U.S Election 2020

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think it’s fair to argue that if a lawyer stands outside court and shouts “fraud!” as Rudi has done, and then sends his team in to the court, where they are challenged by the judge “are you alleging fraud?” and they say “no” ... it’s fair enough to conclude their allegations of fraud have fallen at the first hurdle (or, perhaps, refused the first hurdle, to stretch the steeplechase metaphor).

It’s important to stress, these lawyers are only stressing that they are not alleging fraud, once they stand up in court without any evidence of fraud. Trump’s legal team has most definitely been making widespread allegations of fraud right up to that point.

But they haven't yet submitted a case of fraud in front of a court for the judge to ask if they are alleging it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by pip08456

But they haven't yet submitted a case of fraud in front of a court for the judge to ask if they are alleging it.

Let's not fog the air with facts

Originally Posted by pip08456

But they haven't yet submitted a case of fraud in front of a court for the judge to ask if they are alleging it.

Well of course they haven't - they're doing that outside the court, effectively trying to have their cake and eat it. But I maintain that this strategy, of alleging fraud outside the courthouse and then not submitting fraud allegations inside the courthouse, is de facto the same thing. They've had the chance to put fraud before a judge and have repeatedly not done so, despite repeatedly alleging that there *has* been fraud. At some point you have to accept their loud, public claims of fraud have failed. Otherwise, why not present the evidence?

The Trump strategy exists solely to cause the weak-minded to assume there's no smoke without fire, and that there must be fraud because Rudi said so. And, dare I say it, because nobody can quote a judge saying "I find there was no fraud".

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well of course they haven't - they're doing that outside the court, effectively trying to have their cake and eat it. But I maintain that this strategy, of alleging fraud outside the courthouse and then not submitting fraud allegations inside the courthouse, is de facto the same thing. They've had the chance to put fraud before a judge and have repeatedly not done so, despite repeatedly alleging that there *has* been fraud. At some point you have to accept their loud, public claims of fraud have failed. Otherwise, why not present the evidence?

The Trump strategy exists solely to cause the weak-minded to assume there's no smoke without fire, and that there must be fraud because Rudi said so. And, dare I say it, because nobody can quote a judge saying "I find there was no fraud".

I agree with most of what you say but would suggest you avoid statements like this.

Originally Posted by Chris

The argument that the election was fraudulent has now been repeatedly tested in court and found to be false.

It is factually incorrect.

Lawyer standing outside court: “this is fraud!”
Lawyer walks into court...
Judge: “Are you alleging fraud?”
Lawyer: “No”.

Variations on this have occurred repeatedly over the past fortnight. Based in this I’m comfortable with the accuracy of the statements I have made, because they tackle head on the smoke and mirrors tactics of Trump’s PR led legal team.

[pip08456]

Democracy in action.

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...79395483164673

Please dont just link to tw*tter without some indication as to what its about, we dont all want to keep visiting that site.

[papa smurf]

Trump fight back BEGINS:

A $400million donation by the chief executive of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg is the focus of one of the legal challenges from the Trump team to overturn the provisional US election results.

The Sunday Express has been shown briefing notes explaining the background to 25 legal challenges being taken across the USA by campaign group Amistad Projects. It has alleged that the donations mostly went to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) were used to boost voter fraud in key states in the election.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...egal-challenge

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Trump fight back BEGINS:

A $400million donation by the chief executive of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg is the focus of one of the legal challenges from the Trump team to overturn the provisional US election results.

The Sunday Express has been shown briefing notes explaining the background to 25 legal challenges being taken across the USA by campaign group Amistad Projects. It has alleged that the donations mostly went to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) were used to boost voter fraud in key states in the election.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...egal-challenge

"begins"?

What has he been doing for the last two weeks, then?

Anyhoo, the Express story states

The briefing documents note: “According to the CTCL’s own website, these funds were primarily spent on poll workers, 'temporary staffing,' and 'mail/absentee equipment/supplies.' They released this information only after we had exposed them in court and news stories about their activities started to circulate.

Except...

September 1st https://www.axios.com/mark-zuckerber...c763f9214.html

"The more I've focused on this election, the more important I've felt it is both to make sure local counties and states have the resources they need to handle these unprecedented conditions, and that people are aware that the infrastructure is in place to make every vote count so they can accept the result of the election as legitimate," Zuckerberg told Axios.

In the joint release, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) said: "This grant will be of tremendous assistance as we work to get the word out to voters."
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) said Americans need voting information "from trusted sources, and these dollars are going to go a long way to making that happen."
The Facebook CEO and his wife committed $250 million to CTCL, which will use the money to help local jurisdictions with staffing, training and equipment.

Chan and Zuckerberg committed $50 million to CEIR, which focuses on voter education, to assist state and local election officials in making sure elections are secure, and voters have confidence in the outcomes.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"begins"?

What has he been doing for the last two weeks, then?

Winding you up

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Winding you up

What with your empty hot air...

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Winding you up

Nah - losers don't do that...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

What with your empty hot air...

I was referring to Donald Trump's team of Lawyers.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I was referring to Donald Trump's team of Lawyers.

What trouser fumbling Rudi ? Even the Torygraph ridicules him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-lead-donald/

Rudy Giuliani's fall from grace as Donald Trump's lawyer, punctuated this week with a truly bizarre meltdown, has been spectacular

Another court case lost in PA, this time by Rudi...

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

Moreover, even if they could state a valid claim, the Court could not grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek. Crucially, Plaintiffs fail to understand the relationship between right and remedy. Though every injury must have its proper redress, a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted.By seeking injunctive relief preventing certification of the Pennsylvania election results, Plaintiffs ask this Court to do exactly that.

Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race.This is simply not how the Constitution works.

Curiously, Plaintiffs now claim that they seek only to enjoin certification of the presidential election results. Doc. 183 at 1. They suggest that their requested relief would thus not interfere with other election results in the state. But even if it were logically possible to hold Pennsylvania’s electoral system both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time, the Court would not do so.

tl;dr - These are very bad arguments and you should feel bad for making them, also you don't get to make them any more, leave now and never come back.