- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: List of 2020 Election Fraud Cases 81 Cases Total, 30 Still Active.. 0 heard evidence
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:06 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:06 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
The case have never been heard. You arse!
0
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:07 pm to No Colors
quote:
Do you know how hard it is to get 100 independent people to agree to anything? To all do the same thing? Just magically? It's simply way more likely that the evidence just isn't there.
Evidence in WI was found, as just one example. Saying evidence wasn't there is simply bovine excrement.
Evidence in PA was clear - rules were changed illegally.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:12 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:good old genetic fallacy. Notice this person didn't comment on the cyber analysis in the report nor has any intelligence agency refuted it with, you know, actual evidence of their own
Yeah it turns out the affidavit from the guy who flunked out of a Military Intel training unit wasn’t super credible
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:13 pm to No Colors
quote:nope. The judges said they didn't want the courts to have a say in deciding the election. The deck was always stacked against the challengers regarding the courts
There are only two conclusions here
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:16 pm to Jjdoc
quote:these people on the left cannot fathom that the judges never weighed the evidence in and of itself. It was always in the context of the merits of the case.
That's not hearing the evidence and ruling
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:17 pm to WDE24
quote:it's my contention that you don't know what you're talking about and you need to go visit the biden accomplishments thread
Is it your contention that none of the judges who rejected cases on standing heard and considered evidence
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:18 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
Fraud can't be proven without the evidence being heard...you dumb arse!
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:21 pm to WDE24
quote:
Is it your contention that none of the judges who rejected cases on standing heard and considered evidence?
I'm not him, but no. They did not get to present their case with the evidence.
Considering the vast listed used the "no standing", you are down to a few cases to examine.
Considering "no Standing", nothing was considered. You are still losing your argument.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:21 pm to No Colors
It just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:25 pm to GodnCountry
quote:
Considering "no Standing", nothing was considered.
Opinion by Federal Judge Appointed by Trump
quote:
Even assuming Wood possessed standing, and assuming Counts I and II are not barred by laches, the Court nonetheless finds Wood would not be entitled to the relief he seeks. The Court addresses each required element for a temporary restraining order in turn.
quote:
Although Wood generally claims fundamental unfairness, and the declarations and testimony submitted in support of his motion speculate as to wide-spread impropriety, the actual harm alleged by Wood concerns merely a "garden variety" election dispute. Wood does not allege unfairness in counting the ballots; instead, he alleges that select non-party, partisan monitors were not permitted to observe the Audit in an ideal manner. Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing. Precedent militates against a finding of a due process violation regarding such an "ordinary dispute over the counting and marking of ballots." Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 1980) ("If every state election irregularity were considered a federal constitutional deprivation, federal courts would adjudicate every state election dispute."). Wood has not satisfied his burden of establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to his substantive due process claim.
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:29 pm to themunch
quote:
just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud
Individually not substantial but collectively the evidence likely adds up to stealing the election. But of course we’ll never know because no one had the balls to demand an audit of legitimate ballots.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:35 pm to WDE24
quote:
Considering "no Standing", nothing was considered.
The WDE decides to prove my point by posting:
quote:
Even assuming Wood possessed standing, and assuming Counts I and II are not barred by laches, the Court nonetheless finds Wood would not be entitled to the relief he seeks.
Ruled no Standing.
Was there another point you wanted to make?
quote:
Opinion by Federal Judge Appointed by Trump
Google Scholar
404. That's an error.
Sorry, no content found for this URL
That's all we know.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:37 pm to GodnCountry
quote:Yes. The judge, while ruling no standing, also considered the evidence proffered by Wood and made a finding that he was not likely to succeed on the merits of his claim even if he had standing. This was following a hearing in which Wood was permitted to call witnesses to testify and allowed to proffer evidence to support his claims.
Ruled no Standing.
Was there another point you wanted to make?
Different link, same ruling
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 1:57 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
You mean like the Wisconsin case that ruled that the "indefinitely confined" status was wrongly applied?
Note this wasn't a case regarding election fraud but one of if county clerks have the power to interpret election statutes. One may argue that it facilitated voter fraud.
I will say the WI Supreme Ct. did a good job in handling a case where it was technically moot but they have an excellent case of precedent to deal with such matters.
quote:
Evidence in PA was clear - rules were changed illegally.
Again not an election fraud issue.
Most states and courts took a similar view: once the election was held the procedural changes were moot. The legislatures in the states hold the power to direct the elections. Many if not most states had election procedures changed by either the judicial or executive branch. What we have seen is cases where the issues were brought up BEFORE the election have been able to proceed like one of the Boockvar cases where Alito segregated ballots. Cases where the legislature et al waited until after the election courts have not heard. I am pretty sure the courts in each of these procedural post-election cases used the rationale that the governors et al that changed the procedure did it openly and it offered the legislature the time to contest the change. In not contesting prior to the election the legislature was, in essence, giving their tacit approval. No court was going to throw out ballots that were ostensibly cast by the voter in a legal manner. Just like the TX legislature had time to contest their governor's unilateral extension of the early voting period, by choosing not to they for all intents and purposes agreed to the change.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:00 pm to No Colors
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:03 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Note this wasn't a case regarding election fraud but one of if county clerks have the power to interpret election statutes. One may argue that it facilitated voter fraud.
I will say the WI Supreme Ct. did a good job in handling a case where it was technically moot but they have an excellent case of precedent to deal with such matters.
Idiotic statement. Completely tone deaf, and illogical.
There were several photos of people who claimed "indefinite confinement" who were on vacations, at restaurants, etc.
The courts basically punted the question by saying, "yes the statutes were misapplied, but you haven't proven every single case, so it's moot. That's complete bovine excrement. Over 200,000 people voted that way in WI, and it's unreasonable to have the campaign, in the limited amount of time, prove every single case. Logic and simple common sense dictates that the campaign does not have the resources to vet all the cases. Calling it "moot" was never proven. Nobody knows if it was "moot" or not, especially any douchebag judge handing down such a ruling. If the batch of votes were illegally cast, then their votes should be tossed until the "indefinitely confined" lying bastards can PROVE they were in that state.
quote:
Again not an election fraud issue.
You must understand that all of this is bundled under the phrase "election fraud". Sorry, that's how it is, so your point is fricking idiotic, when you know exactly what's being talked about.
Still an illegal election in PA.
Sell your shite to the fertilizer plant, not me.
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:05 pm to WDE24
quote:
Although Wood generally claims fundamental unfairness, and the declarations and testimony submitted in support of his motion speculate as to wide-spread impropriety, the actual harm alleged by Wood concerns merely a "garden variety" election dispute. Wood does not allege unfairness in counting the ballots; instead, he alleges that select non-party, partisan monitors were not permitted to observe the Audit in an ideal manner. Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing. Precedent militates against a finding of a due process violation regarding such an "ordinary dispute over the counting and marking of ballots." Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 1980) ("If every state election irregularity were considered a federal constitutional deprivation, federal courts would adjudicate every state election dispute."). Wood has not satisfied his burden of establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to his substantive due process claim.
And again.... Thanks for proving the point. This is a No Standing ruling and there was no trial to hear evidence.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:07 pm to GodnCountry
quote:There was a hearing and evidence was allowed to be presented and was considered. Are we now moving the goal posts? That’s a fricking surprise.
This is a No Standing ruling and there was no trial to hear evidence.
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:10 pm to No Colors
quote:
The judges are the ones who define substantial. Because they're the ones who looked at the evidence. Over 100 of them.
I’m confused by your analysis. You seem to be so confident, but I’m not sure why. Where do you get your law degree?
Posted on 1/24/21 at 2:25 pm to cwill
quote:all of them?
Of those cases how many alleged fraud and presented evidence other than affidavits from randos with Q brain worms?
phag
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News