Election Litigation Status

[canpakes]

Hey, subs. Looks like you’re still afraid to state if you believe that widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud occurred.

By the way, the ‘suitcase’ vid has been debunked.

[Icarus]

"Evidence" is also seeing on video someone, absent pollwatchers that were sent away on false pretenses, run ballots multiple times in tabulator:
https://rumble.com/vblln9-corrupt-georg ... -mach.html

Except this has been debunked several times already on this forum, so try to keep up. The video shows nothing nefarious going on except in the minds of the deluded/ignorant. Conservative radio guy Erick Erickson posted this debunking of it: https://Twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1 ... 66144?s=20

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020 ... issed.html

Hell even FOX News debunked it: https://www.Facebook.com/briantylercohe ... &ref=notif

[Res Ipsa]

I’ll have to summarize all the results tomorrow, but this was not a good day for Trump et al.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In case jenius doesn’t want to click on Icarus’ viseos:

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/ ... ing-video/?

Start at 1:20.

People are wasting so much time debunking these BS claims. Smdh.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Has that video been submitted to a court as evidence of fraud?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Has that video been submitted to a court as evidence of fraud?

Only the court of public opinion. Trump is going to need more than $207M to stay out of jail.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

subs, maybe you can personally get that video to Barr for his review. Surely, if he sees that video he'll go on a prosecution spree, right?

[Chap]

Reviewing the posts that were added while I was offline, I feel moved to restate what I said before:

Actually, I'd be satisfied with evidence that can survive testing by an expert panel of judges who test and weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion after hearing argument from skilled lawyers who do their best to present the case for or against. How's that going, by the say?

At the moment, I note that even Mr Barr, the man Trump appointed to head the Department of Justice, has said that his teams of expert investigators have not found any fraud that might have affected the result of the election. In other words (as the Book of Mormon says), Trump lost to Biden fair and square. Why would he not know what he is talking about? I mean, if he could have found anything to support Trump's claim, surely he would have publicised it to support the man who appointed him, and whom he has so far served with almost slavish devotion?

The only response from subgenius seems to be to add another video, which is the latest in a series of alleged slam dunks, but does not seem to have drawn, shall we say universal assent, even from conservative commentators.

But as I said, I am really not very interested in stuff about what this one guy on Facebook, Twitter or whatever posted. What I care about is whether such claims survive the only test that counts:

... testing by an expert panel of judges who test and weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion after hearing argument from skilled lawyers who do their best to present the case for or against.

And so far it does not seem that anything substantial has managed to get through that sieve, which would rather explain the statement by Barr (previously amongst the most loyal of Trump enables) that

....his teams of expert investigators have not found any fraud that might have affected the result of the election. In other words (as the Book of Mormon says), Trump lost to Biden fair and square. Why would he not know what he is talking about? I mean, if he could have found anything to support Trump's claim, surely he would have publicised it to support the man who appointed him, and whom he has so far served with almost slavish devotion?

[Res Ipsa]

Chap, most of our states allow a special procedure called an “election challenge.” It’s the legal procedure intended to hear actual evidence of fraud or error sufficient to overturn the result of an election. The judge holds a trial after an accelerated period of discovery. Most importantly, the witnesses are subject to cross examination.

Two of those were concluded yesterday: one in Nevada and one in Arizona and one in Nevada. The judges ruled against the contestants in both. Neither judge found any fraud at all.

In Nevada, both sides presented evidence through experts on the subject of whether mail in voting is more susceptible to fraud. The judge found that is not. He also found that the challenger’s expert was not credible.

There was a similar hearing before a judge in Michigan, with live witness testimony and cross examination. [ETA: this is wrong —it was based on affidavits only] The judge found no evidence of fraud. He did find that many of the witnesses did not understand the verification and counting process and so jumped to the conclusion they had seen something suspicious.

You’re looking for exactly the right information, although it’s tough to ferret it out through this blizzard of litigation. Other than the election challenges, the other lawsuits are designed to try and talk the judges into taking drastic action without having their witnesses tested by having to testify live and subject to cross examination. Fortunately, judges on the whole are smarter than the lawyers think they are.

Arizona: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... rder-2.pdf

Nevada: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... ontest.pdf

Michigan: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... rinter.pdf

[Chap]

Thanks, Res Ipsa. I do know that a quite large number of Trump-supporting claims have been tested in court as you say, and I am heartened to have seen from the judgements that the reaction has largely been along the lines of "Is that all you've got? And you want me/us to junk the election on grounds as flimsy as those??".

So basically, my reaction to the latest subgenius slam dunk is always going to be 'see you in court'.