Democrat voter fraud is on!

[Guisslapp]

Aren’t you a lawyer at times?

There will easily be existing case law on voting laws (national and states) , fraudulent voting, state constitutions vs. some political hack or governor ruling and elections in general.

The problem for Trump is that he doesn’t have the facts to support a claim. And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court. Both the trial and appeal courts with Republican judges said the case had no merit. You don’t say that as a judge, especially about the person who appointed you to your position, if it is a close call on the facts.

You should be relieved to know that there was no fraud and Biden won fair and square. All the Republicans overseeing elections said the same thing.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

The problem for Trump is that he doesn’t have the facts to support a claim. And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court. Both the trial and appeal courts with Republican judges said the case had no merit. You don’t say that as a judge, especially about the person who appointed you to your position, if it is a close call on the facts.

You should be relieved to know that there was no fraud and Biden won fair and square. All the Republicans overseeing elections said the same thing.

You must be drinking some really good vintage wine.

[turbodawg]

You must be drinking some really good vintage wine.

That’s all you got?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

That’s all you got?

He was either drinking or toking.

[turbodawg]

How so?

Is he wrong?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

How so?

Is he wrong?

Yes of course.
I’ll start with his last paragraph.

“You should be relieved to know that there was no fraud and Biden won fair and square. All the Republicans overseeing elections said the same thing.”

[turbodawg]

Yes of course.
I’ll start with his last paragraph.

“You should be relieved to know that there was no fraud and Biden won fair and square. All the Republicans overseeing elections said the same thing.”

Fair enough.

Anything to add to ‘And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court.’

I’m just an ol country boy, and honestly don’t know the answer to that. Any insight?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Fair enough.

Anything to add to ‘And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court.’

I’m just an ol country boy, and honestly don’t know the answer to that. Any insight?

I actually already answered above.

“There will easily be existing case law on voting laws (national and states) , fraudulent voting, state constitutions vs. some political hack or governor ruling and elections in general.“

[Guisslapp]

I actually already answered above.

“There will easily be existing case law on voting laws (national and states) , fraudulent voting, state constitutions vs. some political hack or governor ruling and elections in general.“

No you didn’t. He doesn’t have the facts to state a claim under law for which relief can be granted. All the judges that hear his cases keep telling him this. Republicans running the state elections and even his own Election cybersecurity official (now fired for telling the emperor that he is naked) have universally told him the same.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Even the Dems now bitching, at least “for show”. Heck, they bitched and screamed for 4 years!!! Putin , China and Iran hate Trump and the hater regressives still bitched.

Published 3 days ago
Iowa Democrats say findings of investigation into botched caucuses coming soon
State party certified the results 23 days after the caucuses

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iow...-investigation

[TYLERTECHSAS]

No you didn’t. He doesn’t have the facts to state a claim under law for which relief can be granted. All the judges that hear his cases keep telling him this. Republicans running the state elections and even his own Election cybersecurity official (now fired for telling the emperor that he is naked) have universally told him the same.

You stated, “And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court.” And that’s a lie as well. There’s plenty of case law, like I stated, which will have been violated or against various state constitutions, that the Trump lawyers will present and then add theirs.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Newt the historical scholar is right again!
That said, Rudy Giuliani and his team have been terrible so far. Let us hope he’s saved the best for the SCOTUS.

Newt Gingrich: 2020 Election May Be ‘Biggest Presidential Theft’ Since 1824

Newt Gingrich believes the 2020 election may be the “biggest presidential theft” since 1824 and is urging state legislatures to “demand recounts.”

“The more data comes out on vote anomalies that clearly are not legitimate the more it looks like 2020 may be the biggest Presidential theft since Adams and Clay robbed Andrew Jackson in 1824,” the former House speaker said in a Friday tweet:

On Saturday morning, Gingrich encouraged Republican state legislators to read an analysis from Patrick Basham, founding Director of the Democracy Institute and senior fellow of the Cato Institute. Basham lists ten “peculiarities” which he believes lack “compelling explanations,” including swing states halting their ballot counts on election night and removing observers, statistically abnormal vote counts, and “historically low absentee ballot rejection rates.”

“Basham makes clear the election was almost certainly stolen in 5 states. Every Americanm [sic] should be worried by the theft,” he added:

Every Republican state legislator should read Patrick Basham’s analysis https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the...ply-puzzling/… and demand an oversight committee to review their state’s vote. Basham makes clear the election was almost certainly stolen in 5 states. Every Americanm should be worried by the theft.
3:48 AM · Nov 28, 2020


President Trump and his team have vowed to press on in their fight for kJ election integrity despite the critics. His team outlined their case in a press conference last week, which Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis framed as their “opening statement.” During the presser, Trump’s lawyers — well as Sidney Powell, who is not part of Trump’s formal team — presented highlights in building their respective cases, as Breitbart News detailed. Rudy Giuliani detailed affidavits alleging nefarious behavior and blasted the media for continuing to claim that the campaign has not presented evidence.


“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence. Do you know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case? Two hundred twenty affidavits,” he said.

“They’re not all public, but eight of them are,” he added.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to participate in a hearing on election integrity with Arizona legislators on Monday, Ellis announced on Friday:


More

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ft-since-1824/

[Guisslapp]

You stated, “And the Supreme Court isn’t going to be hearing new facts that they didn’t present in the trial court.” And that’s a lie as well. There’s plenty of case law, like I stated, which will have been violated or against various state constitutions, that the Trump lawyers will present and then add theirs.

Your whole post is nonsense. What they will argue to the SC, if the SC takes cert, will be the exact same thing they have argued at the trial and appellate level. There will be no new facts and no new arguments. Appeal courts review for errors made by the lower courts, so the argument and facts would need to have been made below to determine if there was an error.

[inudesu]

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-t...ce=twitter.com

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," federal appellate Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in an opinion released Friday denying the Trump campaign's challenge of the results in Pennsylvania. "Charges require specific allegations and then proof," said Bibas, whom Trump nominated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. "We have neither here."

[FriscoDog]

Judge orders Dominion voting systems in Georgia to be preserved. Possibly for forensic inspection and audit.