6 ms·

> No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court That's not how courts are supposed to work. If they worked as you say, the

> No, because no one made legally-cognizable claims based on the affidavits in court That's not how courts are supposed to work. If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury, because the just process would have to determine and prosecute the lying side (as that side is not known beforehand). None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> That’s not how courts are supposed to work. That’s exactly how courts are supposed to work. > If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims. > The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. No, they only exist to do that in the case of concrete disputes where there is a cognizable legal claim that the proferred evidence is relevant to resolve. > it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury. It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered. > None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process. There were plenty of hearings, the Trump team deliberately, voluntarily either withdrew fraud claims or did not include them, making any alleged evidence of fraud irrelevant to those legal cases. Presumably, if they had evidence of fraud that they thought would hold up in court they wouldn’t have done that. And, given the success of the claims that they did make, it isn’t like the Trump team was afraid of advancing even marginal claims.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  > No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims. A cognizable claim is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. Now, tell me what's the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing a rape that make the former not meeting the basic criteria of viability, whereas the latter does meet them? > The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered. Sure, but if actions of one of the two parties lead to the constitutional crisis, the court had better investigate which side is the lying one, don't you think so? > It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. And to establish whether there was a perjury, you need to investigate it through a formal process of hearings and other elements of the due process. > There were plenty of hearings Dismissing the case is not hearing of the case, there were other hearings related to the matter, but not the legal hearing of the case with witnesses attending and being interrogated.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Sure, a cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability f No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. “Standing” and “failure to state a claim” are grounds for dismissal than are about not having a legally cognizable claim, and which come before any assessment of the viability of the claim. "laches" (that, assuming the claim was valid, it is barred by unreasonable delay by the complaining party which would cause unreasonable harm to the interests of the defendant or third parties which would not have occurred had the claim been made timely) is a similar, though distinct, ground. (A lot of the post-election challenges to procedures which were well-known before the election were barred by laches, with the harm relied on being the denial of voting rights of voters who relied on the processes to vote.) > Now, tell me what’s the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing rape That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits; the fraud stories that the campaign claims that the affidavits support weren’t advanced in court, or were withdrawn voluntarily.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> That’s not how courts are supposed to work. That’s exactly how courts are supposed to work. > If they worked as you say, there would be no reason to have hearings for the majority of rape/abuse accusations. No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims. > The courts are there to have a formal process which would determine whether provided evidence and witnesses have weight and elements of truth, and whether additional investigations are required. No, they only exist to do that in the case of concrete disputes where there is a cognizable legal claim that the proferred evidence is relevant to resolve. > it would also be required to establish whether anyone who signed the affidavits had to be prosecuted for perjury. It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered. > None of that took place, there were no hearings, and the filings were dismissed without the required due process. There were plenty of hearings, the Trump team deliberately, voluntarily either withdrew fraud claims or did not include them, making any alleged evidence of fraud irrelevant to those legal cases. Presumably, if they had evidence of fraud that they thought would hold up in court they wouldn’t have done that. And, given the success of the claims that they did make, it isn’t like the Trump team was afraid of advancing even marginal claims.

ghostwriter 6y ago
> No, accusations that someone has committed rape (whether by prosecutors or in civil litigation by the alleged victim seeking damages) are legally cognizable claims. A cognizable claim is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. Now, tell me what's the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing a rape that make the former not meeting the basic criteria of viability, whereas the latter does meet them? > The mere signing of an affidavit doesn’t create a perjury dispute that a court needs to resolve if there are no perjury charges offered. Sure, but if actions of one of the two parties lead to the constitutional crisis, the court had better investigate which side is the lying one, don't you think so? > It would only be required for that if a prosecutor was charging them for perjury. And to establish whether there was a perjury, you need to investigate it through a formal process of hearings and other elements of the due process. > There were plenty of hearings Dismissing the case is not hearing of the case, there were other hearings related to the matter, but not the legal hearing of the case with witnesses attending and being interrogated.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Sure, a cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability f No, its one that taken on its face states a violation of the law, from someone who would be entitled to a remedy under the law, which the court has the power to remedy. Viability is a step or two down the road. “Standing” and “failure to state a claim” are grounds for dismissal than are about not having a legally cognizable claim, and which come before any assessment of the viability of the claim. "laches" (that, assuming the claim was valid, it is barred by unreasonable delay by the complaining party which would cause unreasonable harm to the interests of the defendant or third parties which would not have occurred had the claim been made timely) is a similar, though distinct, ground. (A lot of the post-election challenges to procedures which were well-known before the election were barred by laches, with the harm relied on being the denial of voting rights of voters who relied on the processes to vote.) > Now, tell me what’s the difference between the claims that have signed affidavits and accusations of someone committing rape That there were no actual claims made to courts based on the affidavits; the fraud stories that the campaign claims that the affidavits support weren’t advanced in court, or were withdrawn voluntarily.