The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[Dodger12]

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

Dodger12 now you see states fighting back and Texas is taking the lead.

The Texas lawsuit is based on the Constitution and if the justices of the SCOTUS follow the Constitution then Texas should win this 9-0. Of course the best we can hope for is a 5-4 ruling but Texas has the Constitution on its side in this. I am not sure why they did not file this earlier but I thank the leaders of this amazing state for doing this.

Holy sh!t......from the affidavit:

9. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.

10. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of 7 that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

11. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31. 12. Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.

 

[Scot]

Read the affidavits

I would be happy to Dodger, like I said previously, provide me the link to the ones you would like me to read and I would be happy to read any of the affidavits you are referencing. The problem is that there were 234 submitted in the Michigan case alone, and over 1000 in total between all the swing states. Trying to figure out which ones you are specifically referring to is impossible.

as for the affidavits in these cases it appears that the majority of them speak to some hinky shit going on on election night. Which we can all agree happened and accept as fact at this point. So yes, there are hundreds if not 1000's of affidavits that state that the election wasn't held according to the rules, that GOP poll workers were sent home, weren't treated nicely by the other poll workers, weren't allowed to sit close enough to actually see what was going on, that state Dominion workers were mysteriously working on the machines, and so on and so on.

The problem is that NONE of these constitute fraud, none of these prove fraud, none of these specifically state that they witnessed thousands and thousands of votes being changed from Trump to Biden. The majority of the affidavits have been dismissed by the judges as inadmissible or not credible.

The affidavits speak to the possibility of fraud, or the ability for fraud to be committed, or the suspicion of fraud, but they don't appear to be witness to actual fraud, and definitely not on the scale that Powell has claimed. Not even close.

 

[Scot]

These were Sydney Powell’s comments in regards to the evidence she has

"We've got a number of smoking guns and we may have to get witness protection for them," Powell said. "We have a lot of extremely solid evidence. It's beyond impressive, and absolutely terrifying."

She had her opportunity to present her smoking guns in court, twice, and failed to do so, twice, in two separate states in front of two separate judges.

Her evidence was so extremely solid, beyond impressive, and absolutely terrifying that the cases were thrown out of court in both states!

 

[Doomsday]

 

[Scot]

Blah....blah...blah is right. When I hear these things from judges, I just write it off. There's plenty of evidence, from poll workers being kicked out of the battleground election venues to veteran poll workers providing statements to what they witnessed. You should be so lucky to have a case where 1000 plus witnesses give you a statement.

In addition, I read what judges write and come to my own conclusions. I don't rely solely on Politico or anyone else. When a judge makes the following statement, it's absurd in and of itself. In other words, the elections are concluded so you have no standing:

"This case represents well the phrase: “this ship has sailed.” The time has passed to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this
matter is moot."

In addition:

"C. Laches
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they waited too long to knock on the Court’s door. (ECF No. 31 at Pg ID 2175-79; ECF No. 39 at Pg ID 2844.) The Court agrees."

"If Plaintiffs had legitimate claims regarding whether the treatment of election challengers complied with state law, they could have brought their claims well in advance of or on Election Day—but they did not........"

"If Plaintiffs had legitimate concerns about the election machines and software, they could have filed this lawsuit well before the 2020 General Election—yet they sat back and did nothing."

In other words, you should have filed your challenge before the fraud occurred and had no evidence. A proverbial catch 22.

"Plaintiffs could have lodged their constitutional challenges much sooner than they did, and certainly not three weeks after Election Day and one week after certification of almost three million votes. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’
delay results in their claims being barred by laches."

In other words, you have no time to collect evidence, interview witnesses and conduct any sort of investigation. Three (3) weeks is just too long. This reasoning is just absurd.

You can rely on politically appointed judges to do your thinking, I'll believe what my eyes tell me.

I believe what my eyes tell me too

And what my eyes are currently telling me is that Powell is full of shit

I hope I’m wrong, I hope that her smoking gun evidence that she claims to have suddenly appears and saves the day!

Maybe her overwhelming evidence was only in the other states and Not in Michigan and Georgia.

We can only hope. I will keep my fingers crossed that she does have the evidence she has claimed to have. So far it’s not looking good.

 

[cml750]

 

[Scot]

You can count CA, New Jersey and a few other states that also sent out ballots to every registered voter with out being requested by said voter

Why didn’t they include all states where every registered voter received a ballot without requesting one and without their respective states changing their own laws to allow that to happen

 

[Dodger12]

I would be happy to Dodger, like I said previously, provide me the link to the ones you would like me to read and I would be happy to read any of the affidavits you are referencing. The problem is that there were 234 submitted in the Michigan case alone, and over 1000 in total between all the swing states. Trying to figure out which ones you are specifically referring to is impossible.

You commented on them buddy and made blanket statements. You don't know which one you're referring to? Sidney Powell didn't file hundreds of law suits.

The problem is that NONE of these constitute fraud, none of these prove fraud, none of these specifically state that they witnessed thousands and thousands of votes being changed from Trump to Biden. The majority of the affidavits have been dismissed by the judges as inadmissible or not credible.

You're not reading any of the affidavits. But you don't need to if your opinions are going to be swayed by judges. As I mentioned early, I guess you believe OJ is innocent.

The affidavits speak to the possibility of fraud, or the ability for fraud to be committed, or the suspicion of fraud, but they don't appear to be witness to actual fraud, and definitely not on the scale that Powell has claimed. Not even close.

Funny how you come to conclusions without having read any of the affidavits and/or witness statements. The TX Attorney General used the same affidavits in his law suit against the states. Witness statements are first hand evidence and they are subject to scrutiny at trial and cross examination. Because some judge says there's no evidence (without hearing any of it), I know better.

 

[Dodger12]

She had her opportunity to present her smoking guns in court, twice, and failed to do so, twice, in two separate states in front of two separate judges.

I provided you with quotes from Judge Linda Parker's opinion. Her opinion states numerous reasons why the case was tossed. First on that list was the "ship had sailed." Then they filed too late which makes no sense since you don't have a case without being "damaged." Lacking evidence was not the deciding factor.

 

[Scot]

I provided you with quotes from Judge Linda Parker's opinion. Her opinion states numerous reasons why the case was tossed. First on that list was the "ship had sailed." Then they filed too late which makes no sense since you don't have a case without being "damaged." Lacking evidence was not the deciding factor.

U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker made clear in her ruling, which rejected Powell’s request for injunctive relief, that those conspiracy theories were not based on any actual evidence, noting that the plaintiffs did not actually give proof that any votes were flipped, but rather brought “an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible.”

From the same opinion that you quoted

 

[cml750]

 

[Scot]

You commented on them buddy and made blanket statements. You don't know which one you're referring to? Sidney Powell didn't file hundreds of law suits.



You're not reading any of the affidavits. But you don't need to if your opinions are going to be swayed by judges. As I mentioned early, I guess you believe OJ is innocent.



Funny how you come to conclusions without having read any of the affidavits and/or witness statements. The TX Attorney General used the same affidavits in his law suit against the states. Witness statements are first hand evidence and they are subject to scrutiny at trial and cross examination. Because some judge says there's no evidence (without hearing any of it), I know better.

I didn't read all 1000 plus affidavits that were filed on Trumps behalf. I suspect you did not either. I have asked you twice for a link to the specific affidavits that you are referencing. Now I'm asking you a third time to provide me with the proof you would like me to see.

While I may not have not read all the affidavits, what I did do however is watch multiple days of witnesses testifying to the content of their affidavits in multiple states. In the 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched I saw only one single person make a claim of actual fraud. One single person stated that he witnessed one single ballot be switched from Biden to Trump when it was being recreated by the poll worker to replace the original absentee ballot that was damaged or unable to be scanned into the system for one reason or another. When asked if he witnessed the same thing repeatedly throughout the day he stated that he was there for 8 hours and that he only witnessed it that one single time.

What I also saw in the 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched was mountains of circumstantial evidence and hearsay being presented. I watched as multiple expert witnesses made claims of possible voter fraud, and I watched as none of these same experts provided any actual proof of fraud. Almost all of the rest of the witness statements spoke to how the election could have been stolen, might have been stolen, how it was almost impossible for the vote count to happen the way it did on election night, and how vulnerable the Dominion systems are to hacking, I watched as they spoke about how they were sent home, how they were treated unfairly, how they were made to sit too far away from the counting of votes to be able to see anything or to be able to tell what was actually going on during the count and scanning of ballots, and how one poll worker wasn't treated nicely because he wore his MAGA hat to the polling place as he was volunteering as a GOP observer.

What I didn't observe during those 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched is any real proof of widespread voter fraud being presented by any of the witnesses.

The burden of proof is on Powell and Trumps legal teams. So far their burden of proof has been lacking and all but one their cases have been thrown out because of it.

 

[Dodger12]

I didn't read all 1000 plus affidavits that were filed on Trumps behalf. I suspect you did not either. I have asked you twice for a link to the specific affidavits that you are referencing. Now I'm asking you a third time to provide me with the proof you would like me to see.

While I may not have not read all the affidavits, what I did do however is watch multiple days of witnesses testifying to the content of their affidavits in multiple states. In the 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched I saw only one single person make a claim of actual fraud. One single person stated that he witnessed one single ballot be switched from Biden to Trump when it was being recreated by the poll worker to replace the original absentee ballot that was damaged or unable to be scanned into the system for one reason or another. When asked if he witnessed the same thing repeatedly throughout the day he stated that he was there for 8 hours and that he only witnessed it that one single time.

What I also saw in the 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched was mountains of circumstantial evidence and hearsay being presented. I watched as multiple expert witnesses made claims of possible voter fraud, and I watched as none of these same experts provided any actual proof of fraud. Almost all of the rest of the witness statements spoke to how the election could have been stolen, might have been stolen, how it was almost impossible for the vote count to happen the way it did on election night, and how vulnerable the Dominion systems are to hacking, I watched as they spoke about how they were sent home, how they were treated unfairly, how they were made to sit too far away from the counting of votes to be able to see anything or to be able to tell what was actually going on during the count and scanning of ballots, and how one poll worker wasn't treated nicely because he wore his MAGA hat to the polling place as he was volunteering as a GOP observer.

What I didn't observe during those 20 plus hours of witness statements that I watched is any real proof of widespread voter fraud being presented by any of the witnesses.

The burden of proof is on Powell and Trumps legal teams. So far their burden of proof has been lacking and all but one their cases have been thrown out because of it.

I was referencing the affidavits Powell filed. Not the ones the witnesses prepared.

Our conversation can only go south but I'll leave you with this. When you say no one provided "proof," their witness statements are proof. Any expert analysis and opinion is "proof." Video evidence is proof. And not just the video evidence of the ballots being pulled from under the table, but the evidence where poll watchers are being denied entry into a polling facility even with a federal court order or video evidence of polling areas being blocked off and covered up. There have been links posted in the thread of testimony by folks I'd call credible and should be heard. There have been findings of missing thumb drives and chain of custody issues. There are "glitches" and/or human error which, none the less, caused 6000 votes to swing one way. And we can go on and on......

As I mentioned early, I don't need a judge to tell me what I see. We'll just agree to disagree......

 

[Scot]

I was referencing the affidavits Powell filed. Not the ones the witnesses prepared.

Our conversation can only go south but I'll leave you with this. When you say no one provided "proof," their witness statements are proof. Any expert analysis and opinion is "proof." Video evidence is proof. And not just the video evidence of the ballots being pulled from under the table, but the evidence where poll watchers are being denied entry into a polling facility even with a federal court order or video evidence of polling areas being blocked off and covered up. There have been links posted in the thread of testimony by folks I'd call credible and should be heard. There have been findings of missing thumb drives and chain of custody issues. There are "glitches" and/or human error which, none the less, caused 6000 votes to swing one way. And we can go on and on......

As I mentioned early, I don't need a judge to tell me what I see. We'll just agree to disagree......

All of that “proof” is circumstantial at best

None of it is “proof” that actual voter fraud occurred

Only proof that it could have or might have occurred

Might have and could have will not win you this court case

Might have and could have gets your case thrown out of court

 

[Dodger12]

All of that “proof” is circumstantial at best

None of it is “proof” that actual voter fraud occurred

Only proof that it could have or might have occurred

Might have and could have will not win you this court case

Might have and could have gets your case thrown out of court

Eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence. Eyewitness accounts of ballots being brought in in the dead of night in multiple states is direct evidence. Video recordings are direct evidence. Testifying to witnessing a lack of signature verification is direct evidence. Testifying to witnessing pristine ballots with common markings is direct evidence. Testifying that you drove mail in ballots from NY to PA, only to find them gone the next day, is direct evidence. Testifying that you witnessed ballots being backdated and cured is direct evidence. Testifying that you witnessed ballots being run through the tabulator multiple times is direct evidence.

The 5 or 6 battleground states all suspiciously shutting down voting at the same time on election eve is circumstantial evidence.

 

[Doomsday]

Tomorrow is the only day that could potentially count in any of this. The SCOTUS will hear the PA mail-in ballot appeal. Otherwise one week from tomorrow the EC gets to work. Time's up.

The SCOTUS tossed Kelly's case today. With one short comment from Alito.

 

[Dodger12]

The SCOTUS tossed Kelly's case today. With one short comment from Alito.

Probably because they accepted the case from Texas which addresses the same legal issues.

 

[Scot]

Eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence. Eyewitness accounts of ballots being brought in in the dead of night in multiple states is direct evidence. Video recordings are direct evidence. Testifying to witnessing a lack of signature verification is direct evidence. Testifying to witnessing pristine ballots with common markings is direct evidence. Testifying that you drove mail in ballots from NY to PA, only to find them gone the next day, is direct evidence. Testifying that you witnessed ballots being backdated and cured is direct evidence. Testifying that you witnessed ballots being run through the tabulator multiple times is direct evidence.

The 5 or 6 battleground states all suspiciously shutting down voting at the same time on election eve is circumstantial evidence.

"Eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence"
Yes, its direct evidence of what the witness testified to, which is that some crazy shit happened on election night that shouldn't have happened. It does not in any way shape or form speak to or prove that her claims that Trump won the election in a landslide like, or that votes were switched from Biden to Trump, or that the Dominion system counted Biden votes at higher than 100% and Trump votes at less than 100%.

Testifying to witnessing a lack of signature verification is direct evidence that the election wasn't conducted appropriately. It in no way proves any of her claims that Trump won.

Testifying that you drove mail in ballots from NY to PA proves that laws were broken. Again, it in no way shape or form proves her claims that Trump won the election.

ALL of these witnesses prove one thing

That is a bunch of hinky shit went down on election night, and again, none of it proves Powell's claims that Trump won this election in a landslide.

Unless she can prove that Trump received more votes than Biden then the point is moot.

Do you honestly think for one second that any of these cases are going to go anywhere without actual proof that Trump had the election stolen from him? So far they have presented a really strong case that it could have been stolen and they have even presented an impressive case on how it could have been stolen from him. But they have not in any way shown that it was actually stolen from him. And that is my point.

So far all Powell has proven is that the election was a shitshow on every level and mishandled by multiple states. But, that is not enough for a judge to open this can of worms without proof of votes being changed/moved/removed from one candidate to the other.

 

[Doomsday]

Probably because they accepted the case from Texas which addresses the same legal issues.

I didn't see that, last I saw they hadn't announced either way on that one.

 

[Doomsday]

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results

The lawsuit argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting was unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

www.npr.org

Warm up Dandy Don.