4 ms·

So why not then support the process of: 1. Signature matching on mailed ballots 2. Broadcasting the hearings in the accused states (MI, PA, GA, WI, AZ, etc)

So why not then support the process of: 1. Signature matching on mailed ballots 2. Broadcasting the hearings in the accused states (MI, PA, GA, WI, AZ, etc) 3. Actually hearing the cases at both the state and federal level, and then throwing them out on the facts presented, instead of refusing to hear them on "lack of standing" to begin with? Win in the court of transparency. Make the crackpots look like crackpots, loudly and publicly, through a process of transparency that then becomes impossible to challenge or cast doubt upon, except for the most hardened of partisans. Why is there such a refusal for this to happen?

XorNot 6y ago
So you're clearly not actually following the proceedings of any of this anyway, so what difference would it make? Testimony has been broadcast, court rulings are public, the reasoning and legal procedure is all happening in the open. You're demanding transparency because it suits whatever narrative you have in your head, yet demonstrating you won't put any effort into following the process which is already public.
- matt_kantor 6y ago
  To make it easy, here's a summary of the cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Summary_of_post-election_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Be sure to click the links for each case to get details, and from there most of the references are the actual court documents.
  - forgingahead 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. This seems to prove the point though? The vast majority of official cases were dismissed on procedural issues (standing, filing in the "wrong" court, etc etc). You'll need to click through to each of the sources of why each case was dismissed, but the majority of linked cases seem like no decision was made on the facts presented, if they were allowed to be presented to begin with. So if a crime is committed, but a judge refuses to hear it, did the crime not happen? A dismissed case means that a lawsuit is closed with no finding of guilt and no conviction for the defendant in a criminal case by a court of law. Even though the defendant was not convicted, a dismissed case does not prove that the defendant is factually innocent for the crime for which he or she was arrested.[0] https://www.recordgone.com/articles/definition-of-a-dismissed-case.htm https://www.recordgone.com/articles/definition-of-a-dismisse...
    - 8note 6y ago
      Huh? You're innocent until you've been proven guilty. While the case is ongoing, you're still innocent. You aren't proven to be not guilty, sure, but you're still innocent
      - forgingahead 6y ago
        Like I said - if you're not given due process, did the crime not occur? Or did you not get justice because of a corrupt institution? The discussion is about getting the evidence judged on its merits (or lack thereof), which has not happened in this case, and looks unlikely to happen at this rate.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Actually hearing the cases at both the state and federal level, and then throwing them out on the facts presented, instead of refusing to hear them on "lack of standing" to begin with? Standing is a threshold issue without which there is no legally cognizable case to hear, but I suppose if you are backing a campaign against democracy being against the rule of law as well isn’t surprising. It's not anyone’s fault but Trump's that the main party that actually has standing to bring a case challenging the results as improperly reached (the candidate who claims to be improperly defeated) keeps voluntarily dismissing the ones they initiate rather than trying to get them to trial, almost as if they are filing cases as a PR strategy with no intent to actually litigate them.
kenjackson 6y ago
There’s refusal because it’s not sincere. If we did all that and Biden still won then it would just lead to the next conspiracy that the judges didn’t listen to the facts really. And the signature matching wasn’t stringent enough. And then they would argue that they didn’t let everyone required speak at the proceedings. Next they need to actually interview everyone who did a Mail in ballot and if they don’t show up then the vote doesn’t count. Etc... And having standing is pretty important in something like this. Lastly the crackpots already look like crackpots.
8note 6y ago
You provide facts while you're applying for the court to take the case. Not having standing means you haven't argued that there is a case, since you haven't been wronged. These are transparent already - there are documents where the crackpots have shown themselves to be crackpots already. Just because you don't want to read, doesn't mean it has to be presented on your format of choice They could also take this case to Russian courts or Canadian ones, but what exactly are you expecting them to do? Courts have a limited scope of what they rule on
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

XorNot 6y ago

So you're clearly not actually following the proceedings of any of this anyway, so what difference would it make? Testimony has been broadcast, court rulings are public, the reasoning and legal procedure is all happening in the open. You're demanding transparency because it suits whatever narrative you have in your head, yet demonstrating you won't put any effort into following the process which is already public.

matt_kantor 6y ago
To make it easy, here's a summary of the cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Summary_of_post-election_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Be sure to click the links for each case to get details, and from there most of the references are the actual court documents.
- forgingahead 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. This seems to prove the point though? The vast majority of official cases were dismissed on procedural issues (standing, filing in the "wrong" court, etc etc). You'll need to click through to each of the sources of why each case was dismissed, but the majority of linked cases seem like no decision was made on the facts presented, if they were allowed to be presented to begin with. So if a crime is committed, but a judge refuses to hear it, did the crime not happen? A dismissed case means that a lawsuit is closed with no finding of guilt and no conviction for the defendant in a criminal case by a court of law. Even though the defendant was not convicted, a dismissed case does not prove that the defendant is factually innocent for the crime for which he or she was arrested.[0] https://www.recordgone.com/articles/definition-of-a-dismissed-case.htm https://www.recordgone.com/articles/definition-of-a-dismisse...
  - 8note 6y ago
    Huh? You're innocent until you've been proven guilty. While the case is ongoing, you're still innocent. You aren't proven to be not guilty, sure, but you're still innocent
    - forgingahead 6y ago
      Like I said - if you're not given due process, did the crime not occur? Or did you not get justice because of a corrupt institution? The discussion is about getting the evidence judged on its merits (or lack thereof), which has not happened in this case, and looks unlikely to happen at this rate.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Actually hearing the cases at both the state and federal level, and then throwing them out on the facts presented, instead of refusing to hear them on "lack of standing" to begin with? Standing is a threshold issue without which there is no legally cognizable case to hear, but I suppose if you are backing a campaign against democracy being against the rule of law as well isn’t surprising. It's not anyone’s fault but Trump's that the main party that actually has standing to bring a case challenging the results as improperly reached (the candidate who claims to be improperly defeated) keeps voluntarily dismissing the ones they initiate rather than trying to get them to trial, almost as if they are filing cases as a PR strategy with no intent to actually litigate them.

kenjackson 6y ago

There’s refusal because it’s not sincere. If we did all that and Biden still won then it would just lead to the next conspiracy that the judges didn’t listen to the facts really. And the signature matching wasn’t stringent enough. And then they would argue that they didn’t let everyone required speak at the proceedings. Next they need to actually interview everyone who did a Mail in ballot and if they don’t show up then the vote doesn’t count. Etc... And having standing is pretty important in something like this. Lastly the crackpots already look like crackpots.

8note 6y ago

You provide facts while you're applying for the court to take the case. Not having standing means you haven't argued that there is a case, since you haven't been wronged. These are transparent already - there are documents where the crackpots have shown themselves to be crackpots already. Just because you don't want to read, doesn't mean it has to be presented on your format of choice They could also take this case to Russian courts or Canadian ones, but what exactly are you expecting them to do? Courts have a limited scope of what they rule on

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]