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.

If you want to see the full 39 minute video by John Sullivan, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...SF4&bpctr=1610735532

I had to thru a few steps to play it./ Including signing in w a Google email

quote:

Originally posted by tiwimon:
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

Don't post this crap. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't.

quote:

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

Well now, doesn't that rather complicate any rational conclusion from those supporting POTUS on these assertions?

FEMA?

Fucking FEMA?

Come on now. Keep that bullshit out of here.

quote:

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

very misleading

That is from an article written on 20 Nov 2020 .

There was massive confusion and huge amounts of information flowing in from 10 to 12 states. They were filing complaints based on different topics. The scope of this would normally take months to sort out, and they had just days to start pulling it all together.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
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.

This is my primary concern. But no one will talk about this because it calls the integrity of the last election into question.
Quite a catch, that catch 22.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:


Here are two cases that were dismissed without evidence....

I am just a layman, but I've been in the courtroom enough to know that it isn't about right and wrong. It's a game of procedures, legal intricacies, deals and the personal biases of the judges.

All the legal semantics aside, do you believe Joe Biden received 80 million legitimate votes? Or anywhere close to it?



.

quote:

Originally posted by tiwimon:
Reads like a movie script or novel - but these are crazy times ...

This has become "Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football" territory. How many of these kinds of yarns have we all heard over the last 60-90 days?

I think it is better to stop giving these charlatans clicks on their web pages. Otherwise, they will be devising "Trump's returning" scenarios in March, April, May....



.