2020 Presidential Election Fraud - Stop the Steal Updates

[Cornfed]

What "existing law" would they be ruling on? They would be ruling on evidence, and determining whether the fraud rises to the level that election results should be vacated.

Not necessarily. They could rule on the overwhelming evidence, but appellant courts generally rule on points of law. In this case, some states failed to follow their own rules in counting votes whereas other states did, so voters in the latter states had their constitutional right to equal protection of the law violated.

[gsjackson]

What "existing law" would they be ruling on? They would be ruling on evidence, and determining whether the fraud rises to the level that election results should be vacated.

Not necessarily. They could rule on the overwhelming evidence, but appellant courts generally rule on points of law. In this case, some states failed to follow their own rules in costing votes whereas other states did, so voters in the latter states had their constitutional right to equal protection of the law violated.

Yes, I stand corrected. They will be ruling on the status of unconstitutionally chosen electors.

[flowerthief00]

What "existing law" would they be ruling on? They would be ruling on evidence, and determining whether the fraud rises to the level that election results should be vacated. Evidence that you seem determined to ignore or minimize -- in direct contradiction of the lawyers who are working with that evidence. Guhji's premise, to which I was responding, is that even if substantial evidence of fraud exists SCOTUS will not act on it because of some threat or bribe the justices face. Yes, that would be treason, not to mention the end of any pretense that something like democratic government exists in the U.S.

I was typing out something longer but you are taking back what you said about existing law, right. So I'll make this short and just ask, what does this lawsuit have to do with fraud? Is fraud alleged therein?

Sidney Powell's case has been tossed out in multiple states (Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona). The fraud angle came to nothing.
And now there is an effort to get Giuliani disbarred for making frivolous court claims about fraud without sufficient evidence.

[gsjackson]

What "existing law" would they be ruling on? They would be ruling on evidence, and determining whether the fraud rises to the level that election results should be vacated. Evidence that you seem determined to ignore or minimize -- in direct contradiction of the lawyers who are working with that evidence. Guhji's premise, to which I was responding, is that even if substantial evidence of fraud exists SCOTUS will not act on it because of some threat or bribe the justices face. Yes, that would be treason, not to mention the end of any pretense that something like democratic government exists in the U.S.

I was typing out something longer but you are taking back what you said about existing law, right. So I'll make this short and just ask, what does this lawsuit have to do with fraud? Is fraud alleged therein?

Sidney Powell's case has been tossed out in multiple states (Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona). The fraud angle came to nothing.
And now there is an effort to get Giuliani disbarred for making frivolous court claims about fraud without sufficient evidence.

See edited version above. If safeguards put in place to prevent fraud are unconstitutionally displaced you can certainly infer fraud, but SCOTUS won't have to rule on that.

According to Trump's lawyers these courts haven't even looked at the evidence of fraud. If you think these decisions and the efforts to silence Giuliani are legit and not reflective of a titanic struggle going on between the Deep State and a president who has stood in the way of some of their agenda, then we view it differently. But you have noted the mistreatment of Trump for four years by the political opposition and the corporate media -- clearly they will do absolutely ANYTHING to remove him from office -- so it's a little odd that you don't get suspicious about what's going on now.

[Winston]

I heard that 5 of the Supreme Court judges are pro Trump and so that's good news isn't it?

I don't get why flowerthief and Guhji always believe everything the lying fake media and deep state say. Haven't they realized that the media mob lies a lot? Why do they take everything they say as gospel truth? Seems kind of evil. Are they leftist bots or A.I.? lol

[flowerthief00]

@gsjackson
I'm suspicious of both sides. Trump has been mistreated by the political opposition and media, but he is also a compulsive liar who makes baseless claims. Whichever side it comes from, a claim must be proven. Trump's opponents couldn't prove that Trump was colluding with Russia then, and Trump can't prove that the election was stolen through fraud now. If, in order to accept the latter I would have to believe that courts all across the land from Red districts to Blue are conspiring to ignore evidence...I'm not willing to go there.

[gsjackson]

@gsjackson
I'm suspicious of both sides. Trump has been mistreated by the political opposition and media, but he is also a compulsive liar who makes baseless claims. Whichever side it comes from, a claim must be proven. Trump's opponents couldn't prove that Trump was colluding with Russia then, and Trump can't prove that the election was stolen through fraud now. If, in order to accept the latter I would have to believe that courts all across the land from Red districts to Blue are conspiring to not look at evidence...I'm not willing to go there.

They don't need to conspire, they simply follow the hive mind established in the media and academia -- their native habitat. With influence applied as needed by those with unlimited financial resources.

Got an example of a Trump lie? Or if he's "compulsive," how about two.

[flowerthief00]

^ You can have a lot more than two.

[Cornfed]

@gsjackson
I'm suspicious of both sides. Trump has been mistreated by the political opposition and media, but he is also a compulsive liar who makes baseless claims. Whichever side it comes from, a claim must be proven. Trump's opponents couldn't prove that Trump was colluding with Russia then, and Trump can't prove that the election was stolen through fraud now.

What are you talking about? Come up with a reasonable standard of evidence to show that the election was stolen and I will provide you with proof that the election was stolen. Your claim that there is no proof would be like if someone machine-gunned an old lady in front of you and you concluded that there was no proof of a crime on the basis that the person might have been firing blanks while the old lady was simultaneously hit with a stream of bullet-sized meteorites.

[Winston]

17 states join Texas in their SCOTUS lawsuit. Wow.

[Cornfed]

17 states join Texas in their SCOTUS lawsuit. Wow.

This looks like the big one.

[flowerthief00]

What are you talking about? Come up with a reasonable standard of evidence to show that the election was stolen and I will provide you with proof that the election was stolen. Your claim that there is no proof would be like if someone machine-gunned an old lady in front of you and you concluded that there was no proof of a crime on the basis that the person might have been firing blanks while the old lady was simultaneously hit with a stream of bullet-sized meteorites.

Well gee, Cornfed, you should be out there testifying in court if you have got some evidence that we haven't heard yet. That's the only standard that matters--how does it do in court.

[gsjackson]

^ You can have a lot more than two.

Oh that stuff. It's a game he plays with the media, whom he rightly holds in complete contempt. Since they lie about him every day, he never tells them the truth or gives them a straight answer. He calls them fake news every time he sees them. Why would he pay them the respect of honesty if they are dishonest mediators? Can you find an example of a lie on his twitter account through which he communicates directly with the American people?

As far as mocking the disabled reporter, that's been taken up by people without an agenda. He's made exactly the same gestures any number of times and it's always to indicate that he thinks his interlocutor is being misled by a flagrant lie. Yet the media beat him continuously with this cudgel. It's the reason my sister gives for hating Trump. You can find many examples of Trump's generosity toward people beset with misfortune.

[flowerthief00]

Oh that stuff. It's a game he plays with the media, whom he rightly holds in complete contempt. Since they lie about him every day, he never tells them the truth or gives them a straight answer. He calls them fake news every time he sees them. Why would he pay them the respect of honesty if they are dishonest mediators? Can you find an example of a lie on his twitter account through which he communicates directly with the American people?

As far as mocking the disabled reporter, that's been taken up by people without an agenda. He's made exactly the same gestures any number of times and it's always to indicate that he thinks his interlocutor is being misled by a flagrant lie. Yet the media beat him continuously with this cudgel. It's the reason my sister gives for hating Trump. You can find many examples of Trump's generosity toward people beset with misfortune.

That is...an interesting justification for compulsive lying. A stupid one, too, if you're the president (assuming it even is his justification) since it makes very many of us distrustful of him. Who knows but that maybe this "never tell them the truth" thing lost him centrist support which then lost him the election.

Twitter? Everything he writes gets flagged as "disputed". (Be as it may that we never asked for Twitter to become our political nanny)

How about the presidential debates. He wasn't *just* talking to news people then.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/us/debate-fact-check

[gsjackson]

Oh that stuff. It's a game he plays with the media, whom he rightly holds in complete contempt. Since they lie about him every day, he never tells them the truth or gives them a straight answer. He calls them fake news every time he sees them. Why would he pay them the respect of honesty if they are dishonest mediators? Can you find an example of a lie on his twitter account through which he communicates directly with the American people?

As far as mocking the disabled reporter, that's been taken up by people without an agenda. He's made exactly the same gestures any number of times and it's always to indicate that he thinks his interlocutor is being misled by a flagrant lie. Yet the media beat him continuously with this cudgel. It's the reason my sister gives for hating Trump. You can find many examples of Trump's generosity toward people beset with misfortune.

That is...an interesting justification for compulsive lying. A stupid one, too, if you're the president (assuming it even is his justification) since it makes very many of us distrustful of him. Who knows but that maybe this "never tell them the truth" thing lost him centrist support which then lost him the election.

Twitter? Everything he writes gets flagged as "disputed". (Be as it may that we never asked for Twitter to become our political nanny)

How about the presidential debates. He wasn't *just* talking to news people then.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/us/debate-fact-check

It's a New York in-your-face thing. I'm not saying it's a good idea from a PR standpoint -- probably isn't -- but it's who Trump is and how he reacts to people who are trying to destroy him. I'm saying he probably doesn't do it outside of his interactions with the media. The flip side of any PR deficits is that it clearly takes a pugnacious tough cookie like Trump to endure the daily media assaults. Not too many people could have.

Right -- Twitter disputes pretty much everything he has said. Name one thing he's put on Twitter that's been a lie. That's where he attempts to bypass the media and communicate to the electorate. Let me post this and check the NYT article.