- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Trump's court cases: have they had chance to present their evidence in a complete fashion?
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:05 am to davyjones
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:05 am to davyjones
quote:that's great. let's get a judge who will agree to that. so far, they don't want any of that being presented in a court of law.
if the law's on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts
well, except the wi sc. and now maricopa county apparently. interesting timing
1
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:10 am to bfniii
Regarding your post immediately prior to this one I'm replying to, add to all that the fact that the manner in which the cases were IMO arbitrarily disposed of with prejudice disallowed the plaintiffs from seeking orders of discovery. Folks like to parrot the "where's the evidence" talking point but fact is more often than not evidence is secured through the formal discovery process which was cut off at the pass.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:12 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:did he really lose? i STILL haven't seen anyone produce the biden votes in a transparent fashion for independent analysis
The plan that lost his re-election
quote:you have no idea what you're talking about
got someone shot and killed for no reason
quote:and now they made impeachment a joke. no one takes it seriously now. it's completely, 100% partisan. good job morons
got a president impeached twice
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:15 am to geauxcoco
quote:prove it. show me your proof
The attorneys for Trump never presented the evidence because there was none.
quote:lie
It was all on conspiracy theories and stuff floating around on the Internet
quote:which never happened of course
Once trumps attorneys got to the court room
quote:exactly. because the judges never let it get to that point
Not one attorney in 60 tries could show evidence to a court
quote:yet you just counted up 60 cases and no one has been disbarred.
Most attorneys aren’t willing to go to jail for Trump/get disbarred
quote:your take on this is freaking idiotic and moronic and laughably wrong
I don’t understand why this is so hard for yall to understand
quote:go to this thread and prove to us that these are "internet rumors." let's see your work champ
if any of those allegations were true their would be more evidence to prove those allegations
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:18 am to BiteMe2020
quote:and now a judge has told the 2 sides to "work it out" conveniently after biden has been inaugurated
Maricopa County never turned over their machines, issuing a statement saying they'd go to jail first
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:18 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
So if they find 100% proof that this whole thing was a sham, it no longer matters? In a legal sense they are unable to actually do anything?
In that case, the only remedy appears to be cleaning out the rat's nest of fraud so it doesn't happen again then after a sweep of the 2022 midterms President Fraud and VP Fraud can be impeached.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 9:25 am to TheRoarRestoredInBR
And yet again there is this approach which should be followed up in all swing states or any state that has even a smidgeon of voter rot smell.
LINK
quote:
Arizona Citizens Investigation Discovers Thousands of Phantom Voters in State – Up to 30% of Addresses in Investigation Were Fraudulent
LINK
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:28 am to Auburn1968
quote:that's just an internet rumor that is circulating around fb - the left
Arizona Citizens Investigation Discovers Thousands of Phantom Voters in State – Up to 30% of Addresses in Investigation Were Fraudulent
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:46 am to Wednesday
quote:
Yes. The entire legal strategy of Democrats was to run out the clock.
A lesson hard-learned from the 2000 election. Time was cited by the court as the reason to let FL's original count stand.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:48 am to lsufball19
quote:
Basically.
I think we're forgetting SCOTUS has the power to act, but will not act.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:48 am to Auburn1968
quote:
The only remedy now is to undo the mechanisms that allowed the big cheats to take place
Or you could accept the reality that this was a free and fair election. Democracy still works.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:51 am to bfniii
quote:
anyone notice that dominion, despite their bluster, STILL has taken NO ONE to court?
They have filed suit against Sidney Powell in Fed Ct. for the Dist of Columbia. Case 1:21-cv-00040
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:51 am to Bayoutigre
quote:
I think the military is in control behind the scenes
If by 'military' you mean 'Obama,' then you're spot on.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 10:56 am to Obtuse1
quote:
A lesson hard-learned from the 2000 election. Time was cited by the court as the reason to let FL's original count stand.
I think that's a little bit right, but also a little bit wrong. Recounts did occur in what were ultimately the most relevant counties, but the Democrats sought to significantly expand that effort to include "new" counties where they thought the arbitrary process of determining the "intent of the voter" in those instances wherein chads were perceived to be less than unambiguously pushed through. It was that expansion of the operation that the SC declined to somehow accommodate.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:00 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
They probably never envisioned multiple state legislatures changing procedure and that the supreme court would refuse to hear it at all
This. This just blows my mind. This make it up as we go mentality is killing America.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:03 am to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
I'm guessing you're referring to the multiple states which allowed Elector selection procedures to be changed unconstitutionally by officials OTHER than their legislatures. That SCOTUS would not hear those cases is only slightly less troubling than the fact that those States' legislatures let their authority be usurped and didn't vigorously press their cases prior to the election.
A couple of things here:
1. non-legislative branch changes to state election procedure are not unique to this election nor were they limited to swing states or democrat runs states. Case in point the TX governor extended the time for early voting
2. the most salient point is changes prior to the election, even done unilaterally by the executive branch or the judicial branch, were in full view of the legislatures of the states. Those legislatures could have stepped in and corrected any changes they saw fit. By not stepping in they gave tacit approval to the changes. They weren't going to be allowed to watch the election and only act if they didn't like the results.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:19 am to davyjones
quote:
I think that's a little bit right, but also a little bit wrong. Recounts did occur in what were ultimately the most relevant counties, but the Democrats sought to significantly expand that effort to include "new" counties where they thought the arbitrary process of determining the "intent of the voter" in those instances wherein chads were perceived to be less than unambiguously pushed through. It was that expansion of the operation that the SC declined to somehow accommodate.
I think that is obfuscating the salient bit. Dade was doing their recount and most of Bush's 537 lead had disappeared, it was down to a little over 100 votes with IIRC 4 days before safe harbor and still a large chunk of the "chad" votes left to recount there. The Brooks Brothers Riot stopped that count and argued they couldn't finish before safe harbor. At the core the court ordered that since a full recount couldn't be finished by safe harbor then the original count would stand.
It was clear after Bush v Gore despite the court limiting precedent timing was a HUGE issue in elections. There is simply not enough time for a full redress of election outcomes even if there was no safe harbor and EVs were certified and counted on 1/19. This is a conundrum I do not see a way out of unless you hold elections far enough out to potentially leave lame ducks in office for very long periods of time.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:22 am to bfniii
quote:
i STILL haven't seen anyone produce the biden votes in a transparent fashion for independent analysis
Serious questions because I’m genuinely curious about the thought process here:
1. When you say “produce the Biden votes” - what, specifically, does that mean to you? I understand the sentiment behind it but I’m asking what actual documents/data would qualify as “producing the Biden votes” in your opinion.
2. When you say “independent analysis” - how would you define independent? Who would be responsible for appointing the analyst?
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:29 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Dade was doing their recount and most of Bush's 537 lead had disappeared, it was down to a little over 100 votes with IIRC 4 days before safe harbor and still a large chunk of the "chad" votes left to recount there.
Right, and I think they felt like they were on a nice little roll and if they kept on opening new recounts that the trend may continue until they finally reached the magic number. And hell perhaps it would have. But the method of subjective determination of voter intent, depending on what the chad lol looked like was one of those slippery slopes.
But that's neither here nor there because I actually do agree with your point about the timing situation. That safe harbor appears to be something that the Court will by all means seek to leave untouched. Tricky situation overall. On the one hand there may and will be legitimate challenges that require more time, but on the other hand if the timeframes were extended then you'd probably see every single election from here on out challenged to the fullest extent.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:30 am to LSUTigerFan247
quote:
I personally think it was a genius move to bait Dominion into filing a civil suit. All the evidence will have to be presented as opposed to it being shot down before it can be presented, in Trump's cases.
I certainly think there was an overt attempt to do exactly that, and Dominion has called that raise in Federal Court which is for one of two reasons:
1. They along with their attorney Tom Clare have decided they can stand up to discovery and will knock Powell over like a bowling pin
2. Dominion sees nothing left to lose and are talking the shot in court, even seeing it as a long shot, since they face bankruptcy if they don't at least try
#2 would be a far more enticing bet if it weren't for the fact Tom Clare (Clare Locke) took the case.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News