Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.Originally Posted by welch
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
It'll be interesting to see how the video of a poll worker scanning the same stack of ballots three times gets "fact-checked".
You guys can tell me what Huffpost has to say about it tomorrow.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I don't find Trump and most of his sycophants to be credible for the same reason.Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
pretty clear dismissal, again
These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?pretty clear dismissal, again
These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.
How embarrassing.
“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I don’t find Buddha approving your enlightenment, since you appear to have skipped the compassion block of instruction.I don't find Trump and most of his sycophants to be credible for the same reason.Oh that's one obnoxious woman. No argument from me. I don't find her credible, simply because of her demeanor. She goes from what she thinks she saw to all kinds of bullshit.
Dreck (December 6th, 2020)
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
One of my favorite pundits said that people who choose to believe in conspiracies cannot be talked out of them. While any candidate could and should question an outcome and ask for a recount, the current charade is clearly an attempt to draw in supporters and fund raise.
When someone seeks only their own power with no interest for the common man, the prudent and evidence seeking person sounds the alarm so as to deminish the probabity that the fence sitters remain put for a season.
I have taken the position that I will only discuss with someone who is wanting a discussion and not an arguement. It should be obvious without me saying so the danger of Trump. For those interested in reading, Bob Woodward, John Bolton, and Mary Trump have provided the same message from different perspectives.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
The first paragraph of the opinion, the first few pages of the Complaint. Can't hold TS to understand legalities, but one does wonder if he teaches more than the first chapter of any book in his classes.
dneal (December 5th, 2020)
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Please stop with this "you don't read this" or "watch this" bullshit.You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?pretty clear dismissal, again
These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.
How embarrassing.
“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”
That first paragraph (the ruling and the summary of the reason) is what is so pathetic
They submitted the case to the wrong court. This is either intentionally obtuse because it is just for show. Or it is inept. Both answers are ethically objectionable, and I think that the lawyers wasting the court time should be fined for it.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
December 8 is just a few days away now....
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I can't wait to watch what SNL does with Rudy's leaking brains and personages like Melissa Carone. Please, please!
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I'll stop when you offer more than condescending pronouncements of your clearly biased opinions. You claim to have looked at the evidence. You claim none of it is credible. You claim the advocates are all crazy conspiracy theorists. You do all that with little evidence yourself, other than a "harrumph" and "case dismissed" to a Huffpost article or a link to a legal opinion you obviously haven't looked at.Please stop with this "you don't read this" or "watch this" bullshit.You guys should read more than the stuff that comes out of the Ministry of Truth. This is the first paragraph of the ruling. You couldn’t even bother to get that far?pretty clear dismissal, again
These lawyers should be sued for malpractice. What a waste of time. And suckers are paying for it.
How embarrassing.
“ This appeal arises from last-minute litigation that alleges widespread election-related misconduct and seeks sweeping relief. The issue before us, however, is a narrow question of appellate jurisdiction: has the district court entered an order that we have jurisdiction to review? Because the answer to that question is “no,” we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and allow the proceedings to continue in the district court.”
That first paragraph (the ruling and the summary of the reason) is what is so pathetic
They submitted the case to the wrong court. This is either intentionally obtuse because it is just for show. Or it is inept. Both answers are ethically objectionable, and I think that the lawyers wasting the court time should be fined for it.
Had you actually been following this, or had you actually read the opinion Welch linked; you would know that Sidney Powell asked for voting machines to be secured for forensic evaluation. The lower court issued a temporary order for some machines. She appealed to the higher court for all. The higher court dismissed her appeal, for the reason noted - namely that they decided they don't have jurisdiction since the case in the lower court is still open.
So I'll stop calling you out when you stop pretending you're paying attention. At least you had the honesty to admit that you're not paying attention to the hearings. The amount of evidence presented in several states, by decent citizens with concerns, should be more deserving than your outright dismissal. Note that (again) I'm not talking about evidence that Trump won the election, but evidence that there is a very big problem with how we're conducting our elections.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Maybe Big Brother will take your suggestion for a future two minutes of hate on your telescreen.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Honestly Chuck, you seem to want a "discussion" where all agree with your point of view; but the ambiguity of your posts prevents that from being clear. It is possible for people of differing points of view to have a discussion; but usually not when one side seems to intentionally misrepresent the other, and also tries to slip it in with what could be perceived as passive-aggressive, insincere politeness.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
and....I missed the additional dismissal in Michigan yesterday: again, legal incompetence (missing deadlines) and barking up a tree without even evidence of a dog.
Tick, tock.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Link?
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Another day, another five-state loss for Trump's campaign against reality.
Further:President Trump and his allies faced a crush of defeats in post-election litigation Friday, a further sign of their ongoing failure to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory through the courts and to gain traction through baseless claims of widespread fraud.
Just over a month after the Nov. 3 election, the Trump campaign and other Republicans suing over Biden’s win were dealt court losses across six states where they have tried to contest the results of the presidential race — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Judges ruled decisively that Trump’s side has not proved the election was fraudulent, with some offering painstaking analyses of why such claims lack merit and pointed opinions about the risks the legal claims pose to American democracy.
“It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering,” wrote Justice Brian Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, agreeing with the court’s decision not to hear a lawsuit filed by a conservative group that sought to invalidate the election in that state.
“The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen,” added Hagedorn, who is part of the court’s conservative wing. “Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. . . . This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
Two of the biggest defeats took place in Arizona and Nevada, where judges tossed full-scale challenges to the states’ election results filed by the Republican Party and the Trump campaign, respectively. Both judges noted in their opinions that the plaintiffs did not prove their claims of fraud.
In a detailed, 35-page decision, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court in Carson City vetted each claim of fraud and wrongdoing made by the Trump campaign in the state and found that none was supported by convincing proof. The judge dismissed the challenge with prejudice, ruling that the campaign failed to offer any basis for annulling more than 1.3 million votes cast in the state’s presidential race.
The campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin of victory, which was about 33,600 votes, Russell wrote.
During a court hearing Thursday afternoon, Trump campaign lawyer Jesse R. Binnall said the Nevada election had been “stolen” from Trump and claimed a “robust body of evidence” supported his conclusion.
Among its allegations, the campaign claimed that more than 61,000 people voted twice or from out-of-state.
In his ruling, Russell concurred with election officials and academic experts that there is no evidence for this, and specifically dismissed witness declarations that had been touted by the campaign, calling them “self-serving statements of little or no evidentiary value.”
The judge added that the campaign’s so-called expert testimony “was of little to no value,” and called a claim of ballot-stuffing in broad daylight — made by one anonymous person and not corroborated by anyone else — “not credible.”
In a statement, the Nevada Republican Party said it intended to immediately appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...747_story.htmlIn an interview with Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs on Friday, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani dismissed the Nevada loss, saying the campaign would appeal but that “Nevada’s not critical to us.” Instead, he said the campaign was pinning its hopes on efforts in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and, “boy, on Wisconsin.”
However, the Trump campaign already suffered defeat at the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week. And in federal court, District Judge Brett H. Ludwig expressed skepticism Friday about Trump’s arguments as he held an initial status hearing in a suit seeking to overturn Biden’s victory there.
While the hearing largely dealt only with setting a rapid schedule of filings and hearings next week, Ludwig — a Trump nominee who took the bench only in September — noted that the president has requested “extraordinary” relief.
He added that he had a “very, very hard time” seeing why Trump brought the action in federal court. Ludwig also termed a Trump request to “remand” the election back to the state legislature “bizarre.”
Meanwhile, in Arizona, Judge Randall Warner of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled Friday that he found “no misconduct, no fraud and no effect on the outcome of the election” in a suit brought by the Arizona Republican Party and its chairwoman, Kelli Ward.
Warner found that GOP lawyers had identified nine mistakes during an inspection of 1,626 ballots that had been duplicated because the originals were damaged or could not be scanned. But those few errors did not amount to a widespread problem that cast doubt on Biden’s winning margin of more than 10,000 votes — or demand the “extraordinary act” of annulling the more than 3.3 million votes cast by Arizonans, he ruled.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Yup
Tick, Tock
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Stop being silly and illogical. Read the entire opinion. I posted the link. You read the first paragraph and ignored the rest? It says, simply, that Kraken Powell cannot appeal a decision that has not been made. The appeals court reviews decisions. In the United States, US District Courts hear cases. They consider evidence. After a District Court rules, a party may appeal.The first paragraph of the opinion, the first few pages of the Complaint. Can't hold TS to understand legalities, but one does wonder if he teaches more than the first chapter of any book in his classes.
Judge Brasher, writing for the court, reminded "Kraken" that the District Court had worked all last weekend to decide to give "Kraken" a hearing. Last minute, emergency, all of that. The District Court chose Friday, December 4, for that hearing. Instead, "Kraken" tried to appeal to the Circuit Court, ignoring the hearing that "Kraken" had requested.
Anyone can read between the lines, and hear Brasher say, "You morons. You just cost yourselves a week. You demanded that the District Court scramble to your emergency, and then you ignored the hearing you asked for. If you have to start over, well, tough luck".
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Yes.
And by law by December 8 all disputes over the certification must be resolved. Those liars thought that they could do an-end around of the initial evidentiary stage of the court process.
Denied.
Thank god for the principles of the state election officials and of the state magistrates who have been enforcing the rule of law.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks