|
Post by Moderators on Jun 11, 2022 13:19:22 GMT -5
Moderators have been out and about and otherwise occupied.
Please keep it civil.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 11, 2022 16:51:37 GMT -5
Civil ?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 11, 2022 17:14:46 GMT -5
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.” -C.S Lewis
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 11, 2022 17:17:23 GMT -5
However, Trump's team of trained lawyers should know what actual evidence looks like. They probably do. And as Cornflake intimated in his post, they tried to have evidence admitted, but it was denied. It's obviously a very high hurdle to even get to the point of being able to present evidence in a voter fraud case.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 11, 2022 18:22:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 11, 2022 18:35:04 GMT -5
However, Trump's team of trained lawyers should know what actual evidence looks like. They probably do. And as Cornflake intimated in his post, they tried to have evidence admitted, but it was denied. It's obviously a very high hurdle to even get to the point of being able to present evidence in a voter fraud case. You are reading Don's post as if it is some sort validation for what you believe to be true, that Trump's claim of a stolen election due to fraud is valid but the courts refused to give it a hearing. You said, 'ah ha, Trump's lawyers tried to get evidence presented to the court but the judge wouldn't admit it because of the "high bar". Ipso facto, there was fraud and Trump's lawyers had evidence but the judge wouldn't look at it because the bar is impossibly high. That's what Don said.' What Don really said was that (A) most of the cases Trump's lawyers brought to the court weren't based on fraud. He did say that (B) if fraud was claimed, the evidence had to be good; that if it was specious nonsense (like Aqua's Facebook claims) the lawyers bringing the bull could face sanctions. Don did not say or imply that the Trump's lawyers tried present evidence of fraud but the court didn't admit it. Go back to (A). Most of the cases Trump's lawyers brought to the court were not based on fraud nor was fraud ever claimed in the courtroom. Trump's lawyers did preach fraud to the cameras on the steps of the courthouse, but once inside, fraud was not claimed, not mentioned. Go back to (B), it wasn't claimed or mentioned because they had no court-worthy evidence to present and they knew it. A courtroom is not Facebook. You can't just make up shit and send it winging down the internet, nor can you doctor photos, edit video clips, and twist the truth into a tortured pretzel. Recall what actually happened. Trump's lawyers, the few that stuck with him on this nonsense, preached FRAUD to the cameras on the steps of the courthouse and pointed to piles of cardboard boxes. But not a box did they bring into the courthouse. Not a box did they present to a judge. Evidence wasn't denied, it wasn't presented. It wasn't presented because it didn't exist. Go back to (B). The cases that were actually brought to court, rather than Facebook, were based on technicalities, such as whether a legislature made a certain voting-procedure decision within the proper timeframe. They were not based on fraud. For good reason. (B) Trump's election fraud claims were a sham for show. That's all they ever were... and are.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 11, 2022 18:53:11 GMT -5
However, Trump's team of trained lawyers should know what actual evidence looks like. They probably do. And as Cornflake intimated in his post, they tried to have evidence admitted, but it was denied. It's obviously a very high hurdle to even get to the point of being able to present evidence in a voter fraud case. My interpretation of Cornflake's post, like epauls's, differs from yours. Trump's lawyers didn't try to have evidence admitted. They tried to get admitted claims that didn't qualify as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 11, 2022 20:29:06 GMT -5
They probably do. And as Cornflake intimated in his post, they tried to have evidence admitted, but it was denied. It's obviously a very high hurdle to even get to the point of being able to present evidence in a voter fraud case. You are reading Don's post as if it is some sort validation for what you believe to be true, that Trump's claim of a stolen election due to fraud is valid but the courts refused to give it a hearing. You said, 'ah ha, Trump's lawyers tried to get evidence presented to the court but the judge wouldn't admit it because of the "high bar". Ipso facto, there was fraud and Trump's lawyers had evidence but the judge wouldn't look at it because the bar is impossibly high. That's what Don said.' What Don really said was that (A) most of the cases Trump's lawyers brought to the court weren't based on fraud. He did say that (B) if fraud was claimed, the evidence had to be good; that if it was specious nonsense (like Aqua's Facebook claims) the lawyers bringing the bull could face sanctions. Don did not say or imply that the Trump's lawyers tried present evidence of fraud but the court didn't admit it. Go back to (A). Most of the cases Trump's lawyers brought to the court were not based on fraud nor was fraud ever claimed in the courtroom. Trump's lawyers did preach fraud to the cameras on the steps of the courthouse, but once inside, fraud was not claimed, not mentioned. Go back to (B), it wasn't claimed or mentioned because they had no court-worthy evidence to present and they knew it. A courtroom is not Facebook. You can't just make up shit and send it winging down the internet, nor can you doctor photos, edit video clips, and twist the truth into a tortured pretzel. Recall what actually happened. Trump's lawyers, the few that stuck with him on this nonsense, preached FRAUD to the cameras on the steps of the courthouse and pointed to piles of cardboard boxes. But not a box did they bring into the courthouse. Not a box did they present to a judge. Evidence wasn't denied, it wasn't presented. It wasn't presented because it didn't exist. Go back to (B). The cases that were actually brought to court, rather than Facebook, were based on technicalities, such as whether a legislature made a certain voting-procedure decision within the proper timeframe. They were not based on fraud. For good reason. (B) Trump's election fraud claims were a sham for show. That's all they ever were... and are. What are you talking about "Facebook"? I haven't seen the first thing about any of this from anyone on Facebook. My Facebook "friends" list consists almost entirely of artists and musicians to the left of Mao. They are with you cheering on the hearings and hoping to imprison a former president for political crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 11, 2022 21:13:32 GMT -5
I see that I didn't communicate very well in my previous post. My apologies. Maybe I won't communicate very well in this one, either.
In my state, election challenges brought after the election are all regulated by statute and all subject to time limits. Short ones, If you file a lawsuit to challenge the outcome of an election, you can expect to be presenting evidence a day or so later.
But before you get that far, the law asks a question that isn't peculiar to election cases. Assuming you prove everything you've alleged in ypur pleading, can the court grant any relief?
By way of example, I'll point to a case here. The judge was a former colleague. One of the Trump lawyers was also a former colleague. Another had been a frequent litigation adversary. The Trump lawyers had asked on the internet for anyone aware of irregularities to contact them. Some people did. By the time they arrived in court, the Trump lawyers thought they had evidence of something like 8-10 people who shouldn't have been allowed to vote but were.
Then everybody met with the judge. I wasn't there but it would have gone something like this.
Judge: You've alleged election irregularities. What are you prepared to prove?
Trump's lawyers: Your honor, we're prepared to offer evidence of many irregularities.
Judge: How many?
Trump's lawyers: About eight to ten.
Judge: Biden won by ten thousand votes. Assuming you prove that ten people voted who shouldn't have, what do you expect me to do about it?
Trump's lawyers: Well. Ahem. Your honor....
Judge: Case dismissed.
I suspect it wasn't that short but that was the gist of it. The problem wasn't some technicality preventing them from presenting evidence. The problem was that no one offered evidence of enough irregularity to change the outcome of the election. In any election case, that'll be the end of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 11, 2022 21:33:21 GMT -5
There you go.
Don just clearly said that whatever the hell it was that epaul just said, he is undoubtedly right as I have never known him to be wrong. He also mentioned something about me being "hot!".
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 11, 2022 21:36:10 GMT -5
What are you talking about "Facebook"? I haven't seen the first thing about any of this from anyone on Facebook. My Facebook "friends" list consists almost entirely of artists and musicians to the left of Mao. They are with you cheering on the hearings and hoping to imprison a former president for political crimes. If you want, I can give you my sister-in-law's Facebook link and you can "Friend" her for some needed balance. She makes Aqua seem like a piker.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jun 11, 2022 21:37:15 GMT -5
He also mentioned something about me being "hot!". You're both members of the Duck Band, after all. What else would you expect?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 11, 2022 22:22:10 GMT -5
What are you talking about "Facebook"? I haven't seen the first thing about any of this from anyone on Facebook. My Facebook "friends" list consists almost entirely of artists and musicians to the left of Mao. They are with you cheering on the hearings and hoping to imprison a former president for political crimes. If you want, I can give you my sister-in-law's Facebook link and you can "Friend" her for some needed balance. She makes Aqua seem like a piker. So she's the smart one in the family. I knew there had to be one.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 12, 2022 9:16:51 GMT -5
Well, at least the ratings were dismal. Yawn Fest
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 12, 2022 9:21:11 GMT -5
Maybe they should have gone with the original halftime show they had planned. Miley Cyrus
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 12, 2022 9:45:58 GMT -5
I see that I didn't communicate very well in my previous post. My apologies. Maybe I won't communicate very well in this one, either. In my state, election challenges brought after the election are all regulated by statute and all subject to time limits. Short ones, If you file a lawsuit to challenge the outcome of an election, you can expect to be presenting evidence a day or so later. But before you get that far, the law asks a question that isn't peculiar to election cases. Assuming you prove everything you've alleged in ypur pleading, can the court grant any relief? By way of example, I'll point to a case here. The judge was a former colleague. One of the Trump lawyers was also a former colleague. Another had been a frequent litigation adversary. The Trump lawyers had asked on the internet for anyone aware of irregularities to contact them. Some people did. By the time they arrived in court, the Trump lawyers thought they had evidence of something like 8-10 people who shouldn't have been allowed to vote but were. Then everybody met with the judge. I wasn't there but it would have gone something like this. Judge: You've alleged election irregularities. What are you prepared to prove? Trump's lawyers: Your honor, we're prepared to offer evidence of many irregularities. Judge: How many? Trump's lawyers: About eight to ten. Judge: Biden won by ten thousand votes. Assuming you prove that ten people voted who shouldn't have, what do you expect me to do about it? Trump's lawyers: Well. Ahem. Your honor.... Judge: Case dismissed. I suspect it wasn't that short but that was the gist of it. The problem wasn't some technicality preventing them from presenting evidence. The problem was that no one offered evidence of enough irregularity to change the outcome of the election. In any election case, that'll be the end of the matter. It's scary that that's satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 12, 2022 10:01:24 GMT -5
I see that I didn't communicate very well in my previous post. My apologies. Maybe I won't communicate very well in this one, either. In my state, election challenges brought after the election are all regulated by statute and all subject to time limits. Short ones, If you file a lawsuit to challenge the outcome of an election, you can expect to be presenting evidence a day or so later. But before you get that far, the law asks a question that isn't peculiar to election cases. Assuming you prove everything you've alleged in ypur pleading, can the court grant any relief? By way of example, I'll point to a case here. The judge was a former colleague. One of the Trump lawyers was also a former colleague. Another had been a frequent litigation adversary. The Trump lawyers had asked on the internet for anyone aware of irregularities to contact them. Some people did. By the time they arrived in court, the Trump lawyers thought they had evidence of something like 8-10 people who shouldn't have been allowed to vote but were. Then everybody met with the judge. I wasn't there but it would have gone something like this. Judge: You've alleged election irregularities. What are you prepared to prove? Trump's lawyers: Your honor, we're prepared to offer evidence of many irregularities. Judge: How many? Trump's lawyers: About eight to ten. Judge: Biden won by ten thousand votes. Assuming you prove that ten people voted who shouldn't have, what do you expect me to do about it? Trump's lawyers: Well. Ahem. Your honor.... Judge: Case dismissed. I suspect it wasn't that short but that was the gist of it. The problem wasn't some technicality preventing them from presenting evidence. The problem was that no one offered evidence of enough irregularity to change the outcome of the election. In any election case, that'll be the end of the matter. It's scary that that's satisfactory. Particularly since the discrepancies were way more consequential than 8 or 10.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 12, 2022 11:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 12, 2022 11:42:55 GMT -5
It's scary that that's satisfactory. Thump, Thump, Thump. [Don banging his head against the wall]
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 12, 2022 11:46:27 GMT -5
It's scary that that's satisfactory. Particularly since the discrepancies were way more consequential than 8 or 10. Yep. And you won't find evidence like that in any courtroom in the land. For the good stuff, you got to go to Facebook.
|
|