Here's a "Talk About Anything" thread
- Thread starter bczoom
- Start date
- Status
We shall see ...
I think if any of the witness testimony were provable in court then more of the 50+ cases would have ruled in favor of the challenge.
I think if any of the witness testimony were provable in court then more of the 50+ cases would have ruled in favor of the challenge.
i don't think any of the judges have allowed the affidavits to be heard. i agree though that the evidence needs to be scrutinized very carefully. watching the witnesses give testimony in front of the senators though was very interesting.
Here's an article that says - better than I can - that all these cases are being rejected because nothing has been presented in court that is useful to Trump. And many of the appellate judges making these rulings are Trump appointees.
Regardless of liberal/conservative, they all had the same Constitutional Law course in law school and they can't find anything in the Constitution that would cause them to rule in favor of Trump. I expect Texas's case will continue this precedent.
lawandcrime.com
Concise excerpt:
“Granting the relief the plaintiff requests would take the court far outside the limits of its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”
Regardless of liberal/conservative, they all had the same Constitutional Law course in law school and they can't find anything in the Constitution that would cause them to rule in favor of Trump. I expect Texas's case will continue this precedent.
Last ‘Kraken’ Slain: Court Notes ‘Federal Judges Do Not Appoint the President,’ Wonders Why Sidney Powell Asked
The last of the four lawsuits filed by President Donald Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell bit the dust late Wednesday in Wisconsin, where a federal judge noted that voters choose who goes to the White House in the United States.
lawandcrime.com
Concise excerpt:
“Granting the relief the plaintiff requests would take the court far outside the limits of its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”
that is an interesting article. i don't know why the judges are ruling the way they are but i do note that the article refers to rumor and internet fabrications. how does that explain the thousands of affidavits? who is supposed to answer to the people that experienced misconduct at the polls. have you listened to the people who are under oath testifying in the senates? i don't understand why the judges won't allow discovery to take place and answer the questions and address the affidavits/witnesses rather than just accuse them of rumor?
why would a judge order that the results of an audit be sealed???????
From the 5th but good information. "less than 10 minutes" Huckabee and Sidney Powell
reading the brief from texas to the supreme court. it appears that michigan can not explain 174,000 ballots not tied to a registered voter???
Here's the problem. There's a big gap between what is appearing in those news shows including affidavits etc - and what the Trump campaign is claiming in court.
Here's an article today in the Milwaukee paper.
Quick summary:
"no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud" - Judge Simanek
I'll quote the essence of the article:
===
"Trump questioned numerous long-standing election practices. But Simanek found that no violations of election laws occurred.
"(Trump's team) has not demonstrated that an erroneous interpretation of Wisconsin early voting laws happened here," said Simanek.
"Trump argued clerks were wrong to fill in the addresses of witnesses on absentee ballot envelopes. Simanek ruled that policy, which was put forward four years ago by Republicans on the state Elections Commission, is proper.
"The president challenged the ability of Madison poll workers to collect absentee ballots in parks, maintained all early in-person voting in two counties was illegal and contended voters were given too much latitude to decide if they were confined to their homes. (Voters who identify themselves as indefinitely confined do not have to provide a photo ID to vote absentee, as others must).
On each point, Simanek ruled against Trump and said officials had properly run the election.
In all, Trump sought to throw out more than 200,000 votes in the two counties, while letting stand ballots cast in the same fashion in Republican areas.
===
[my emphasis
]
Pretty much every court case follows this same model - attack that state's procedures, never assert fraud. Lose. That is not a good foundation for the federal case.
Here's an article today in the Milwaukee paper.
Republican moves to overturn election hit brick walls with the U.S. Supreme Court and a Wisconsin judge
A state judge concluded Wisconsin's election was conducted properly Friday, dealing President Donald Trump and his allies their fifth legal defeat in a little over a week.
www.jsonline.com
Quick summary:
"no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud" - Judge Simanek
I'll quote the essence of the article:
===
"Trump questioned numerous long-standing election practices. But Simanek found that no violations of election laws occurred.
"(Trump's team) has not demonstrated that an erroneous interpretation of Wisconsin early voting laws happened here," said Simanek.
"Trump argued clerks were wrong to fill in the addresses of witnesses on absentee ballot envelopes. Simanek ruled that policy, which was put forward four years ago by Republicans on the state Elections Commission, is proper.
"The president challenged the ability of Madison poll workers to collect absentee ballots in parks, maintained all early in-person voting in two counties was illegal and contended voters were given too much latitude to decide if they were confined to their homes. (Voters who identify themselves as indefinitely confined do not have to provide a photo ID to vote absentee, as others must).
On each point, Simanek ruled against Trump and said officials had properly run the election.
In all, Trump sought to throw out more than 200,000 votes in the two counties, while letting stand ballots cast in the same fashion in Republican areas.
===
[my emphasis
]Pretty much every court case follows this same model - attack that state's procedures, never assert fraud. Lose. That is not a good foundation for the federal case.
why wont the courts allow the affidavits to be proven faulty by discovery? why does a judge not allow the results of a forensic audit to be seen? right now there is to much he said we said but no discovery . i would like to see the evidence investigated and proven one way or another.
Trump's Attorney General:
www.cnn.com
Barr says no evidence of widespread fraud in presidential election
The Justice Department hasn't found evidence to support allegations of widespread fraud that could have changed the result of last month's presidential election, Attorney General William Barr said in an interview with the Associated Press published Tuesday.
www.cnn.com
yea i read that a couple of days ago.. the thing that is concerning is when the witnesses testified to the senators under oath. i listened to them and the cross examination from the republican and democrat senators and i can't say there is no evidence. i have seen the security camera footage of the poll watchers being told to go home and then ballots came out from under the table and were run through the machines without witness. and these things almost exactly are testimony of hundreds of people who swear to it under penalty. i think the foxes are in the hen house. the media is unreliable and biased and sometimes outright lies.
Media is all over the place in terms of credibility.
But I can't imagine Attorney General Barr - the same guy who defended Trump in the impeachment investigation - saying the feds couldn't find election fraud if there was any. Seems to me he would make headlines if he could find anything credible.
We shall see ...
But I can't imagine Attorney General Barr - the same guy who defended Trump in the impeachment investigation - saying the feds couldn't find election fraud if there was any. Seems to me he would make headlines if he could find anything credible.
We shall see ...
better watch before it gets pulled down
this is live
That first lady sounds entirely credible. Smart and familiar with the issues. But her testimony was ruled not sufficiently significant to alter the election, here and then by an appellate court and finally by the state supreme court.
The blonde sounded like a loon when I heard her testimony before, and I read that she had no idea what she was talking about. No food for the poll watchers! Vans arrived and she couldn't see what was unloaded!!! Former stripper, recently finished probation for online harassment. Hired as a temp with no training. A disaster overall. She tells us all about her feelings but nothing legally persuasive.
I have to believe that the judges at various levels who considered all this testimony and found it not sufficient to overturn the election, are honest and ruled in the best interest of the country. I don't think anyone has suggested a conspiracy among all those judges in various states. Rather, they considered all the evidence brought before them, and found it insufficient to overturn the voters' wishes.
The blonde sounded like a loon when I heard her testimony before, and I read that she had no idea what she was talking about. No food for the poll watchers! Vans arrived and she couldn't see what was unloaded!!! Former stripper, recently finished probation for online harassment. Hired as a temp with no training. A disaster overall. She tells us all about her feelings but nothing legally persuasive.
I have to believe that the judges at various levels who considered all this testimony and found it not sufficient to overturn the election, are honest and ruled in the best interest of the country. I don't think anyone has suggested a conspiracy among all those judges in various states. Rather, they considered all the evidence brought before them, and found it insufficient to overturn the voters' wishes.
At the risk of changing the subject, does anyone know where I can have a hydraulic pump for a 1941 Ford 9N rebuilt? The company I used for parts and repairs in Indiana closed. Used to be you could ship them the pump for rebuild and get it back in a week. I am located in South Eastern Ohio and don't have time to become an expert on this one. I do not mind driving a little or shipping as necessary. Thanks
Agree the time has come to change the subject. To mangle a metaphor, the fat lady sang.
Here's a rebuild kit for your pump. $500. Ouch! That claims 1939 to 1952, so at least your pump isn't rare.
Ford Tractor Hydraulic Pump Parts | 1939-64 | Dennis Carpenter Ford Restoration Parts
...
www.dennis-carpenter.com
- Status