Election Litigation Status

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

When subjenius watches a Trump presser:



- Doc

[Chap]

[Barr's] AP statement literally says there was fraud found;

OK, so your position retreats back to something like, “two dozen dead people voted in this election of 155 million ballots cast!!1!”. And half of those ‘dead’ folks have already been discovered to be alive.

Nope. I am just blatantly noting what the AP article alleged. My position remains..un-retreated.

Immediately preceding your post I supplied the entire text of the AP article.

In that article, Barr nowhere states literally "there was fraud found". If I am wrong, please quote from the article to prove me wrong

He said there had been claims of fraud. That's not the same thing. Thus, I might claim that subgenius has a scant regard for truth and rational argument. But someone who correctly said "Chap has claimed that subgenius has a scant regard for truth and rational argument" would merely be reporting on what I had said. He would not 'literally' be saying that subgenius had a scant regard for truth and rational argument.

[canpakes]

... I might claim that subgenius has a scant regard for truth and rational argument. But someone who correctly said "Chap has claimed that subgenius has a scant regard for truth and rational argument" would merely be reporting on what I had said. He would not 'literally' be saying that subgenius had a scant regard for truth and rational argument.

Similar to this is subbie’s belief that affidavits equal ‘proof’.

I could watch two people walk up the street and past a parked car. Person 1 would key the car, but I can accuse Person 2 (purposefully or mistakenly) of the act, if my details sound plausible and given no other evidence or corroborating witnesses to dispute my claim. If I consent to a sworn affidavit and stick to my story, how would the accuracy of my claim be proven, or not?

[Gadianton]

My position remains..un-retreated.

Well this is something new, a Trump fan whose position remains un-retreated in the face of evidence to the contrary. Well, I mean, you couldn't rightfully call yourself a 'true' Trump supporter if evidence were the kind of thing that changed your mind, eh?

While I appreciate Chap citing the article in its entirety and analyzing the wording, proving once again that you are wrong, I have to say that I had full confidence you were wrong without going back and peeking at the article myself prior to posting my response. (I had skimmed the CNN article when it came out)

I believe that you can read just fine and that you knowingly misinterpret what you read. There is nothing left to chance here. I think you are heavily invested in right-wing propaganda, you have a good handle on what's out there, and if there were clear wording regarding actual alleged fraud on any scale, you would have cited it by now. If there were alleged fraud on any scale, with any credibility at all behind it then you would have cited it 27 times by now.

[Res Ipsa]

The Superior Court in Nevada has dismissed a case called Gloria v. Becker, which sought a revote in a race other than the Presidential one. The judge ruled that the case was an attempted end run around the state's election challenge statute, and so dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[Gunnar]

In that article, Barr nowhere states literally "there was fraud found". If I am wrong, please quote from the article to prove me wrong

In fact, Barr said almost the opposite, that there was no significant fraud found, nor compelling evidence for it. That subgenius is either unwilling or unable to understand that, underscores the truth of any claim by you or anyone else that "subgenius has a scant regard for truth and rational argument." Subgenius surely must know that by now, and he must know that we know it, and that we know that he knows it. He apparently doesn't care that we know that about him. It's as if he couldn't care less about how big a fool he makes of himself in our eyes.

[Res Ipsa]

Barr's statement is consistent both with having found no fraud and having found fraud that is not material to the result of the election. Given that I've personally read about two voters who committed voter fraud, I'd be very surprised if Barr meant the Justice Department had found no fraud. But it is an ambiguous wording that allows one to assume whichever interpretation one likes best.

[Gadianton]

I've personally read about two voters who committed voter fraud,

Were these two voters uncovered by the DOJ efforts?

[Res Ipsa]

I've personally read about two voters who committed voter fraud,

Were these two voters uncovered by the DOJ efforts?

I don't think so. I think I read about them before Barr authorized the feds to investigate before certification.

[subgenius]

Similar to this is subbie’s belief that affidavits equal ‘proof’evidence.

how utterly, yet typically, dishonest of you.
Never fear, i moved the goalposts back for ya.