I think a proper analogy would be not letting a Super Bowl team's bus into the stadium parking lot on game day because the bus driver was too dumb to remember to bring the parking pass.
IMO, the Fix is in
- Thread starter OrangeShogun
- Start date
So if I sued your insured in the wrong court, would you tell your counsel to just let that **** slide, because it seems unfair? I doubt it. We can make that argument about any case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It might seem unfair to some, but it's blatantly unconstitutional for a court to hear a case without jurisdiction. Should we ignore tlhe Constitution just because Trump's legal team couldn't get its **** together well enough to have the right parties filing in the right courts? I don't think we should.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Many of the 65 cases Trump and his surrogates filed were thrown out due to standing issues. Still, many judges (D and R appointments) did review the evidence in so far as reading the initial claims and responses and still threw out the cases. There is a prevailing narrative that the evidence has never been reviewed by a judge but that's patently false, like most of the other narratives being pushed by the "stolen election" crowd. Still other cases did get to an actual pre-trial hearing stage. Remember the famous Guiliani admission in PA that he was not arguing "fraud" occurred?
I'm not saying the courts were wrong. I'm just saying the merits were never heard.
Sure, I understand the jurisdictional grounds where such grounds are legitimate. Perhaps such grounds were legit in some cases perhaps not in others. I will defer to you on that. My point is simply that losing because the evidence has been vetted and found lacking is not the same as losing due to legal wrangling.
Two points on this. First, Husker is correct that at least a few judges have reviewed the evidence and found it not credible, and some of them are Republicans. Are they all wrong? If we were just talking about Pennsylvania, I could see a partisan role impacting Trump's ability to get a day in state court. However, the Arizona and Georgia judiciaries are dominated by Republicans. If there was merit to these claims, few states would be more receptive to them.
Second, with respect to those cases that were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (mostly the federal lawsuits), don't the repeated filings in courts that lack jurisdiction make you question the merits? Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood aren't idiots. They know what standing and subject matter jurisdiction are and knew these federal cases were going to have major problems. But they kept going that route over and over again. Doesn't it make you wonder if actually winning on the merits may not have been the real goal? Why do it?
BevoJoe
10,000+ Posts
^^^^THIS. It's also a great way to be sued by your client if you bring suit in a court without jurisdiction to hear the case.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yes, the myth of a "stolen election" was more valuable than winning a court case. It will continue to be leveraged through to the next election to keep the Trump base energized.
This is how you get the "it doesn't feel like Biden won". Maybe it's because you've been told over and over and over even before the election that the only way Biden wins is if the election is fraudulent? In the end, a very sizable contingent of voters, the most ever, wanted less drama and for Trump to go away.
Wanted to give a Hook’em for the welcome! As for the GOP. I would just as soon see the party go. Tired of supporting a body that does not support me. With apologies to the few good ones.
It matters. It takes far more courage for a Republican to oppose Trump than to support him. If he opposes him, he'll get some fake media support for a few minutes, but he's taking a massive gamble for having a brutal primary challenge. There's far more downside than upside.
This sounds exactly like the Russian collusion claims Democrats have been making for four years. Just replace Biden with Trump.
I'm sure some of the cases were meritless. Some have merit and continue to be litigated. The simple fact that none of the libs on this board could answer a very simple question posed earlier causes me concern; Why would poster board be placed on windows to block prying eyes during vote counts ? Add the unusual changes by election officials shortly before the election in contravention of state laws, plus the continuous attempt by Libs to stop any sort of voter verification, and we have some questions that need to be answered.
Last edited:
Ok, to your first point, yes, some some judges have looked at some evidence. The evidence alleged across many states in this election has been extremely varied and, depending on the case, appearing more or less credible. Much of it coming down to individual affidavits lacking any corroboration which basically amount to “He said She said” testimony. I would think it would be fairly easy or “justifiable” for a court to dismiss such evidence when it comes to a matter of this magnitude. But, there is an entirely different kind of evidence in electronic format that exists on voting machines and the servers. The allegations are that this electronic evidence is so damning concerning vote manipulation that in some cases bad actors got to the machines and deleted transaction logs which detailed what was going on. Anyone examining the machines or servers would see either the damning evidence, the footprint of the deleted log files OR evidence of an accurate and clean election. To my knowledge, no court has looked at electronic evidence concerning the machines or servers. Again, I am working on gut feeling here, but, it seems like the courts that actually looked at evidence, were looking at evidence more easily dismissed.
On the second point, I am a little out of my league on jurisdictional and Standing arguments. I do know that two Justices felt the Texas case did have standing which tells me the question is not cut and dry. If you believe you have evidence of serious wrongdoing, and you are only impeded by questionable Standing arguments, wouldn’t your persistence in filing suit be proportional to your level of belief in the evidence? Your right, Giuliani, Powell and Wood are not idiots. And yet they kept filing. So what have they seen that the rest of us have not? I don’t know. But I do know that Wood is a highly successful attorney of 40+ Years whose specialty is defamation of character. He feels so strongly about the wrongdoing committed that he has publicly defamed, in the most remarkable fashion, high ranking individuals including Justice Roberts. He knows exactly what this defamation could cost him if he is sued and he is boldly proclaiming it repeatedly. Why would he do that?? The guy is near retirement and he is putting his livelihood, career, legacy and possibly his freedom on the line just to make up lies? Or perhaps he knows something profoundly egregious and is willing to do whatever it takes to force discovery of the evidence.
My understanding is that the legal maximum number of poll challengers in the room had been reached, so some were asked to leave. Rather than do so without incident, they banged on the windows, took video, and took photos through the windows. It's illegal for poll challengers to do this, because it can expose voter data. My understanding is that they didn't cover all the windows, and people could still see what was happening. And of course, both parties still had challengers in the room.
I err on the side of transparency and don't have any problem with fully investigating any and all irregularities that took place in this election and all elections. There's a multifaceted process through which it can be done. Prosecutors (plenty of whom are Republicans in all of these states) can look into criminal matters. Civil lawsuits can be filed the correct way. In addition, Republicans control both houses of the legislatures in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. They have oversight power and can investigate potential problems themselves. I'm all for them doing so.
Actually, the opposite is true. A real "he said, she said" dispute is what courts seldom dismiss. They impanel juries to decide "he said, she said" disputes. When a court summarily tosses out an affidavit as not credible, there is usually some kind of major defect to it. It's not as simple as, "He's probably not telling the truth." For example, there is some uncontested fact that makes the testimony impossible to be true. Or perhaps it testifies to speculation of an alleged fact rather than personal knowledge of that fact.
OK, you buy into the Kraken. I get it, and I'm not judging. After all, some of us believe Magic Johnson is faking his HIV/AIDS diagnosis. Here's the problem. Allegations are not evidence. Somebody testifying under oath saying, "On November 3, 2020, I saw Bob manipulate votes and delete transaction logs" would be evidence. And has a properly judiciable lawsuit been brought that would enable the examination of the machines? To my knowledge there hasn't been. In fact, she has been dropping more lawsuits of late than filing.
It's not always cut and dry, but that doesn't mean that it never is. The Texas case was brought under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. That is an entirely unique procedure from what the Trump lawsuits were brought under, and there's almost no precedent on it. By the way, I agree with Justices Thomas and Alito. SCOTUS should have to hear cases brought under its original jurisdiction. That doesn't mean Texas would have had standing to truly reach the merits - only that the Court should have heard the case and then wiped its *** with them, which is what Thomas suggested he would have done.
What happened in the other cases was far more cut and dry. That's why pretty much every judge regardless of judicial philosophy reached the same conclusion.
No. If had evidence of serious wrongdoing, I would find a proper plaintiff and bring suit in a proper court. If I guessed wrong once, I'd correct my error and file in the correct court. I wouldn't just keep suing without standing.
If they're trying to overturn the election results, then there is nothing they should have seen that the rest of us have not. That evidence should be in court in front of judges and perhaps jurors.
Why would he do that? Two reasons. First, the odds of him actually having to pay money in a defamation action are virtually nil. Second, there's money and fame to be gained by doing what he did. Same for Powell, Giuliani, and ultimately, Trump. What if those people write books, make documentaries, or get talk shows or podcasts? Guys like you and others will buy. What if Trump runs for office again or launches his own news network? Guys like you will vote for him in the primary and watch his news channel. Furthermore, when he says, "Joe Blow Republican wasn't loyal to me when I was contesting the election and should lose his primary election," guys like you will vote to oust Joe Blow Republican. This whole story cost us control of the Senate and is putting freaks in the Cabinet and on the federal courts, but it created opportunities for all of these people to make money, fame, and power.
He's not acting like this is the case. Take it from someone who has experience and knows what it actually looks like.
Last edited:
Well, that must be right then. I guess there was no voter fraud in Detroit.
It could be correct. There are a lot of people out there. On the other hand, it could just be election official BS like we've seen in Georgia by people trying to cover their asses.
I'm sure there was voter fraud in Detroit. I pretty assume that Detroit has never had an election without voter fraud. I just don't think it was in the realm of 150,000 votes. Ultimately that's the big obstacle. This election just wasn't that close. If we were looking at margins like Florida in 2000, you'd see more people interested in nitpicking over a few dozen or even a few hundred votes that were or weren't counted improperly.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
My brother challenged an election and won the challenge (but lost the election). You have to prove there was a voting issue and then prove that the issue could have made the difference in the outcome. If you lose by 100 votes but only bring forward 2 votes as your evidence you lose your challenge. I think back to the Wisconsin challenge where the attorney brought up he and his wife's votes to allege irregularities but the difference was more than 20,000.
This is the issue in question. I feel like Biden probably won (65% is my personal probability), but the election process is so screwed up it is difficult to be sure. Time to fix the system. I'm guessing the Rs are all for it. How bout those Ds? Probably not.
The best way to fix it is to actually have transparency, which will never happen. I think there was enough fraud to turn the election(Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona are so close) but I admit I could possibly be wrong. All I want is a full audit of the ballots/machines and see what we're dealing with.
It's definitely the question going forward. The election process is screwed up. Mail-in voting (at least without cause) should be done away with. There's no question that it's easier to cheat (both intentionally and inadvertently) through the mail and easier to get away with it. Even though I vote absentee by mail, I don't even think that's a good thing. I have a right to vote, but I don't have a right for the ballot to be sent to me across an ocean when I'm here voluntarily. For military personnel here, it's a different matter, but even for them, I'd rather just set up a polling station on base and let the military and DoD civilians vote at it.
Obviously, an ID should be required to vote. Of course, Ds are not on board with any of that, because large portions of their coalition simply aren't willing to go to the trouble of jumping through the hoops. They view that as a bug. I view it as a feature, because it roots out the uninformed and unmotivated.
(I'd also dump straight-ticket voting, and in Deezestan, ballots wouldn't be multiple choice but would be fill-in-the-blank. That would eliminate the "name you know" problem.)
Good idea. It would also help stop election fraud.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
For the record, this is an example of where Mr. Deez and I differ, very significantly.
6 States (Conservative and Liberal) have increasingly long histories of successfully voting by mail. Is voter fraud present? Absolutely. I'm sure there isn't a single state that didn't have some example of voter fraud, caught or not. Is it egregious enough to make it harder to vote eliminating 10's of thousands of voters? Absolutely not. In full transparency, I didn't always vote in every election when I was younger and WA State like others had only in-person voting. Living in the City of Seattle and working 60+hrs a week, the flexibility and desire to stand in line for an hour or more to vote on a City Councilman wasn't present. With mail-in voting, I've never missed a single election. Additionally, the aspect I appreciate most about mail-in voting is never mentioned. I literally spend hours researching each Referendum and candidate online as I complete my ballot. Gone are the days where you are simply looking at a ****** voting pamphlet and statement trying to make a choice. Now I have he internet at my disposal to check out the candidates. Partisan sites, LinkedIn and yes even Facebook can offer insight into these lower level candidates. Does every mail-in voter spend that much time? Not likely but I'd argue they are likely MORE informed than the typical voter sitting in a voting booth with only a pamphlet to guide them.
Mr. Deez, would you say that all extremists are "informed and motivated" simply because they vote? I'm on record as being against extremism. When we limit our voting to only the most motivated and often the most biased (read: least truth based) then we get the deeply politicized politics we see. We need MORE independents, MORE people that don't live and breath politics to vote because those are the people that are simply living their lives. They have the freshest eyes, unpolluted by partisan rhetoric. After witnessing the lies purveyed daily by last administration and it's supporter, why would you want to limit your elections to that element and their counterparts on the extreme left?
As an aside, I do agree with you Deez on straight ticket voting. That's an uniformed as any voter that votes once every 4 years.
Can I throw in a bit to outlaw gerrymandering? For shits and giggles I looked at Jerry Nadler's and Jim Jordan's congressional districts. Just 2 examples of many that continue to drive the partisan rancor and extremism on both sides.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm in on this if you allow elderly above the driving age to use an expired document and if you mandate that the ability to get an ID is a universal thing that all states and counties must follow well established guidelines assuring reasonable access and some extended hours. Texas' efforts to limit ID's is a great example. Shameful.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Agree. Computers should make voting districts.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Clearly we'll need a blue-ribbon commission to make recommendations that will get ignored by partisan lawmakers.
Seriously, the rules that drive the algorithms can be easily outlined in legislation. After all, a programmer needs to be able to code the rules. You then can have a regular audit of the program by a 3rd party to ensure everything is kosher. It's only needed every 10 years, right? Like the Census, State Legislatures can debate if the rules that drive the algorithm need to be updated and change the laws appropriately.
It's not hard. Many states already have "Non-Politician Commissions" that divide up the maps, likely guided by a pre-set list of rules.
These are state by state processes but what we've seen over he last 20-30 years is a corrosive influence from the political parties on the legislative redistricting process to guarantee the current party in power remains in power.
1) Expired documents should never be acceptable if you mean expired more than six months or so ago...anything else, uh-uh...no dice. It is NOT that difficult to get a renewal, especially since it can be done online.
2) What effort to "limit" ID's? There is no excuse to begin with for NOT having an ID even if one did not need a DL. There are DPS locations in every county to the best of my knowledge...and many jurisdictions even have at least one day a month where they were doing extended hours.
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 346
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 506
- West Mall
