King

HarveyH55 wrote:...A lot of these early cases aren't going to meet the burden, they are just formalities. We have gotten into the more serious cases yet....

tmiddles wrote: I hope that Trump supporters are satisfied that he's not weak and incapable of sticking up for himself.

tmiddles wrote: But if they cannot find anything at all ...

tmiddles wrote:We should all hope that this goes to SCOTUS as soon as possible.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:...A lot of these early cases aren't going to meet the burden, they are just formalities. We have gotten into the more serious cases yet....

I hope that Trump supporters are satisfied that he's not weak and incapable of sticking up for himself. His team will have not lack of resources and allies in finding anything that they can.

But if they cannot find anything at all that should say something to those who insist there has been massive fraud. Trump will continue to lie.

Bill Bar is not someone I respect but he is certainly capable.
https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they've received, but "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."

Most of the states at issue are "purple" and teaming with Republicans who would happily report democratic fraud, and vice versa.

We should all hope that this goes to SCOTUS as soon as possible.

IBdaMann wrote:
They already have insurmountable evidence. Thousands of signed affidavits from election officials and other witnesses to criminal fraud.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
They already have insurmountable evidence. Thousands of signed affidavits from election officials and other witnesses to criminal fraud.

And do you have confidence in the US Judicial branch in evaluating that?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
They already have insurmountable evidence. Thousands of signed affidavits from election officials and other witnesses to criminal fraud.

And do you have confidence in the US Judicial branch in evaluating that?

My confidence is immaterial.

The overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.


.

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

tmiddles wrote:But it looks like we are dealing with blind faith in a man, TRUMP, and not faith in our system of government.

IBdaMann wrote:...a tort claim is filed and a boatload of evidence is presented...

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):
"It's such a shame. This is a democracy," Daryl Brooks, who said he was a GOP poll watcher, said at the press conference, held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philadelphia. "They did not allow us to see anything. Was it corrupt or not? But give us an opportunity as poll watchers to view all the documents — all of the ballots."
Mr. Brooks is a convicted sex offender, isn't a resident of Philadelphia (comes from New Jersey) and no, has not convinced a Judge of anything.

tmiddles wrote: Where? What "claim" are you referring to and what evidence?

tmiddles wrote: Where are you getting your information?

tmiddles wrote: My understanding is the Rudy Guliani is the lead attorney on this and he presented his first choice of a witness at Four Season Landscaping.

IBdaMann wrote:...my question,...a boatload of evidence ....is that considered "blind faith"?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Where are you getting your information?

The correct question is "From where am I not being told what to believe and what lies to regurgitate?"

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...my question,...a boatload of evidence ....is that considered "blind faith"?

Not if the evidence exists no.

tmiddles wrote:I would love to know what it is you find compelling but you have so far refused to share.

IBdaMann wrote:...The whole election fraud was well planned and coordinated.

IBdaMann wrote:... and your EVASION ...

IBdaMann wrote:I would love to know why you deliberately avoid researching the answers to your own questions.

tmiddles wrote:I looked and I can't find anything at all that is credible evidence of voter fraud

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...credible evidence of voter fraud

I presume that you know what a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is.

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
They already have insurmountable evidence. Thousands of signed affidavits from election officials and other witnesses to criminal fraud.

And do you have confidence in the US Judicial branch in evaluating that?

My confidence is immaterial.

The overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.

.

And if the courts don't concur with your assessment?

tmiddles wrote:
You haven't revealed where you are getting your information.

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

And nothing is stopping the Trump team from appealing to the Supreme Court and the courts is free to take up the case.

But it looks like we are dealing with blind faith in a man, TRUMP, and not faith in our system of government.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...a tort claim is filed and a boatload of evidence is presented...

Where? What "claim" are you referring to and what evidence? Where are you getting your information? Directly from the court? The media? Trump?

tmiddles wrote:Is that all there is? Is there a better piece of evidence to prove the case in court?

Are any cases even still pending?

tmiddles wrote:
A case must be proven in court with evidence.

tmiddles wrote:
No kicking back and musing about theories of science and pretending the point doesn't need to be proven.

You are well into FLAT EARTHER territory at this point IBD.

gfm7175 wrote:
What is "the court" that you are referring to?

gfm7175 wrote:
What is the "it" that you are referring to?

gfm7175 wrote:
And if the courts don't concur with your assessment?

gfm7175 wrote:What's your point in obsessing about this?? As IBD said, the overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.

gfm7175 wrote:
The cases are working their way up to the Supreme Court as we speak. It takes time.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
A case must be proven in court with evidence.

You still don't know the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'... Evidence is not a proof, dude...

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
They already have insurmountable evidence. Thousands of signed affidavits from election officials and other witnesses to criminal fraud.

And do you have confidence in the US Judicial branch in evaluating that?

My confidence is immaterial.

The overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.


.

And if the courts don't concur with your assessment?

You haven't revealed where you are getting your information.

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

And nothing is stopping the Trump team from appealing to the Supreme Court and the courts is free to take up the case.

But it looks like we are dealing with blind faith in a man, TRUMP, and not faith in our system of government.

keepit wrote:
IBD,
What do you think you accomplish by calling so many people stupid? Or is it that you can't help yourself?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...a tort claim is filed and a boatload of evidence is presented...

Where? What "claim" are you referring to and what evidence? Where are you getting your information? Directly from the court? The media? Trump?

My understanding is the Rudy Guliani is the lead attorney on this and he presented his first choice of a witness at Four Season Landscaping.

tmiddles wrote:"Direct" Evidence example (Giuliani's first witness):
"It's such a shame. This is a democracy," Daryl Brooks, who said he was a GOP poll watcher, said at the press conference, held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philadelphia. "They did not allow us to see anything. Was it corrupt or not? But give us an opportunity as poll watchers to view all the documents — all of the ballots."
Mr. Brooks is a convicted sex offender, isn't a resident of Philadelphia (comes from New Jersey) and no, has not convinced a Judge of anything.

Is that all there is? Is there a better piece of evidence to prove the case in court?

Are any cases even still pending?

A case must be proven in court with evidence. No kicking back and musing about theories of science and pretending the point doesn't need to be proven.

You are well into FLAT EARTHER territory at this point IBD.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...my question,...a boatload of evidence ....is that considered "blind faith"?

Not if the evidence exists no. But your question has all the integrity of a Flat Earther asking if they are foolish to believe the Earth is flat when they too claim there is a boatload of evidence that it is.

What evidence? Daryl Brooks?

I would love to know what it is you find compelling but you have so far refused to share.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Where are you getting your information?

The correct question is "From where am I not being told what to believe and what lies to regurgitate?"

OK so where from? INFOWARS? What?

Why wouldn't you want others to get better sources of information?
Don't keep it a secret. Share.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...The whole election fraud was well planned and coordinated.

When do you expect the first conviction? What criminal or legal cases are pending?

IBdaMann wrote:... and your EVASION ...

of what?

IBdaMann wrote:I would love to know why you deliberately avoid researching the answers to your own questions.

I looked and I can't find anything at all that is credible evidence of voter fraud (other that Lindsey Graham's phone call). So how can I know what it is you find compelling.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...credible evidence of voter fraud

I presume that you know what a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is.

Doesn't matter because, unless we are on the jury, the judicial branch of the US government has got this and it's not up to either of us.

Credibility will be, and has been, determined there.

How about a "No True Felon" fallacy? Nope, that makes no sense. A court either has or has not made a paricular ruiling.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
What is "the court" that you are referring to?

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is just one example. Only SCOTUS is higher.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

gfm7175 wrote:
What is the "it" that you are referring to?

No. 20-3371 brought by DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.
Again just one example of many.

Try to pay attention.

gfm7175 wrote:
And if the courts don't concur with your assessment?

Then I will have made an incorrect assessment. I will have guessed wrong as an entirely unqualified and ill informed man on the street as we all are. Because it is the courts decision we are merely speculating on.

What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series?

gfm7175 wrote:What's your point in obsessing about this?? As IBD said, the overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.

Because though I sure don't like the segment of the country embracing Trump's ruthless dishonesty proclaiming unproven fraud, abandoning our system of government and not respecting the authority of our judicial branch, we need you.. Maybe it's just 1/4 now, but if things continue to develop the US may not survive. We are in a very similar moment to Germany after WWI and the myth that Jews had caused defeat was spread as fact.

Give it 10 more years of Qanon Republican brain rot. A Trump 2.0. Our country could fall easily.

And don't assume it will be a right wing dictator. Could go either way.

gfm7175 wrote:
The cases are working their way up to the Supreme Court as we speak. It takes time.

I hope they hear at least one case to satisfy people. It is their choice though so if it doesn't happen there is no conspiracy there.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
A case must be proven in court with evidence.

You still don't know the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'... Evidence is not a proof, dude...

ALL in a court of law where evidence is required to prove a case. What you or I know is irrelevant as the court decides.

tmiddles wrote:
What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
And yet the court threw it out. Why is that?
Try to refrain from paranoid reasoning in answering.

And nothing is stopping the Trump team from appealing to the Supreme Court and the courts is free to take up the case.

But it looks like we are dealing with blind faith in a man, TRUMP, and not faith in our system of government.

The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

GasGuzzler wrote:OK educate me please.

I thought the SCOTUS was independent and could decline anything they want.

Article III, Section. 2 of the US Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

GasGuzzler wrote: If memory serves I think they vote and 4 yes votes means they will rule on it. Less than 4 and the lower court ruling stands. Wrong?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
What is "the court" that you are referring to?

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is just one example. Only SCOTUS is higher.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

gfm7175 wrote:
What is the "it" that you are referring to?

No. 20-3371 brought by DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.
Again just one example of many.

Try to pay attention.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
And if the courts don't concur with your assessment?

Then I will have made an incorrect assessment.

tmiddles wrote:
I will have guessed wrong as an entirely unqualified and ill informed man on the street

tmiddles wrote:
as we all are.

tmiddles wrote:
Because it is the courts decision we are merely speculating on.

tmiddles wrote:
What if MLB didn't agree with your assessment of who won the World Series?

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:What's your point in obsessing about this?? As IBD said, the overwhelming and compelling evidence is concrete.

Because though I sure don't like the segment of the country embracing Trump's ruthless dishonesty proclaiming unproven fraud, abandoning our system of government and not respecting the authority of our judicial branch, we need you.. Maybe it's just 1/4 now, but if things continue to develop the US may not survive. We are in a very similar moment to Germany after WWI and the myth that Jews had caused defeat was spread as fact.

Give it 10 more years of Qanon Republican brain rot. A Trump 2.0. Our country could fall easily.

And don't assume it will be a right wing dictator. Could go either way.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
The cases are working their way up to the Supreme Court as we speak. It takes time.

I hope they hear at least one case to satisfy people. It is their choice though so if it doesn't happen there is no conspiracy there.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
A case must be proven in court with evidence.

You still don't know the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'... Evidence is not a proof, dude...

ALL in a court of law where evidence is required to prove a case. What you or I know is irrelevant as the court decides.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:OK educate me please.

I thought the SCOTUS was independent and could decline anything they want.

They decline that which does not meet the requirements to be heard by the Supreme Court. They cannot simply decide to be lazy and to decline to hear cases because they would rather play golf.

They are required to hear all cases in Law and Equity that fall within their jurisdiction, which involve public Ministers and Consuls, for example (such as the President), or that involve controversies to which the United States shall be a party, such as the election of the President.

I am assigning you some reading homework ... of Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution which is:

Article III, Section. 2 of the US Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

OK, so it's very light homework reading, but that is to what Into the Night referred.

GasGuzzler wrote: If memory serves I think they vote and 4 yes votes means they will rule on it. Less than 4 and the lower court ruling stands. Wrong?

That might be a procedure they have in place but if they "vote" to be derelict in their duties then they would be derelict in their duties.


.

GasGuzzler wrote: Don't get me wrong, I certainly think they need to hear the case. I just want to see where it is required.

IBdaMann wrote:.....If they fail to hear a case within their jurisdiction then they are derelict in their duties.