Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed.

Some cases were dismissed for lack of standing and others based on the merits of the voter fraud allegations. The decisions have came from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges – including federal judges appointed by Trump.

In Pennsylvania 13 different law suits were filed both on procedural and evidentiary grounds (that includes attempts to submit evidence of voter fraud). All of them failed.

https://www.businessinsider.co...tion-results-2020-11

quote:

The decisions have came from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges – including federal judges appointed by Trump.

Thanks for the Liberal Media talking point, which is wholly irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Some cases were dismissed for lack of standing and others based on the merits of the voter fraud allegations. The decisions have came from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges – including federal judges appointed by Trump.

You keep repeating that as if doing so would make it any more meaningful.

Fed161, you seem to have a slight bias with respect to these court cases. Set those aside for a minute. Have you examined the mountains of evidence in the various "battleground" states? Watched the hearings the state legislatures have conducted? Read the statistical analyses of experts? Watched video recordings of irrefutable fraud occurring? I'm just curious if you have done any of these. I suspect you genuinely believe this election was legitimate.

I agree with ensigmatic - I think he has it right.
______________________________________________
As I've said before: I do not know there was significant fraud. I do not know it occurred to the extent that it would affect the outcomes of any elections. What I do know is I have what I feel to be reasonable suspicions both occurred and "my" government, at all levels, in all three branches, dropped the ball. Thus I have no confidence anybody elected in this last election was elected legitimately.
______________________________________________

You nailed it here. I agree with that. Our best hope is to beat the Dems in 2022 to the extent that as Hugh Hewitt said - If it's not close, they can't cheat enough to win. But I also like Tim Scott's idea for an election integrity commission: https://www.wtoc.com/2021/01/0...y-november-election/

Time for me to step out of this thread. I'm sure nobody is going to have a problem with that. I do enjoy trading facts, opinions, and perspectives from fellow conservatives. In case there is any doubt, yes I did vote for Trump twice. And I put my money where my mouth is by contributing to conservatives in tough election battles - because our side is best for the country, my children and my grandchildren.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...reaking-2021-01-15-1

Leaked Video Reveals Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s Internal Discussions Before Trump Ban
BY ISABEL VAN BRUGEN January 15, 2021 Updated: January 15, 2021biggersmaller Print
Investigative journalism nonprofit Project Veritas on Thursday released a leaked video that appears to show Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s internal discussions before President Donald Trump’s account was banned on the social media platform following the breach of the U.S. Capitol building.

“You should always feel free to express yourself in whatever format manifestation feels right,” Dorsey said in the clip, purportedly secretly filmed by a Twitter “insider whistleblower.”

“We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” Dorsey added. “And we have to expect that and we have to be ready for that.”

“So, the focus is certainly on this account and how it ties to real-world violence. But also, we need to think much longer-term around how these dynamics play out over time. I don’t believe this is going away anytime soon,” Dorsey told staff in the clip.

Project Veritas suggested in a Twitter post that the video leak is evidence of “censorship gone wild.”

Twitter permanently banned Trump from its platform on Jan. 8, two days after a mob broke into the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress convened to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. The company alleged that Trump had incited the violence.

The move was met with criticism from world leaders, including the president of France and chancellor of Germany. Trump accused Twitter of colluding with the Democrats. Facebook and YouTube have also removed Trump’s accounts.

In the leaked video that has accumulated over two million views in a few hours, Dorsey suggested he may be planning to enforce “much bigger” actions than the ban of Trump on the platform, making reference to a company purge of QAnon linked accounts.

A large number of pro-Trump accounts have recently been deleted by Twitter.

“You know, the U.S. is extremely divided. Our platform is showing that every single day,” Dorsey said. “And our role is to protect the integrity of that conversation and do what we can to make sure that no one is being harmed based off that. And that is our focus.”

James O’Keefe, founder of the journalism watchdog group, said Thursday that further leaks from the social media giant are coming from other whistleblowers.

“Stay tuned. They may be private companies, but they have more power than all three branches of government,” O’Keefe told viewers.

Twitter didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

The clip’s release follows a statement from Dorsey on Jan. 13 in which he acknowledged that the company’s decision to remove Trump was divisive and set a dangerous precedent.

“Having to take these actions fragment [sic] the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation,” Dorsey wrote on Twitter.

“I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban [Trump] from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?” Dorsey continued.

“I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.”

Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.

Republican appointed judges mean nothing, most will lie to get what ever they want, just like politicians, who will owe you to get where they got, and stab you in the back once they get it. The establishment wants their rules followed, Trump has exposed them all, and who they are. It’s,our job to get rid of them now.

What many (ok- almost all) of us want now to settle this, is some explanation or determination on why the dozens if not hundreds of examples of anomalies exist at all. I don't see the mob but I heard the voices and I saw the long shadows. Don't tell me they were not there!!

No satisfactory explanation has been given, and in fact as stated many times findings have been blocked, obfuscated, and comically denied. Wouldn't it have just been easier to show all the ballots? Or show us the flash drives? Where did the mail truck go? Lets compare real ballots and signatures. Swing states all stop counting, all send observers home, all have ballot dumps during the wee hours (there are your numbers!!). Fractional ballots anyone? Has anyone seen a reasonable explanation why more ballots came in overnight than can be counted by the machines available? More votes than on voter rolls, DOH! I cannot recall each one as I raise my BP while I type.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
Republican appointed judges mean nothing, most will lie to get what ever they want, just like politicians, who will owe you to get where they got, and stab you in the back once they get it. The establishment wants their rules followed, Trump has exposed them all, and who they are. It’s,our job to get rid of them now.

John Roberts is a prime example of this.

Who knew he’d turn out to be such a scumbag back when GWB nominated him?

Ensigmatic has it mostly right.

In many cases Trump's legal team chose not to submit evidence of fraud, due to the lack of "proof" (despite more smoking guns than Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge), and instead submitted Constitutional challenges based on states changing election procedures by executive or judicial fiat instead of through the legislature as prescribed in the Constitution. These were almost all summarily rejected by the judges on procedural, timing, or standing bases. The statistical and historical irregularities are compelling, but again they are not evidence, only indications that warrant further investigation.

As others have said, making a case for fraud takes a long time. In order to have enough proof, Trump's team would need to subpoena election registration logs, voting logs, ballots, voting machine records, and sift through all of it for a long time to piece together enough hard evidence of fraud to prove their case. They had a lot of witness affidavits - but most said "I was prevented from seeing what they were doing" instead of "I saw them commit fraud". The democrats played "social distancing" games with barriers and other tactics to keep monitors far enough away so they couldn't see anything.

Normally, a lawsuit goes through discovery, and this did not happen in any of the recent suits that I am aware of.

So yes, "Trumps team did not present any evidence of fraud that would affect the outcome!" is true. But it is true because witness testimony was deemed hearsay, they did not have access to the actual raw ballots and records, and there was no discovery or depositions of witnesses and poll workers. Most of all, they did not have TIME. Given this, the only real chance was Constitutional process and equal protection claims, and these were all thrown out due to lack of standing for one reason or another.

If Trump wants to play the long game, it might be possible to amass more evidence and file a suit that can get past pre-trial motions and into discovery. But that would take years, just like any other large case with so much evidence to dig through.

The investigation and prosecution of fraud rests on the requisite law enforcement agencies of each state, plus the Feds to some extent. As posted earlier Texas is prosecuting someone for fraud, and I expect many other Republican states to do the same to prove fraud was indeed "widespread". But the key democrat machine districts in the inner cities of the swing states that stopped counting in the middle of the night are not going to pursue any investigation or prosecution. The only chance there is for a Republican state government (such as Georgia) to bring in state police investigators. But by then, I am fairly certain the records will have been wiped clean and/or shredded.

It is essential that an independent prosecutor be assigned with broad powers to collect evidence and charge anyone that impedes the investigation with obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence and compel the states to start turning over evidence now. It is as reasonable to assign a special prosecutor here just as it was for the Russia collusion. I am not confident that this will happen.

Rather than focus on Trump winning the election, though, we should now focus on uncovering and prosecuting fraud wherever it occurred such that there is enough evidence to show how it was done and what election laws need to be changed to prevent it. If we cannot stop universal mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting, and cannot compel signature or photo ID verification, no election will ever be won in the machine districts again.

Today's Kunstler. Always an antidote to MSM, always a good read (because he's a good writer), and usually an interesting assessment of the situation, whatever it is.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfu...signs-and-wonders-2/

Being appointed by a Republican, or elected as a Republican doesn’t necessarily guarantee the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Conservatives seem to have a hard time separating the Faux Republicans from the true conservatives and supporters of the Constitution, as written by our Founding Fathers.

The Republican title means nothing.
It is within their actions, that we should judge their true values.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Being appointed by a Republican, or elected as a Republican doesn’t necessarily guarantee the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Conservatives seem to have a hard time separating the Faux Republicans from the true conservatives and supporters of the Constitution, as written by our Founding Fathers.

The Republican title means nothing.
It is within their actions, that we should judge their true values.

Funny thing about judges:

Most people have a negative opinion of politicians
Most people have a negative opinion of lawyers

Judges are both politicians and lawyers - why would anyone think they would be better than either of the two and not worse?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

John Roberts is a prime example of this.

Who knew he’d turn out to be such a scumbag back when GWB nominated him?

Wanna bet GWB knew exactly what/who he was getting?

seems like Jade Sacker had been working with John Sullivan for a while. To make a film.



"After dispatching teams to document John's protest activities in the past, we've found that the environment isn't typically conducive for team of cinematographers and sound techs"

"they have given me personal guidance as a first time filmmaker"


Bryan Fogel - is an American film director, producer, author, playwright, speaker and human rights activist, best known for the 2017 documentary Icarus, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 90th Academy Awards in 2018. (Wiki)


source:

https://twitter.com/PTNewsnetw.../1349921208909901830

Months and months of riots,assaults,arson,and murders by BLM and Antifa. Where was Wray and the FBI? I think the FBI is biased in their enforcement ideology.


Despite FBI Fearmongering, DHS Sees No "Specific, Credible Threats" At This Time

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...y-dhs-secretary-says

Officials have not identified “specific, credible threats” ahead of Inauguration Day, a top homeland security official said Friday.

“There’s no specific credible threats at this point in time. There’s just this raised level of tension. And so we’re raising our security level. And we’re doing it across the country,” Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said on CNN’s “New Day.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray told Vice President Mike Pence in a briefing on Thursday that the bureau was seeing an “extensive amount of concerning online chatter” of potential threats before and during the inauguration.

“We’re concerned about the potential for violence at multiple protests and rallies planned here in D.C. and in state capitols around the country in the days that come that could bring armed individuals within close proximity to government facilities and officials,” Wray said.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Months and months of riots,assaults,arson,and murders by BLM and Antifa. Where was Wray and the FBI? I think the FBI has is biased in their enforcement ideology.

You don't say.

Another reason I'm losing respect for and trust in LE in this country. It's turning into a State Security apparatus, and The State is increasing run by autocrats and bureaucrats whose primary interest is in their own skins and maintaining and expanding the State Apparatus.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Judges are both politicians and lawyers - why would any think they would be better than either of the two and not worse?

Something Vincent Bugliosi pointed out long ago in one of his several books.

But if being appointed by Trump is immaterial to a judge’s decision*, why is it so material to a decision by a judge appointed by the Obamanation or BJ Clinton? We see that mentioned every single time when a decision that someone here doesn’t like is reported.

* I agree that it should be. I would like our judges to be bound by good interpretations of the Constitution and the rest of the laws, not because they’re supposed to rule one particular way because someone in particular appointed them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Situation Update, Jan 14th, 2021 – An astonishing theory: FEMA and the US military will save America at its final hour

Reads like a movie script or novel - but these are crazy times - would be epic if it does indeed happen.

No idea if any of that is grounded in truth or well spun fiction, I certainly am not expecting it. I can only say all the theories and hand wringing by all sides are about to be put to bed as far as what happens - we are less than a week away from knowing how this truly goes down and I for one am ready to get on with getting on, whatever may come.

We truly live in interesting times

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
So can anyone point to a court ruling where cases filed by President Trumps lawyers was dismissed for lack of evidence?

Seems to me, being dismissed on procedural grounds implies evidence was not presented.

How did they determine how many votes were affected by the fractional voting?
Which Judge determined that it was not enough to affect the election results?

Here are two cases that were dismissed without evidence. Both articles, (and the hotlinks in them) are written by Andrew McCarthy. He is NOT a never Trumper, and he's a pretty straight shooter, including having been Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I sometimes (rarely) disagree with his conclusions to things, but he always has a well thought out and cogent argument, and I trust his reporting.

In this Wisconsin case, the parties (i.e., Trumps lawyers and the State of Wisconsin lawyers) agreed to a stipulated set of facts. That means, they agreed what the evidence was, and let the court decide if the evidence supported Trump's position.

https://www.nationalreview.com...ction-of-team-trump/

Here's a Pennsylvania case where Trump's lawyers agreed in court that there was no evidence of fraud, notwithstanding their public statements that there was fraud:

https://www.nationalreview.com...-legal-course-again/

Trump's lawyers and the campaign are saying one thing in public, and something else entirely when they are before a judge.