8 ms·

The allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.

by jpsalm 6y ago

namdnay 6y ago
If it’s a farce, the parent is the turkey getting stuffed :)
throwaways885 6y ago
They should've humoured them just to shut up the people saying those things then. I think the partisanship is what's really driving people like this. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too?
- jmcgough 6y ago
  It was investigated, and it is not the federal government's job to police this; the law states that individual States are responsible for that.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too? What do you think they've been doing in the courts for the past month? Trumps own Justice department wouldn't even pursue it.
- AlisdairO 6y ago
  1. The evidence provided for election fraud was investigated, and no widespread fraud was found. 2. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated because there were credible reasons to be concerned. The election fraud issue is entirely (and transparently) manufactured, and everyone in power knows it.
- jkelleyrtp 6y ago
  They've done both. - The Trump/Russia situation resulted in the senate agreeing that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign in support of Trump. [1] - Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no evidence." [2] - The supreme court has rejected every lawsuit brought to it on the basis of "no evidence." [3] While the Russia investigation lead to the arrest of nearly every 2016 Trump campaign manager, the allegations of voter fraud across 10 states has led to nothing that could overturn the election. [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/20... [3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of “no evidence.” That’s not actually true. While some may have been dismissed based on insufficiency of presented or proffered evidence to support the legal claim, most were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for legal threshold issues (failure to state a claim, lack of standing, unreasonable delay in filing [laches]) which come before considering evidence.
dukeofdoom 6y ago
Well thats the problem, the suits were dismissed out of hand. Very little evidence presented. Despite something like 1000 people swore affidavits of violations. They should have taken the cases and heard the evidence. Foremost, I blame the supreme court, it chickened out from hearing the Texas Lawsuit, which was about the state Governors changing the election rules on unilaterally. If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing . Now the people have lost faith in the courts.
- hobs 6y ago
  No, it wasn't the problem, and you are willfully or blindly misinterpreting what happened. The complete lack of evidence and lack of anything but witness testimony was the first stage - as soon as any witness was interviewed it became immediately clear that there was in fact, no evidence at all. Repeating this "things were dismissed out of hand" meme is true only in the sense that if a man came into court and said he was king of america he would also be given very little space to waste the courts time.
  - dukeofdoom 6y ago
    Pennsylvania had 200,000 more votes than voters. What do you mean no evidence? Still no good explanation. Since this is probably going to get flagged, like my previous post. This is what was entered into the record, during the objections yesterday in the joint session of congress. I stayed up watching it. So I'm not making this up.
    - jpsalm 6y ago
      Maybe, just maybe, you are being lied to: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/
      - dukeofdoom 6y ago
        This is just trying to hand wave the discrepancy away with more votes are still the be counted. Its admitting its true, but “a few counties have not completed uploading their vote histories,” And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually the case here.
dionian 6y ago
I'm tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or "Laches")
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I’m tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or “Laches”) The “laches” dismissals were not of fraud claims (frankly, neither were the rest, as the campaign either did not include or voluntarily withdrew fraud claims fairly consistently: fraud is something they liked talking about in forums that couldn’t adjudicate claims, but avoided in ones that could; but this is more stark with the laches dismissals.) Every single laches dismissal was of a claim not of fraud, but of changes to election procedures by state executive or local officials that were alleged to be not properly authorized by the state legislature, and the laches dismissals were because the changes at issue were well-known with plenty of opportunity to file challenges before the election when the remedy, were the procedures improper, could have included reversion of procedures, but the claims were, without good cause, delayed until after the election, preventing any remedy which would not have unreasonably adversely impacted the rights of third parties, specifically, the voters who voted in the election held with the challenged procedures.

The allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.

by jpsalm 6y ago

The allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.

namdnay 6y ago

If it’s a farce, the parent is the turkey getting stuffed :)

throwaways885 6y ago

They should've humoured them just to shut up the people saying those things then. I think the partisanship is what's really driving people like this. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too?

jmcgough 6y ago
It was investigated, and it is not the federal government's job to police this; the law states that individual States are responsible for that.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too? What do you think they've been doing in the courts for the past month? Trumps own Justice department wouldn't even pursue it.
AlisdairO 6y ago
1. The evidence provided for election fraud was investigated, and no widespread fraud was found. 2. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated because there were credible reasons to be concerned. The election fraud issue is entirely (and transparently) manufactured, and everyone in power knows it.
jkelleyrtp 6y ago
They've done both. - The Trump/Russia situation resulted in the senate agreeing that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign in support of Trump. [1] - Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no evidence." [2] - The supreme court has rejected every lawsuit brought to it on the basis of "no evidence." [3] While the Russia investigation lead to the arrest of nearly every 2016 Trump campaign manager, the allegations of voter fraud across 10 states has led to nothing that could overturn the election. [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/20... [3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of “no evidence.” That’s not actually true. While some may have been dismissed based on insufficiency of presented or proffered evidence to support the legal claim, most were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for legal threshold issues (failure to state a claim, lack of standing, unreasonable delay in filing [laches]) which come before considering evidence.

dukeofdoom 6y ago

Well thats the problem, the suits were dismissed out of hand. Very little evidence presented. Despite something like 1000 people swore affidavits of violations. They should have taken the cases and heard the evidence. Foremost, I blame the supreme court, it chickened out from hearing the Texas Lawsuit, which was about the state Governors changing the election rules on unilaterally. If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing . Now the people have lost faith in the courts.

hobs 6y ago
No, it wasn't the problem, and you are willfully or blindly misinterpreting what happened. The complete lack of evidence and lack of anything but witness testimony was the first stage - as soon as any witness was interviewed it became immediately clear that there was in fact, no evidence at all. Repeating this "things were dismissed out of hand" meme is true only in the sense that if a man came into court and said he was king of america he would also be given very little space to waste the courts time.
- dukeofdoom 6y ago
  Pennsylvania had 200,000 more votes than voters. What do you mean no evidence? Still no good explanation. Since this is probably going to get flagged, like my previous post. This is what was entered into the record, during the objections yesterday in the joint session of congress. I stayed up watching it. So I'm not making this up.
  - jpsalm 6y ago
    Maybe, just maybe, you are being lied to: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/
    - dukeofdoom 6y ago
      This is just trying to hand wave the discrepancy away with more votes are still the be counted. Its admitting its true, but “a few counties have not completed uploading their vote histories,” And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually the case here.

dionian 6y ago

I'm tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or "Laches")

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I’m tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or “Laches”) The “laches” dismissals were not of fraud claims (frankly, neither were the rest, as the campaign either did not include or voluntarily withdrew fraud claims fairly consistently: fraud is something they liked talking about in forums that couldn’t adjudicate claims, but avoided in ones that could; but this is more stark with the laches dismissals.) Every single laches dismissal was of a claim not of fraud, but of changes to election procedures by state executive or local officials that were alleged to be not properly authorized by the state legislature, and the laches dismissals were because the changes at issue were well-known with plenty of opportunity to file challenges before the election when the remedy, were the procedures improper, could have included reversion of procedures, but the claims were, without good cause, delayed until after the election, preventing any remedy which would not have unreasonably adversely impacted the rights of third parties, specifically, the voters who voted in the election held with the challenged procedures.