5 ms·

Affidavits are evidence. Are you simply implying the affidavits are all lying and want to cut short the ruling?

mike00632 6y ago
Affidavits are not evidence if you never submit them. Rudy Giuliani has been going around having people signing affidavits that he never subits to court as evidence (they would then be subject to perjury laws). I can't believe this tactic is fooling some literate people.
- mk81 6y ago
  No court has let them submit evidence. Maybe SCOTUS will maybe not. Don't act like they have had a chance to submit evidence yet.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Do you seriously believe that the courts are simply not letting the Trump team make their case? That they tried to submit evidence but they couldn't? You really need to evaluate your news sources. In Pennsylvania Rudy Giuliani said in court that there was no fraud when he was questioned in the slightest about his claim of widespread voter fraud. “this is not a fraud case.” Of course, they failed to provide evidence too, not even any of those affidavits. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvani...
citizenkeen 6y ago
Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. There has been no evidence.
- zo1 6y ago
  This appears to be some sort of "technicality" narrative that's being used to quickly and without effort/discussion dismiss the election fraud claims arising from the witness affidavits. The affidavits exist, representing people that claim to have witnessed certain things. So in a reasonable society with good discourse, we should be saying "wow, that looks serious, so many people claim they witnessed crimes." followed by "let's all do our best to get these infront of a court/judge, or get the government entities investigating it so they can be resolved/dismissed formally". Instead, we get information suppression/dismissal on the part of Youtube and news outlets, and internet lawyers dismissing things because "it hasn't gone in front of a court yet". Come on man, let's solve this and either dismiss them fully or get them investigated. Otherwise we're just perpetuating "conspiracy theories" and then turning around and complaining about how half the population believes in conspiracy theories.
  - mrunkel 6y ago
    Stop. Just stop. There have been dozens of cases submitted to various courts. Those courts evaluated the evidence presented and dismissed the cases out of hand. What do you think the court does when it dismisses a case? Do you think it just randomly chooses cases to dismiss? Don't pretend that hasn't happened. Don't conflate what is playing out in the media and what has happened in the court system.
    - zo1 6y ago
      So who am I supposed to argue with here? The other guy that said "affidavits aren't evidence because they haven't been submitted to courts", or you that say that "things have been submitted to various courts and dismissed". Which one is it? Either way, I'm not going to stop arguing for reasonable discourse and getting to the bottom of things.
      - shrikant 6y ago
        Why can't both be true? The "other guy" said this: Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. [emphasis mine] There have been so many court cases tossed out (50+ if some accounts are to be believed, but that's just hearsay) , one of two things has to be happening: 1) The affidavits never made their way into court as evidence, likely because the plaintiff lawyers didn't want to put them forward as such, or 2) The affidavits were presented in court as evidence and got discounted because they're too weak as evidence But the common thread appears to be that these "affidavits" don't stand up to any strong scrutiny, and amount to "random person alleges they saw fraud happen", which then quickly changes to "random person alleges they believe they saw fraud, but couldn't state for sure" when under penalty of perjury.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Those Affidavits might not yet be evidence according to the legal definition, but they certainly are according to the common usage definition and the bayesian definition. Which are the relevant definitions in this thread.

Affidavits are not evidence if you never submit them. Rudy Giuliani has been going around having people signing affidavits that he never subits to court as evidence (they would then be subject to perjury laws). I can't believe this tactic is fooling some literate people.

mk81 6y ago
No court has let them submit evidence. Maybe SCOTUS will maybe not. Don't act like they have had a chance to submit evidence yet.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Do you seriously believe that the courts are simply not letting the Trump team make their case? That they tried to submit evidence but they couldn't? You really need to evaluate your news sources. In Pennsylvania Rudy Giuliani said in court that there was no fraud when he was questioned in the slightest about his claim of widespread voter fraud. “this is not a fraud case.” Of course, they failed to provide evidence too, not even any of those affidavits. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvani...

citizenkeen 6y ago

Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. There has been no evidence.

zo1 6y ago
This appears to be some sort of "technicality" narrative that's being used to quickly and without effort/discussion dismiss the election fraud claims arising from the witness affidavits. The affidavits exist, representing people that claim to have witnessed certain things. So in a reasonable society with good discourse, we should be saying "wow, that looks serious, so many people claim they witnessed crimes." followed by "let's all do our best to get these infront of a court/judge, or get the government entities investigating it so they can be resolved/dismissed formally". Instead, we get information suppression/dismissal on the part of Youtube and news outlets, and internet lawyers dismissing things because "it hasn't gone in front of a court yet". Come on man, let's solve this and either dismiss them fully or get them investigated. Otherwise we're just perpetuating "conspiracy theories" and then turning around and complaining about how half the population believes in conspiracy theories.
- mrunkel 6y ago
  Stop. Just stop. There have been dozens of cases submitted to various courts. Those courts evaluated the evidence presented and dismissed the cases out of hand. What do you think the court does when it dismisses a case? Do you think it just randomly chooses cases to dismiss? Don't pretend that hasn't happened. Don't conflate what is playing out in the media and what has happened in the court system.
  - zo1 6y ago
    So who am I supposed to argue with here? The other guy that said "affidavits aren't evidence because they haven't been submitted to courts", or you that say that "things have been submitted to various courts and dismissed". Which one is it? Either way, I'm not going to stop arguing for reasonable discourse and getting to the bottom of things.
    - shrikant 6y ago
      Why can't both be true? The "other guy" said this: Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. [emphasis mine] There have been so many court cases tossed out (50+ if some accounts are to be believed, but that's just hearsay) , one of two things has to be happening: 1) The affidavits never made their way into court as evidence, likely because the plaintiff lawyers didn't want to put them forward as such, or 2) The affidavits were presented in court as evidence and got discounted because they're too weak as evidence But the common thread appears to be that these "affidavits" don't stand up to any strong scrutiny, and amount to "random person alleges they saw fraud happen", which then quickly changes to "random person alleges they believe they saw fraud, but couldn't state for sure" when under penalty of perjury.
concordDance 6y ago
Those Affidavits might not yet be evidence according to the legal definition, but they certainly are according to the common usage definition and the bayesian definition. Which are the relevant definitions in this thread.