|
Post by david on Jun 10, 2022 19:36:37 GMT -5
I do not know how many vote counts, vote recounts and failed court cases alleging fraud it might take for the trump faithful to recognize that Trump lost. Pathetic that Americans cannot believe in the voting system and the court system. Even judges appointed by Trump ruled against him. WAKE UP! To me it is especially galling because the lack of belief in the US voting system and courts is spearheaded by a pugnacious, loud mouth, philandering narcissist. How many of those cases were simply not heard as opposed to actually ruled on? I do not have numbers for you, Peter. If they were not heard, it was because there was no evidence of fraud. To have a fraud case, there has to be proof of fraud. As you might imagine, you can file a lawsuit and allege anything that you want. If there is not any proof, the court will kick the case out. I recollect that in a number of Trump's cases the court had repeatedly asked Trump's attorneys to present proof. In case after case, there never was any proof, so the cases were dismissed. In some of the cases affidavits were submitted by Trump's attorneys to indicate that they thought that there would be proof of fraud, but there was never any proof. It was typically of the variety of "someone said that there was something wrong going on." But there was not proof of actual wrongdoing. As with the vote counts and recounts, it just lacked substance. So, one and a half years after the continued claims of fraud, there is still no proof, despite Mr. Pillow's and attorney Sidney Powell's blather, no one has provided evidence of fraud, despite Trump's untaxed millions of dollars of potential investigations. It is over. Trump lost. The insurrectionists need to be prosecuted. If you continue to believe in what Trump told you about the election, look at his record for veracity, bankruptcy, and fidelity. Then look at his lack of proof. Is this really the god you want to follow?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 10, 2022 19:37:15 GMT -5
It is amazing what a mind can do to justify what it wants to believe. Reality doesn't have a chance.
We had an election. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
We had recounts. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
We had bi-partisan state election commissions certify the election as fair and true. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
Our judicial system, from county court to the Supreme Court, found no cause to rule the election as anything other than fair and true. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
Post mortem Republican-led investigations found the election results to be true. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
There is nothing on this earth that can change a mind dead set on delusion. "Oh, that doesn't count because this, this, that, and that."
|
|
|
Post by david on Jun 10, 2022 19:57:26 GMT -5
Let me break it down for you:
If there is to be a trial, each side needs to have a position that is opposed to each other.
If the complaining party , e.g. Trump, is to proceed, then he needs to be able to present a witness or evidence that will support his position. If he does not have any witness or evidence to support his position, then the trial does not need to take place.
Why bother with trial if you have no evidence.
Mr. Pillow and Sidney Powell are not evidence. Nor is Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 10, 2022 20:08:18 GMT -5
Good time to re-post my story about a guy I did a knee replacement on. He came back a year or two later complaining that it hurt. One problem, he was complaining about the other knee that had not been replaced and was arthritic.
Nothing would change his mind, not even the surgical scar on the one that didn’t hurt, or the surgical report or X-rays,
Finally I had him tape a quarter on the knee that hurt and we took a film with both knees on it. It was obvious that the knee that hurt had the quarter on it and had not been operated while the other had a knee prosthesis.
He looked at them a long time and finally said “you tricked me” and stormed out.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 10, 2022 20:08:19 GMT -5
Let me break it down for you: If there is to be a trial, each side needs to have a position that is opposed to each other. If the complaining party , e.g. Trump, is to proceed, then he needs to be able to present a witness or evidence that will support his position. If he does not have any witness or evidence to support his position, then the trial does not need to take place. Why bother with trial if you have no evidence. Mr. Pillow and Sidney Powell are not evidence. Nor is Facebook. Most of them weren't heard because they were filed either too early or too late. Had nothing to do with evidence. And, by the way, the idiot parade of beligerent a'holes isn't helping anything. Like I said, we've seen it. You've got your incompetent ass wipe in charge. Really can't distract from the fact that he tangibly sucks by putting on a miserable TV show. We'll see how that turns out.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 10, 2022 20:16:24 GMT -5
Sigh. People.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 10, 2022 20:24:49 GMT -5
To have a fraud case, there has to be proof of fraud. How would one go about getting that? What would count as proof in a court of law?
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Jun 10, 2022 20:33:38 GMT -5
SPIN
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 10, 2022 20:38:51 GMT -5
Well at least we know you can spell that word.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 10, 2022 20:41:23 GMT -5
To have a fraud case, there has to be proof of fraud. How would one go about getting that? What would count as proof in a court of law? Apparently no one on Trump's team knows the answer to that question.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 10, 2022 20:43:51 GMT -5
How would one go about getting that? What would count as proof in a court of law? Apparently no one on Trump's team knows the answer to that question. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 10, 2022 20:51:30 GMT -5
I’d ask a good lawyer 😀
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jun 10, 2022 20:53:47 GMT -5
I'm no lawyer, but if I had a pane of glass and claimed I could see a specific person on the other side every time I looked through it and a whole bunch of people looked through that pane repeatedly and said every time that they saw no one, how long would it take for people to stop listening to me? When would not believing me become realistic and fair as opposed to reacting every time I declared that I saw that person through the glass?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 10, 2022 21:06:30 GMT -5
I'm no lawyer, but if I had a pane of glass and claimed I could see a specific person on the other side every time I looked through it and a whole bunch of people looked through that pane repeatedly and said every time that they saw no one, how long would it take for people to stop listening to me? When would not believing me become realistic and fair as opposed to reacting every time I declared that I saw that person through the glass? Not even remotely relevant. A coach for the Washington football team (whatever stupid name they chose) just got fined $100,000 by his coach for observing publically that the BLM riots were measurably and drastically worse in terms of damage and people killed and wounded than the supposed Jan. 6 "insurrection". No, Jan.6 was NOT worse than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the Battle of the Bulge. Those of us who have lived through this crap and seen the outcome know what happened and no amount of ignoring us will make us go away. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 10, 2022 21:13:07 GMT -5
Most of them weren't heard because they were filed either too early or too late. Had nothing to do with evidence. ... That is not a true statement. You are either just making up shit or repeating shit someone else made up. You should know that.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 10, 2022 21:16:58 GMT -5
To have a fraud case, there has to be proof of fraud. How would one go about getting that? What would count as proof in a court of law? How can we know the court is even real? What if other dimensions interfere with our court system? How can we know anything? Am I the only one here and this is a dream? What if a camel ate my tent in the desert, who would I argue with?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 10, 2022 21:18:12 GMT -5
Most of them weren't heard because they were filed either too early or too late. Had nothing to do with evidence. ... That is not a true statement. You are either just making up shit or repeating shit someone else made up. You should know that. A town in Michigan just announced that they can no longer afford to send cops out in cars. They're suggesting that if you call in, they'll try to talk you through it over the phone. Of course, like you said, those prices should start dropping any minute now. Speaking of making shit up. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Jun 10, 2022 21:25:31 GMT -5
Supposed insurrection that happened is not a Supposed insurrection. It was a insurrection. I can't wait for the next episode from the committee on tv.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 10, 2022 21:32:13 GMT -5
How would one go about getting that? What would count as proof in a court of law? How can we know the court is even real? What if other dimensions interfere with our court system? How can we know anything? Am I the only one here and this is a dream? What if a camel ate my tent in the desert, who would I argue with? what?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 10, 2022 21:47:21 GMT -5
We're all repeating ourselves. Why shouldn't I?
I've handled a couple of dozen election cases over the years. A lot of lawyers avoid them. First of all, you have to know what you're doing. Also, there's little time to prepare and you have to be willing to fly by the seat of your pants. That increases the risk of humiliation. Me, I liked having an evidentiary hearing on two days' notice and then, sometimes, arguing the case in the Arizona Supreme Court two or three days later. Life on the edge can be fun.
The first thing to know about election challenges is that if you bring one, you have a hard row to hoe. Our case law is replete with statements that there is a strong presumption that elections are valid and that there's a strong interest in the finality of elections. So when you file one, you have to have your evidence ready. You can expect to be asked by the judge what kind of evidence you have. The judges here have hundreds of cases. They want to know whether they should interrupt their busy schedules to handle yours. When you're asked what evidence you have, you'd better answer honestly. Otherwise, you can be the subject of financial sanctions and be reported to the State Bar. And the evidence had better be good.
If we can put aside our partisan leanings, all this makes sense. Do we really want every election to be contested in court for years?
Election challenges don't succeed very often. When they do, it's usually something cut and dried. Our courts overturned the election of one guy who clearly didn't meet the legal requirements for holding the office he had won.
I don't think many, if any, of the challenges by the Trump loyalists here were grounded on fraud in the legal sense. To prove common-law fraud, you have to have clear and convincing evidence of all the following elements: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. The law doesn't like fraud claims and they're hard to prove.
|
|