3 ms·

US President Uses Powers to Try to Overturn Election

5 points by silexia 6y ago

aww_dang 6y ago
I found the presser released by the campaign's legal team more informative than anything released by the media outlets. Agree or disagree, at least their own words accurately describe their position. That's not to say there isn't room for skepticism around their specific claims. Interestingly, there's been a consensus in the media to misrepresent, editorialize or outright ignore the actual statements of the legal team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-udMDpCtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-udMDpCtU
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Except they don't accurately describe their position. In every press-conference (just as in this) they allege voter-fraud and that they have tons of evidence. However when it comes to the actual court cases and when the lawyers risk being disbarred for lying to the court, suddenly these claims disappear. So no their own words do not accurately describe their position, which is make unfounded allegations without any evidence to back it up. Also interestingly several of the voter-fraud cases that they bring up (where single people have been prosecuted) are Trump voters committing the fraud, but obviously they don't mention it because it does not fit the story. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267 https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-c...
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    According to the press conference (1:27:00), the cases that have been dismissed are not cases from the campaign. The assertion that there is no evidence is inaccurate. The media has confounded "proof" with "evidence". Sworn affidavits are admissible as evidence. Whether their evidence proves their case or not is up to the courts. Claiming that these are unfounded allegations speaks to the point of my above comment. There is a widely accepted precedent for not releasing all of the details of a pending court case before it is litigated. The above are not partisan assertions.
  - blueflame7 6y ago
    At least Trump fixed that whole Russian Interference thing since people (Twitter, Facebook) seem to be so sure this election was secure. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-machine-hacking-russians.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-m...
nodex-alex 6y ago
paywall

5 points by silexia 6y ago

I found the presser released by the campaign's legal team more informative than anything released by the media outlets. Agree or disagree, at least their own words accurately describe their position. That's not to say there isn't room for skepticism around their specific claims. Interestingly, there's been a consensus in the media to misrepresent, editorialize or outright ignore the actual statements of the legal team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-udMDpCtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-udMDpCtU

cycomanic 6y ago
Except they don't accurately describe their position. In every press-conference (just as in this) they allege voter-fraud and that they have tons of evidence. However when it comes to the actual court cases and when the lawyers risk being disbarred for lying to the court, suddenly these claims disappear. So no their own words do not accurately describe their position, which is make unfounded allegations without any evidence to back it up. Also interestingly several of the voter-fraud cases that they bring up (where single people have been prosecuted) are Trump voters committing the fraud, but obviously they don't mention it because it does not fit the story. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267 https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-c...
- aww_dang 6y ago
  According to the press conference (1:27:00), the cases that have been dismissed are not cases from the campaign. The assertion that there is no evidence is inaccurate. The media has confounded "proof" with "evidence". Sworn affidavits are admissible as evidence. Whether their evidence proves their case or not is up to the courts. Claiming that these are unfounded allegations speaks to the point of my above comment. There is a widely accepted precedent for not releasing all of the details of a pending court case before it is litigated. The above are not partisan assertions.
- blueflame7 6y ago
  At least Trump fixed that whole Russian Interference thing since people (Twitter, Facebook) seem to be so sure this election was secure. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-machine-hacking-russians.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-m...

nodex-alex 6y ago

paywall