legislatures by the US Constitution. All of those different opinions Dems got from Dem state court judges in their massive effort to skirt state legislatures were wrong on the law. But, do the Supremes have the cajones to actually say so? We will see.

Here is a suit just filed in Penn state court by Republican Party officials and individual Republican voters alleging “no excuse” absentee voting was an illegitimate amendment of the State Constitution. They say the state Constitution requires in-person voting, with one exception which is already set out by Amendment. And so the legislation which allowed this special absentee voting was an improper attempt to amend the Const.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...lly-v.-Commonwealth-Complaint-620MD20-PFR.pdf

 

[Joe Fan]

Dominion’s registered lobbyist in Georgia was Brian Kemp’s Chief of Staff
That doesnt sound too good

 

[Seattle Husker]

Domain Name: http://dominionvotingsystems.com
Registrant State/Province: Hunan
Registrant Country: CN (China)

Are you sure that's the right company?

Notice the actual website address for Dominion Voting Systems is not dominionvotingsystems.com but rather dominionvoting.com. Again...this doesn't take much time at all to fact check if one is so inclined.

Here is the link the icann registration information.

 

[Joe Fan]

There is supposed to be a Certification meeting in Mich right now
They had to recess bc a "critical witness" did not show up
Supposedly some yelling was involved
The commission is 4-votes split bc 2 Dems and 2 Reps

 

[Seattle Husker]

Quote from one of the 2 Republican Board of State Canvassers during the meeting.

"I think we are pretty limited today. I think we have a duty to do this," Van Langevelde said.

From my understanding, only 3 of 4 have to vote affirmative to certify the vote.

 

[OUBubba]

Are you sure that's the right company?

Notice the actual website address for Dominion Voting Systems is not dominionvotingsystems.com but rather dominionvoting.com. Again...this doesn't take much time at all to fact check if one is so inclined.

Here is the link the icann registration information.

LOL

 

[Joe Fan]

John Kerry, who is Joe Biden's special "Climate Envoy" and who is a believer in the rising sea level theory, lives in a $12M waterfront mansion on the island of Martha's Vineyard

Make sense?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Quote from one of the 2 Republican Board of State Canvassers during the meeting.

"I think we are pretty limited today. I think we have a duty to do this," Van Langevelde said.

From my understanding, only 3 of 4 have to vote affirmative to certify the vote.

After listening to the meeting, yes it resumed, it's pretty clear that Van Langevelde feels he has no choice but to certify. In questioning by John James' attorney he agreed to disagree about the translation of the law. James' attorney was saying the absence of rules around requiring an audit before certifying allows the Board to do so whereas the Co-Chair of the board was clear that there was nothing in the law that allows them to adjourn the certification while waiting for an audit.

 

[huisache]

“I read somewhere.....”.

well that would be good authority in any of the 100 or so courts I have practiced in over the last 40 years.

 

[Seattle Husker]

After listening to the meeting, yes it resumed, it's pretty clear that Van Langevelde feels he has no choice but to certify. In questioning by John James' attorney he agreed to disagree about the translation of the law. James' attorney was saying the absence of rules around requiring an audit before certifying allows the Board to do so whereas the Co-Chair of the board was clear that there was nothing in the law that allows them to adjourn the certification while waiting for an audit.

Michigan Board of State Canvassers have voted. As expected the vote of the bi-partisan panel was 3 (yes) -1 (abstain) to certify. Biden officially receives Michigan's 16 electors absent more legal wrangling to disenfranchise voters.

 

[bystander]

disenfranchise voters

Took 'em a while to come up with that one after election day. As opposed to ballots that are not properly filled out, sent in late or whatever a person who can't get their act together may do. That is what is known as "Self-disenfranchised."

As I mentioned before, the Penn Supreme Court didn't care one bit if observers couldn't see what was happening. Read the opinion. It completely errs on the side that process means nothing.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Took 'em a while to come up with that one after election day. As opposed to ballots that are not properly filled out, sent in late or whatever a person who can't get their act together may do. That is what is known as "Self-disenfranchised."

As I mentioned before, the Penn Supreme Court didn't care one bit if observers couldn't see what was happening. Read the opinion. It completely errs on the side that process means nothing.

Took who awhile? Are you claiming that "disenfranchisement" was a term used only this year? I heard it often in 2000 when Gore tried to get the absentee ballots (read: predominantly military) thrown out in Florida. It was an appropriate use of the term then as it is now and it predates this election cycle by a ways. This isn't an R vs. D issue but a winner vs. loser issue. The loser typically tries to disqualify enough votes to win, although admittedly the volume has never been as great at Trump is attempting now.

Yes, Trump right this moment is trying to get just enough ballots tossed in various legal (and extra-legal) fights to overturn an election. In PA he's asking a judge to toss the entire state out on account of 2 Western PA voters that weren't allowed to cure their ballots like in other counties. What would you call that? A technicality? Self-disenfranchisement?

 

[bystander]

Took who awhile? Are you claiming that "disenfranchisement" was a term used only this year? I heard it often in 2000 when Gore tried to get the absentee ballots (read: predominantly military) thrown out in Florida. It was an appropriate use of the term then as it is now and it predates this election cycle by a ways. This isn't an R vs. D issue but a winner vs. loser issue. The loser typically tries to disqualify enough votes to win, although admittedly the volume has never been as great at Trump is attempting now.

Yes, Trump right this moment is trying to get just enough ballots tossed in various legal (and extra-legal) fights to overturn an election. In PA he's asking a judge to toss the entire state out on account of 2 Western PA voters that weren't allowed to cure their ballots like in other counties. What would you call that? A technicality? Self-disenfranchisement?

Of course it's an old term; it's the use of it in the current cycle of checking the validity of the election results. It's being used in an inflammatory manner to cover for any questions that are being asked.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Of course it's an old term; it's the use of it in the current cycle of checking the validity of the election results. It's being used in an inflammatory manner to cover for any questions that are being asked.

"Any questions that are being asked" like what's going in in Wisconsin now where the Trump campaign has requested a recount in only 2 counties that happen to be huge Biden counties? How about attempts by R watchers to dispute every "folded" ballot, considering EVERY VBM ballot is folded to fit in the envelope? This doesn't sound like simply "asking questions".

There is no perfect election. Actual election fraud should be investigated and prosecuted. Sor far, what we've seen so far has not been validated as fraud in any scalable way to overturn the election. JoeFan's examples on this or another thread were reviewed by 2 different courts and in both cases the plaintiff lost. Assuming it's fraud with only the allegation and no response from the defendant is often a fools errand. In that case, as soon as the City of Detroit and other parties were able to respond it was clear those affidavits were not examples of fraud, at least according to the original judge and the appeals court.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I listened to every minute of the Michigan Board of the State Canvassers meeting, at least up to the vote. I walked away more heartened about our Democracy. The extreme partisans were a small minority. Both the County Clerks and Independent monitors described the actual vote counting as rational and generally harmonious, even across party lines. In the end, the Board certified the vote in spit of the single definitely partisan person. I'd wager of the ~75 people I heard speak, they were 2-1 saying positive things about their view of the Democratic process and the desire by all the parties towards a free and fair election.

 

[Seattle Husker]

At what point will Trump's attempts to delay the Biden transition actually start to matter to his supporters? I didn't think it was a big deal until this week. Starting the FBI background check process to get the Cabinet confirmed quickly after inauguration is key. It also makes sense that the Biden Administration needs to be able to review the details of the vaccination logistics and influence it considering that may make or break his first 100 days.

 

[Seattle Husker]

At what point will Trump's attempts to delay the Biden transition actually start to matter to his supporters? I didn't think it was a big deal until this week. Starting the FBI background check process to get the Cabinet confirmed quickly after inauguration is key. It also makes sense that the Biden Administration needs to be able to review the details of the vaccination logistics and influence it considering that may make or break his first 100 days.

GSA approves Biden transition to begin.

 

[Horn6721]

Nice DMC
an0nym0us patri0t on Twitter: "From Michael Flynn Jr on Parler. GSA admin was getting death threats. There is nothing more to this latest announcement. Stay the course. https://t.co/6rDFKLdpgh" / Twitter

 

[huisache]

Trying to talk reasonably with a Trumpista right now is akin to asking Edmund Ruffin to stand away from his cannon in 1861

 

[theiioftx]

Trying to talk reasonably with a Trumpista right now is akin to asking Edmund Ruffin to stand away from his cannon in 1861

Of all people, I would expect you to question motives.

 

[Joe Fan]

"In January, when Biden and his national security team begin to reevaluate US foreign policy, we hope they will quickly revise the national security strategy to eliminate ‘America first’ from its contents .... "

-- Jim Mattis & friends.​

Defense In Depth

 

[Joe Fan]

Trying to talk reasonably with a Trumpista right now is akin to asking Edmund Ruffin to stand away from his cannon in 1861

Is that how you see yourself, as a "reasonable talker?"

 

[huisache]

No, Joe, I gave up on that long ago when I listened to myself and realized I was striving to be a true believer in something. Now I just step back and ridicule those who believe and strive and end up having saviors like Obama or Trump. So sad