And, yet, this will do absolutely nothing to convince Jiggz or KK or any of the other mind's-made-up folks. Such a waste of time to unravel their word salads, but to let their ludicrous late-night-AM-radio-conspiracy crap continue is worse.
Thank goodness for CNN. You guys get your CT's broadcast in broad daylight in the middle of the day.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 22, 2020 - 10:13am
Steely_D wrote:
And, yet, this will do absolutely nothing to convince Jiggz or KK or any of the other mind's-made-up folks. Such a waste of time to unravel their word salads, but to let their ludicrous late-night-AM-radio-conspiracy crap continue is worse.
This is not accurate. Many of the court cases were decided on the merits, not on âtechnicalities.â. They did not go to trial, but that is true of the vast majority of civil cases, which are regularly decided based on motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss. Some of these challenges have not only been dismissed, they have been dismissed with prejudice. In lay (slang)English, that is the judge saying âdonât bring this shit back here.â Quite a few of the judges dismissing these claims have done so in scathing language, underscoring the lack of support in fact and law. When you see language like that, it means the judge sees the claims as bordering on, if not, frivolous.These dismissals have come from state and federal judges, including judges appointed by Republicans or who are Republicans. It defies credibility to assume these judges have it in for Trump or lack the courage to make the right call on these cases or some other spurious explanation.
The reality is that it has been about 7 weeks since the election and plaintiffs have been unable to provide credible evidence to prove their extraordinary claims of massive voter fraud orchestrated by the Democrats. They have not been prohibited from doing so. They have not come close to meeting their burden of proof.
And, yet, this will do absolutely nothing to convince Jiggz or KK or any of the other mind's-made-up folks. Such a waste of time to unravel their word salads, but to let their ludicrous late-night-AM-radio-conspiracy crap continue is worse.
Televangelist
Pat Robertson, one of President Trumpâs staunchest backers, on Monday
described Trump as âvery erratic,â called on him to accept that
President-elect Joe Biden won and said the Republican should not
consider running again in 2024.
The
comments marked a sharp turnaround for Robertson, who recently voiced
support for Trumpâs false claims of widespread voter fraud and declared
before the election that God had told him Trump was going to win.
âI
think itâs a sideshow,â Robertson said Monday on his television show,
âThe 700 Club,â when asked whether he thinks Trump should run again in
2024. âI think it would be a mistake. My money would be on Nikki Haley; I think sheâd make a tremendous
candidate for the Republican Party.â
Trump
has refused to concede after losing to Biden on Nov. 3 and has
redoubled efforts to overturn the election results even after the
electoral college affirmed the Democratâs win with 306 electoral votes.
The president also has hinted that he may run again in four years.
Robertson
said that Trump has âdone a marvelous job for the economy, but at the
same time, he is very erratic, and heâs fired people and heâs fought
people and heâs insulted people and he keeps going down the line.â
âAnd so, itâs a mixed bag,â he said. âAnd I think it would be well to say, âYouâve had your day and itâs time to move on.ââ
Just a quick something to interject with here - as far as I know,to date not a single judge has heard a single presentation of any testimony or evidence. Every case has been kicked down the road on a procedural issue or somesuch technicality around standing or suchlike, which is very suspicious to a lot of people, not just Trump supporters.
Not a single court has given any litigant an opportunity to present any evidence or facts or argue their case.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
You don't seem to understand the legal process. The litigants presented their evidence, such as it was (or in this case presented that they didn't really have any evidence), in their filings to the court. We can assume the judges read the material presented and decided that they could make a legal ruling based on what was presented. Having them stand up in court and present the same stuff wouldn't change anything.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
Which begs the question - why not? Much like with the Hunter Biden laptop story, nobody has really once-and-for-all tried to refute any of the election irregularity claims or testimonies.
Bill Barr just refuted both election irregularities and Hunter Biden's laptop. Please explain.
Wow that's compelling: a secondhand account of a secondhand account of an overheard conversation as reported by...a member of the Texas lege? I mean, he oughta knowâevery member of the Texas lege is well-connected at the US Supreme Court, they get all the scuttlebutt.
You know it's true because it's on C-SPAN.
...who fact-checked this claim. Here's what they said:
Matt Patrick CD32 fabricates a story about SCOTUS on the TX vs PA case. SCOTUS did not meet in person, so the entire premise of the story is a lie.
This is not accurate. Many of the court cases were decided on the merits, not on âtechnicalities.â. They did not go to trial, but that is true of the vast majority of civil cases, which are regularly decided based on motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss. Some of these challenges have not only been dismissed, they have been dismissed with prejudice. In lay (slang)English, that is the judge saying âdonât bring this shit back here.â Quite a few of the judges dismissing these claims have done so in scathing language, underscoring the lack of support in fact and law. When you see language like that, it means the judge sees the claims as bordering on, if not, frivolous.These dismissals have come from state and federal judges, including judges appointed by Republicans or who are Republicans. It defies credibility to assume these judges have it in for Trump or lack the courage to make the right call on these cases or some other spurious explanation.
The reality is that it has been about 7 weeks since the election and plaintiffs have been unable to provide credible evidence to prove their extraordinary claims of massive voter fraud orchestrated by the Democrats. They have not been prohibited from doing so. They have not come close to meeting their burden of proof.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 21, 2020 - 9:42am
Jiggz wrote:
Just a quick something to interject with here - as far as I know, to date not a single judge has heard a single presentation of any testimony or evidence. Every case has been kicked down the road on a procedural issue or somesuch technicality around standing or suchlike, which is very suspicious to a lot of people, not just Trump supporters.
Not a single court has given any litigant an opportunity to present any evidence or facts or argue their case.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
Which begs the question - why not? Much like with the Hunter Biden laptop story, nobody has really once-and-for-all tried to refute any of the election irregularity claims or testimonies.
So many questions.....and nobody has tried to answer any. ....just *crickets*......or denial. obfuscation, stonewalling, duck-n-dive, screeches of "conspiracy theorists" and "Trump Lies", and calls to "move on". Or Facebook fact-checks........or pieces on NYT or WP or WSJ. Which fewer and fewer are believing or swallowing anymore.
Nobody, least of all "just-your- less- than- average - Joe", says "OK, lets give them a an opportunity to make their case before a court. Let a court decide."
Hear their case at least? What's to lose?
What are you all so afraid of?
Worst case scenario - some honest decent judge hears their case or some aspect of it, decides in their favour, a certain small element of the election is de-certified, and the rest of the house of cards, county-by-county, state-by-state tumbles down and you get another four more years of Trump. Is that it? Is that the worst of your fears?
Get a grip on yourself. . . .
This is not accurate. Many of the court cases were decided on the merits, not on âtechnicalities.â. They did not go to trial, but that is true of the vast majority of civil cases, which are regularly decided based on motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss. Some of these challenges have not only been dismissed, they have been dismissed with prejudice. In lay (slang)English, that is the judge saying âdonât bring this shit back here.â Quite a few of the judges dismissing these claims have done so in scathing language, underscoring the lack of support in fact and law. When you see language like that, it means the judge sees the claims as bordering on, if not, frivolous.These dismissals have come from state and federal judges, including judges appointed by Republicans or who are Republicans. It defies credibility to assume these judges have it in for Trump or lack the courage to make the right call on these cases or some other spurious explanation.
The reality is that it has been about 7 weeks since the election and plaintiffs have been unable to provide credible evidence to prove their extraordinary claims of massive voter fraud orchestrated by the Democrats. They have not been prohibited from doing so. They have not come close to meeting their burden of proof.
Brian Kilmeade did his part. He “asked” Paul, “You think the election was stolen, you tweeted out?”
“Absolutely. I think there’s a great deal of fraud, and it’s not the first time,” Paul said. He then cited “the famous story” of voter fraud by Lyndon Baines Johnson from 1948 which, as Mediaite noted, was a charge the U.S. Supreme Court dropped for lack of evidence and proof.
Actually, LBJ or people supporting his campaign did cheat in 1948. Robert Caro's brilliant book "The Means of Ascent" documented those efforts. According to Wikipedia, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black handed down the decision that the federal government could not intervene in a state election.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/0... Here's the difference between 1948 and 2020: all the claims of 2020 election fraud have been exhaustively examined and ruled upon by the courts. State and federal governments have examined the presidential election and claims of fraud. Lawyers for Trump have had EVERY opportunity to provide evidence of fraud to back up their claims.
Nothing came of it. Even though Republican officials and Trump-appointed judges examined the claims. By and large Trump's lawyers have made complete fools of themselves in court.
So let's stop with the fraud and conspiracy crap. RPers talking this story up need to get a grip. If there was evidence of fraud, just about every news organization in the country would jump on that story because it would be the story of the decade.
The show's over. Just because Trump spews a claim of fraud doesn't make it true. Some of you may not ever grasp that fact but there it is.
Just a quick something to interject with here - as far as I know, to date not a single judge has heard a single presentation of any testimony or evidence. Every case has been kicked down the road on a procedural issue or somesuch technicality around standing or suchlike, which is very suspicious to a lot of people, not just Trump supporters.
Not a single court has given any litigant an opportunity to present any evidence or facts or argue their case.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
Which begs the question - why not? Much like with the Hunter Biden laptop story, nobody has really once-and-for-all tried to refute any of the election irregularity claims or testimonies.
So many questions.....and nobody has tried to answer any. ....just *crickets*......or denial. obfuscation, stonewalling, duck-n-dive, screeches of "conspiracy theorists" and "Trump Lies", and calls to "move on". Or Facebook fact-checks........or pieces on NYT or WP or WSJ. Which fewer and fewer are believing or swallowing anymore.
Nobody, least of all "just-your- less- than- average - Joe", says "OK, lets give them a an opportunity to make their case before a court. Let a court decide." Hear their case at least? What's to lose?
What are you all so afraid of?
Worst case scenario - some honest decent judge hears their case or some aspect of it, decides in their favour, a certain small element of the election is de-certified, and the rest of the house of cards, county-by-county, state-by-state tumbles down and you get another four more years of Trump. Is that it? Is that the worst of your fears?
Get a grip on yourself.
Oh, and maybe many people will go to jail. All those filling in 20 or 30 fake ballots every night after work, making Facebook posts about 'every day doing their little bit, their little something, to get rid of Donald Trump".
I have been watching clips of people being sentenced to jail for voter fraud. There are lots of those clips. A mayor gets 25 years, a poll worker who voted twice gets five. That's plenty enough.
I believe Gitmo has recently been substantially expanded, which is odd at a time when MIddle-Eastern troops are being brought home etc.
Maybe it's to be filled with Antifa and BLM and election riggers? Maybe the Zuck too, but he'll probably get a little section to himself.
Interesting times ahead, for sure!
Jiggz,
Aren’t you too old to be believing in fairy tales?
Maybe he does or maybe he doesn't, but can you answer his questions?
Brian Kilmeade did his part. He âaskedâ Paul, âYou think the election was stolen, you tweeted out?â
âAbsolutely. I think thereâs a great deal of fraud, and itâs not the first time,â Paul said. He then cited âthe famous storyâ of voter fraud by Lyndon Baines Johnson from 1948 which, as Mediaite noted, was a charge the U.S. Supreme Court dropped for lack of evidence and proof.
Actually, LBJ or people supporting his campaign did cheat in 1948. Robert Caro's brilliant book "The Means of Ascent" documented those efforts. According to Wikipedia, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black handed down the decision that the federal government could not intervene in a state election.
Here's the difference between 1948 and 2020: all the claims of 2020 election fraud have been exhaustively examined and ruled upon by the courts. State and federal governments have examined the presidential election and claims of fraud. Lawyers for Trump have had EVERY opportunity to provide evidence of fraud to back up their claims.
Nothing came of it. Even though Republican officials and Trump-appointed judges examined the claims. By and large Trump's lawyers have made complete fools of themselves in court.
So let's stop with the fraud and conspiracy crap. RPers talking this story up need to get a grip. If there was evidence of fraud, just about every news organization in the country would jump on that story because it would be the story of the decade.
The show's over. Just because Trump spews a claim of fraud doesn't make it true. Some of you may not ever grasp that fact but there it is.
Just a quick something to interject with here - as far as I know, to date not a single judge has heard a single presentation of any testimony or evidence. Every case has been kicked down the road on a procedural issue or somesuch technicality around standing or suchlike, which is very suspicious to a lot of people, not just Trump supporters.
Not a single court has given any litigant an opportunity to present any evidence or facts or argue their case.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
Which begs the question - why not? Much like with the Hunter Biden laptop story, nobody has really once-and-for-all tried to refute any of the election irregularity claims or testimonies.
So many questions.....and nobody has tried to answer any. ....just *crickets*......or denial. obfuscation, stonewalling, duck-n-dive, screeches of "conspiracy theorists" and "Trump Lies", and calls to "move on". Or Facebook fact-checks........or pieces on NYT or WP or WSJ. Which fewer and fewer are believing or swallowing anymore.
Nobody, least of all "just-your- less- than- average - Joe", says "OK, lets give them a an opportunity to make their case before a court. Let a court decide."
Hear their case at least? What's to lose?
What are you all so afraid of?
Worst case scenario - some honest decent judge hears their case or some aspect of it, decides in their favour, a certain small element of the election is de-certified, and the rest of the house of cards, county-by-county, state-by-state tumbles down and you get another four more years of Trump. Is that it? Is that the worst of your fears?
Get a grip on yourself.
Oh, and maybe many people will go to jail. All those filling in 20 or 30 fake ballots every night after work, making Facebook posts about 'every day doing their little bit, their little something, to get rid of Donald Trump".
I have been watching clips of people being sentenced to jail for voter fraud. There are lots of those clips. A mayor gets 25 years, a poll worker who voted twice gets five. That's plenty enough.
I believe Gitmo has recently been substantially expanded, which is odd at a time when MIddle-Eastern troops are being brought home etc.
Maybe it's to be filled with Antifa and BLM and election riggers? Maybe the Zuck too, but he'll probably get a little section to himself.
Interesting times ahead, for sure!
Jiggz,
Arenât you too old to be believing in fairy tales?
President Trump on Friday discussed naming Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, to be a special counsel overseeing an investigation of voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.
It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.
Most of his advisers opposed the idea, two of the people briefed on the discussion said, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the presidentâs personal lawyer. In recent days Mr. Giuliani has sought to have the Department of Homeland Security join the campaignâs efforts to overturn Mr. Trumpâs loss in the election.
Mr. Giuliani joined the discussion by phone initially, while Ms. Powell was at the White House for a meeting that became raucous and involved people shouting at each other at times, according to one of the people briefed on what took place.
Ms. Powellâs client, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser whom the president recently pardoned, was also there, two of the people briefed on the meeting said. Some senior administration officials drifted in and out of the meeting.
During an appearance on the conservative Newsmax channel this week, Mr. Flynn pushed for Mr. Trump to impose martial law and deploy the military to ârerunâ the election. At one point in the meeting on Friday, Mr. Trump asked about that idea. (...)
Wow that's compelling: a secondhand account of a secondhand account of an overheard conversation as reported by...a member of the Texas lege? I mean, he oughta knowâevery member of the Texas lege is well-connected at the US Supreme Court, they get all the scuttlebutt.
You know it's true because it's on C-SPAN.
...who fact-checked this claim. Here's what they said:
Matt Patrick CD32 fabricates a story about SCOTUS on the TX vs PA case. SCOTUS did not meet in person, so the entire premise of the story is a lie.
Brian Kilmeade did his part. He âaskedâ Paul, âYou think the election was stolen, you tweeted out?â
âAbsolutely. I think thereâs a great deal of fraud, and itâs not the first time,â Paul said. He then cited âthe famous storyâ of voter fraud by Lyndon Baines Johnson from 1948 which, as Mediaite noted, was a charge the U.S. Supreme Court dropped for lack of evidence and proof.
Actually, LBJ or people supporting his campaign did cheat in 1948. Robert Caro's brilliant book "The Means of Ascent" documented those efforts. According to Wikipedia, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black handed down the decision that the federal government could not intervene in a state election.
Here's the difference between 1948 and 2020: all the claims of 2020 election fraud have been exhaustively examined and ruled upon by the courts. State and federal governments have examined the presidential election and claims of fraud. Lawyers for Trump have had EVERY opportunity to provide evidence of fraud to back up their claims.
Nothing came of it. Even though Republican officials and Trump-appointed judges examined the claims. By and large Trump's lawyers have made complete fools of themselves in court.
So let's stop with the fraud and conspiracy crap. RPers talking this story up need to get a grip. If there was evidence of fraud, just about every news organization in the country would jump on that story because it would be the story of the decade.
The show's over. Just because Trump spews a claim of fraud doesn't make it true. Some of you may not ever grasp that fact but there it is.
Just a quick something to interject with here - as far as I know, to date not a single judge has heard a single presentation of any testimony or evidence. Every case has been kicked down the road on a procedural issue or somesuch technicality around standing or suchlike, which is very suspicious to a lot of people, not just Trump supporters.
Not a single court has given any litigant an opportunity to present any evidence or facts or argue their case.
Legacy media tells you that cases have been thrown out of court but doesn't tell you that they have not actually been heard in court. Not once.
Which begs the question - why not? Much like with the Hunter Biden laptop story, nobody has really once-and-for-all tried to refute any of the election irregularity claims or testimonies.
So many questions.....and nobody has tried to answer any. ....just *crickets*......or denial. obfuscation, stonewalling, duck-n-dive, screeches of "conspiracy theorists" and "Trump Lies", and calls to "move on". Or Facebook fact-checks........or pieces on NYT or WP or WSJ. Which fewer and fewer are believing or swallowing anymore.
Nobody, least of all "just-your- less- than- average - Joe", says "OK, lets give them a an opportunity to make their case before a court. Let a court decide."
Hear their case at least? What's to lose?
What are you all so afraid of?
Worst case scenario - some honest decent judge hears their case or some aspect of it, decides in their favour, a certain small element of the election is de-certified, and the rest of the house of cards, county-by-county, state-by-state tumbles down and you get another four more years of Trump. Is that it? Is that the worst of your fears?
Get a grip on yourself.
Oh, and maybe many people will go to jail. All those filling in 20 or 30 fake ballots every night after work, making Facebook posts about 'every day doing their little bit, their little something, to get rid of Donald Trump".
I have been watching clips of people being sentenced to jail for voter fraud. There are lots of those clips. A mayor gets 25 years, a poll worker who voted twice gets five. That's plenty enough.
I believe Gitmo has recently been substantially expanded, which is odd at a time when MIddle-Eastern troops are being brought home etc.
Maybe it's to be filled with Antifa and BLM and election riggers? Maybe the Zuck too, but he'll probably get a little section to himself.
