When Biden says he will govern for all Americans, he is saying he will govern for Trump supporters too. This means he should not disregard them - or ignore them or treat them like simpletons.
I never said mass fraud did happen. I said the Left lied about there being no evidence. These are two separate things. Do you even know what "evidence" is?
To be perfectly honest, unless the Trump campaign were able to find a smoking gun - such as an email from Biden or some member of the democrats saying they okayed the fraud, then the Left would never agree there was any evidence. And if they Trump party did find such an email - then the Left would accuse the Trump campaign of planting it.
But just for the record, did court even hear the evidence or as you fabricate throw it out - or did they hear legal arguments and decide that there was not sufficient reason to look at any of the so called evidence?
At least one major case was thrown out before any evidence was produced - because the Supreme Court decided the party bringing the application DID Not have standing. This is legal argument - not throwing evidence out.
The Trump campaign clearly had sworn affidavits. This by definition is evidence.
TRUMP LAWYER: Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge —JUDGE: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.TRUMP LAWYER: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –JUDGE: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is asserted, right?
“Shocking allegations of voter irregularities revealed in 234 pages of signed and sworn affidavits,” the Trump campaign wrote on Twitter.But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court.
I never said mass fraud did happen. I said the Left lied about there being no evidence. These are two separate things. Do you even know what "evidence" is?Yes I do. And if there were evidence, why would every single one of trumps lawsuits have been tossed out? If there were evidence, then why did the FBI and trump's Justice department confirm they had investigated and could find no evidence. Why did the elections officials in the contested states confirm they investigated every claim of fraud and could find no evidence.Do you know what evidence is?
To be perfectly honest, unless the Trump campaign were able to find a smoking gun - such as an email from Biden or some member of the democrats saying they okayed the fraud, then the Left would never agree there was any evidence. And if they Trump party did find such an email - then the Left would accuse the Trump campaign of planting it.Again, i'm not sure you know what evidence is. An email saying fraud is good is not evidence fraud happened. Evidence fraud happened would be actual evidence fraud happened. You know, tampered ballots etc. But all those claims got investigated and no evidence for them could be found.
But just for the record, did court even hear the evidence or as you fabricate throw it out - or did they hear legal arguments and decide that there was not sufficient reason to look at any of the so called evidence?If they threw the case out before examining it thoroughly it is because they didn't have sufficient evidence or even a real case to investigate. The trump lawyers started every case they could think of, some of them didn't even make sense and got tossed out because they obviously didn't make sense.If you think valid cases got thrown out, please specify precisely which cases those were.
At least one major case was thrown out before any evidence was produced - because the Supreme Court decided the party bringing the application DID Not have standing. This is legal argument - not throwing evidence out.that case was a complete joke. Literally everyone knew the supreme court couldn't possibly have agreed with it. Here is a video breaking down all the ways the case was ridiculous made by a lawyer.But i will break it down to 2 main points as to why bringing up this case is silly:1) everything the state of texas was alleging, either already had been tested in court and thrown out, or could easily be tested by a suit in that state. There was no reason for texas to sue at all.2) Texas has absolutely no standing to bring a suit against another state's election. Even if Texas' case had merit (which it didn't) the supreme court still couldn't hear it. Each state essentially runs their own elections. One state cannot sue another state over their election. They don't have standing. If someone thinks something was done wrong they need to sue in the state the issue happened in. Another state can't sue over it.Basically, Texas' lawsuit was a political stunt that literally no one who knows anything about the law or elections thought was going to go anywhere. That includes Texas' attorney general.
Cases are thrown out every day in courts even when there is much evidence for both points.
You prove my point. the case was not a joke. After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed. The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.
Yet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence. No evidence was ever tested in court. This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.
The Trump campaign clearly had sworn affidavits. This by definition is evidence.I said, "Trumpists have nothing- no evidence except what they have doctored, no testimony beyond the lies they tell one another." All of the sworn affidavits I've seen qualify as both.
- Anonymous affidavits do not count as sworn testimony.
- Hearsay does not count as sworn testimony.
- Affidavits evaluated as meritless by an official charged with making such a determination do not count as sworn testimony.
- Affidavits immaterial to voter fraud do not count as sworn testimony.
I'm pretty sure that eliminates everything you can bring to bear.
At their news conference Thursday, President Trump’s lawyers implored reporters to take their thus-far-baseless allegations of massive voter fraud more seriously. And in the course of doing so, they repeatedly referred to the hundreds of affidavits they had assembled as genuine evidence of fraud.“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence,” said Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.
“We have evidence that we will present to the court,” Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said.
“These people are under penalty of perjury,” Giuliani assured again about the affidavits. “Their names are on an affidavit.”
But how much weight do these affidavits carry? And what is their true reliability?
The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)
But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.
As the Trump campaign will remind you, these are sworn statements. But according to legal experts, the jeopardy faced by those behind them is relatively minimal.
“There is a remote chance that sworn statements (if they are actually sworn statements — most documents that appear to be ‘sworn’ don’t count within the meaning of the statute) could subject the declarant to some exposure under the perjury statutes,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert on evidence at Duke University, in an email. “But perjury prosecutions are rare and almost never arise from statements outside of the context of proceedings in which oaths are formally administered — such as depositions, congressional testimony, grand jury proceedings, or trial testimony.”
A key issue is whether the affidavit is filed in court, as most filed by the Trump team haven’t been. Beyond that, any false statements would need to be deemed to be “material” to the proceedings — i.e. relevant to the actual claims. And from there, any legal jeopardy would require that the statements made were knowingly false.
In the case of affidavits from election observers, for example, it would be difficult to prove that what they were saying was false, especially in instances in which they alleged other people involved in the ballot-counting process said something to them. In addition, statements from those like the Texas security consultant who mistook data from Minnesota to be from Michigan could be understood as an honest mistake or resulting from a lack of expertise in the subject matter — rather than an outright lie.The Trump campaign’s affidavits also have a checkered history, to put it kindly. When they have been used in court, they’ve often been cast aside.
One Michigan judge noted that the evidence wasn’t direct evidence, despite the Trump campaign’s contention that it was:TRUMP LAWYER: Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge —JUDGE: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.TRUMP LAWYER: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –JUDGE: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is asserted, right?The judge later dismissed the complaint as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”
Other witnesses signed affidavits that said, “I believe my vote for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence was not counted.” But when pressed by judges, they admitted they didn’t have any actual evidence to support that.
A similar thing happened in Chatham County, Ga., where the GOP called two witnesses as part of its allegation that 53 ballots received after Election Day were predated to make them appear valid. But under questioning, the witnesses acknowledged they didn’t know whether the ballots were actually received after the deadline, while witnesses for the local elections board testified under oath that they were received on time.
Another issue is just what the affidavits allege. Many filed by the Trump campaign don’t actually allege wrongdoing, but rather refer to alleged issues in the vote-counting process. And as The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, Emma Brown and Hannah Knowles reported this week, many of them have been rather thin:“Shocking allegations of voter irregularities revealed in 234 pages of signed and sworn affidavits,” the Trump campaign wrote on Twitter.But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court.
In another case, the Trump campaign’s affidavit was described by a judge as being “rife with speculation and guesswork about sinister motives.” The judge said the allegations were “not credible” and found that the people behind them were simply unfamiliar with how the ballot-counting process was conducted in Detroit.
“Perhaps if Plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCF Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day,” Judge Timothy M. Kenny wrote. “Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, Plaintiffs’ affiants did not have a full understanding of the TCF absent ballot tabulation process.”
That result is telling. Many people are involved in the counting of ballots. Plenty of them are dispatched to observe the process on behalf of one party or another. And given Trump’s claims about voter fraud in the months before the election, you can bet those who decided to participate would be on the lookout for anything that might strike them as being problematic.
But many of them didn’t actually say they witnessed or had evidence of wrongdoing. Even the affidavit about alleged over-votes in Michigan merely raises concerns — concerns that appear to be relatively easy to explain, upon a closer examination.Vote-counting is a complicated process, and the combination of people with little to no training in that process and people with a clear bias toward believing the election was stolen from Trump is a toxic one. It’s just not one that judges have found to be compelling thus far.
It’s also not something that even the many authors of affidavits cited by the Trump campaign truly have to worry about. It’s significant that they decided to make these sworn statements. But contrary to what Giuliani said, most of them make no conclusive allegations of wrongdoing, and many more don’t seem to constitute genuine evidence — according to the judges tasked with reviewing them.
“If he is talking about affidavits that the swearers will submit or that Giuliani will submit as their authorized agent in a judicial proceeding, they would be at risk of a perjury prosecution,” said Julia Simon-Kerr, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. “If he’s talking about affidavits he’s collected to wave in front of reporters, but that won’t be submitted in a judicial proceeding, they would not subject the swearers to a perjury prosecution.“Given the disjunction between what is actually happening in the courts and what he is talking about,” Simon-Kerr continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the latter.”
This is important. Republicans are committing acts of terrorism upon my nation in real time and threatening more and you are buying those terrorists' lies.I think you should lay out your evidence and why you find it so convincing. Here, or a new forum topic or a debate.
You prove my point. the case was not a joke. After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed. The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.The Supreme Court could not simply ignore a case brought into being at the President of the United States' command and publicized by that President to the maximum degree. To infer any validity to Texas' claim would be delusion. The only delay was receipt of the States response: Republican and Democratic Governors alike urged that the justices to "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated". Pennsylvania called the claim, "seditious abuse of the judicial process" The 6-3 majority Republican Supreme Court found Texas's complaint "not judicially cognizable," found it did not meet the basic criteria of viability. Nothing burger. What the Supreme Court did not say to Texas is Idiot! Texas benefits from some of the most corrupt election laws in the country. Do you really want to open a legal precedent where states can sue other states over elections? Texas would probably go blue overnight if Texas had to play fair.
Let's note that Clarence Thomas' wife tweeted support for the Save America rally on the morning of but laterYet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence. No evidence was ever tested in court. This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.You can't have a court case without sufficient evidence or probable cause. The Trump campaign had to show evidence in many of the complaints they filed and in most cases failed to produce anything. Waving around blank paper is not evidence that was never tested in court. Anonymous affidavits are not evidence that was never tested in court. All the evidence that was tested in court failed to move a single judge to hear more, even judges who owed their jobs to Trump.
If there was no evidence - what did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate?
Did the elected officials investigate every claim of fraud?
Of course I know what evidence is - it seems you still do not.
An email giving the ok for fraud to take place is evidence in a situation where fraud is alleged.
Does it prove evidence took placed? Not by itself. But it attaches motive or at least a person to the fraud.
There was evidence of ballots being found in bins
There was evidence of people voting twice.
There was evidence of reviewers not being permitted to peruse the votes.
There was hundreds of affidavits. An affidavit is evidence. Do you deny this? A sworn statement is evidence.
Having a case tossed out does not imply or infer that there is no evidence to investigate.
You prove my point. the case was not a joke. After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed. The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.
Yet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence. No evidence was ever tested in court.
This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.
My point is that there was and remains evidence - but that evidence has never been tested by a court of law.
And the LEFT and the Media to continue the lie to say there was no evidence is misleading and a misunderstanding of what evidence is.
And this misunderstanding by the LEft and by the media -- makes all of them somewhat culpable.
According to the OED, "fight" as a verb has a variety of definitions. The obvious definition Trump used must align with the later commentary of "peaceful" and "patriotic," let alone "voices." A fight by voices to sustain peace and patriotism. What, you automatically go to a physical battle as the defining meaning that Trump "engaged in insurrection" by inciting a crowd to violence? Uh-huh. Is that why the first person arrested in this incident is a liberal activist, who apparently, by attending the speech, displayed no ability of self control to follow Trump's advice to be "peaceful and patriotic?" Oops.
Well, that is why Trump keeps the book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order next to his bed.
You are choosing to ignore that he incited them to violence.
