Where do you stand on the 2020 election

[ZagZig]

That was only the SCOTUS. Trump's lawyers got hearings before more than 50 other judges, and they did not present evidence in any of them. They did not even officially allege that fraud even occurred before any judge. They never made the same claim of fraud before a judge in court that they made in public.

But not one of them looked at or heard the affidavits or the people. Not one has been sworn in. Basically the courts are washing their hands of it. They don't want to get involved. They find technicalities and procedural excuses. There is even rumor that SCOTUS didn't want to touch it because of the violence that would ensue. The FBI and DOJ and CIA are absent. They even had to have a fire lit under their butt to investigate Hunter Biden and the Biden family. Even when there is a witness who was their business partner, has phones and emails from all the Biden's that involves Joe, Jill, Hunter and Joe's brother... If this was turned around and they had even half of this on Trump, they would have a public week of holiday and celebration as they built a gallows.

My prediction..... Joe is going to be the Haman of 2020/2021. He will hang from his own gallows... figuratively..and... many more will be right along with him.

 

[tulc]

No, seriously, you gave no answer. What if the SCOTUS and the states and the FBI and the CIA and all the others who have power... if all of them came out and agreed that there was solid evidence that there was fraud and the actual vote count had Trump win... solidly.....

What would your reaction be?

I'm not saying that they had a hunch. I'm not saying that they caved to pressure. I'm not saying that they just couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt... I'm saying that everyone who observed the evidence accepted it as truth and changed their mind and agreed that Trump won...

What would you do?

well to quote a guy I know who also:

(doesn't really answer hypothetical questions, but is always amused when they come up)

On the plus side, since there hasn't been a scrap of evidence accepted by any court it's been presented to, you can answer a non hypothetical question:
"Why do you believe that something happened that no one can present evidence proving it happened and it's apparently just wishful thinking on the part of those who believe it did happen?"
tulc(is going to give that guy quoted a cup of coffee)

 

[ZagZig]

well to quote a guy I know who also:

On the plus side, since there hasn't been a scrap of evidence accepted by any court it's been presented to, you can answer a non hypothetical question:
"Why do you believe that something happened that no one can present evidence proving it happened and it's apparently just wishful thinking on the part of those who believe it did happen?"
tulc(is going to give that guy quoted a cup of coffee)

I'll answer your question when you have the courage to answer mine.

 

[RDKirk]

But not one of them looked at or heard the affidavits or the people.

Trump's lawyers did not present them. The court can't examine what the plaintiff fails to present.

 

[tulc]

I'll answer your question when you have the courage to answer mine.

I answered your question, that you don't like the answer doesn't change that fact.
tulc(doesn't deal in hypotheticals)

 

[ZagZig]

Trump's lawyers did not present them. The court can't examine what the plaintiff fails to present.

Trumps lawyers were not given the opportunity to present them. The courts have said "nothing to see here".. Yes, some of the judges are republicans. You have to remember that not all republicans like Trump. Trump is disassembling the old established swamp of a government and the corrupt republicans don't like that. Not every decision becomes the "gospel truth" just because a republican judge or elected official goes against Trump.

 

[ZagZig]

I answered your question, that you don't like the answer doesn't change that fact.
tulc(doesn't deal in hypotheticals)

You didn't answer my question. I asked "what would you do if "X" happened and you basically stated that "X" couldn't happen.

So, why not state what you would do? Will it hold you accountable for your words... later... when it does happen? This thing you say cannot happen? You don't want to have something solidly in writing on a forum that will state that if "X" happens (which you are in full blown denial and objection to) you would behave in a certain manner.. and then.. you don't behave in that manner.

So, go ahead.. tell us what you would do if all of this, which you say is 100% impossible to take place, actually takes place? Remember, you can go in to old posts and delete them... If you need to. If you do want some spoilers... the Directer of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, has now come out and stated that Hillary was the person who devised and instigated the whole accusation of Russian collusion against Trump, in 2016. Others are connected and people are already going to jail. This is the chink in the armor of the swamp and, as we know, you just need to get a little crack and with the right tools.. you can bring down the wall.

For reference, watch this at the 6:00 minute mark

 

[ZagZig]

People here want evidence. There is loads of it out there if you go to other sources other than CNN, MSNBC or any other democrat media. Here is one source, not yet flagged by YouTube, to be demonetized or blocked. Take a listen:

 

[tulc]

You didn't answer my question (snip)

see post 225.
tulc(wash, rinse, repeat as needed)

 

[Yoko.52]

How much investigation does the republican party need. Every investigation has show there was non. Republicans will keep on requisition investigation until it goes in there favor and its not.

 

[ZagZig]

How much investigation does the republican party need. Every investigation has show there was non. Republicans will keep on requisition investigation until it goes in there favor and its not.

actually, the investigations have shown overwhelming evidence. It's just that no court has looked at it and the piles of evidence that is out there. Mainstream media will down play it and state that there is nothing to see. However, if you cannot see the evidence you aren't looking.

 

[ZagZig]

see post 225.
tulc(wash, rinse, repeat as needed)

So, still unable to state what you would do.

 

[tulc]

So, still unable to state what you would do.

Wash, rinse, repeat as needed. I did notice you won't answer a question that isn't based on a hypothetical situation, but is clearly one that over 60+ court cases have established as being very much a real world situation. So I guess we have a situation where one person won't answer a question about a made up non-true situation and someone else won't deal with an actual real world question.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[RDKirk]

Trumps lawyers were not given the opportunity to present them.

Yes, they were. Sixty times, they were. Sixty times, sixty different courts, several different states.

 

[Arcangl86]

‘Come on Now’: Michigan Judge Scoffs at and Tosses Trump Campaign Lawsuit Backed by ‘Hearsay’ Evidence

Federal judge upholds Michigan election: 'The people have spoken'

In Michigan alone two cases which were thrown out. While procedural issues do apply, they also discuss the merits of the case and the evidence presented.

 

[Albion]

People don't realize it, but this isn't anything for Americans to feel smug about or vindicated.

If the courts will not even take up the matter of election fraud, it will increase. And you can bet on that. Where will we be then?

 

[Jamsie]

People don't realize it, but this isn't anything for Americans to feel smug about or vindicated.

If the courts will not even take up the matter of election fraud, it will increase. And you can bet on that. Where will we be then?

However, the courts have taken up the matter... and they found it wanting. And what you can bet on is that voter fraud will remain miniscule as it always has been...this has been demonstrated time and again. We will be where we have been for decades... an insignificant fraction of a fraction of a fraction will attempt fraud - they are most often caught very often republican- and overall have no impact on the election! Yet there will be those who don't like the results, seems always right wingers, will whine and complain though unable to offer even a modicum of evidence!

 

[Jamsie]

actually, the investigations have shown overwhelming evidence. It's just that no court has looked at it and the piles of evidence that is out there. Mainstream media will down play it and state that there is nothing to see. However, if you cannot see the evidence you aren't looking.

Wrong! As has been shown republican governors, secs of state, republican (and trump supporters) election officials, trump's attorney general, Krebs, trump appointed judges, and even trump's attorneys guliani, goldstein, etc., republican senators and congress members (with spines) state plainly that the claims of voter fraud and voter machine flipping votes is NONSENSE! So the FACT is that those who continue to insist on such evidence which when scrutinized has been shown to be vacuous do so out of biased emotions not reasoned consideration!

 

[Albion]

However, the courts have taken up the matter... and they found it wanting.

The point was that a judgment on the merits of the evidence and the contentions would mean a lot to the nation, whichever way it went.

To have the courts simply refuse to take the case leaves us all in the situation of thinking that vote fraud isn't particularly interesting to the judiciary which in turn cannot fail to encourage more of it in coming elections. Why would any political party (or at least whichever party benefitted from voter "irregularities" in 2020) from taking that route in coming elections?

 

[Jamsie]

The point was that a judgment on the merits of the evidence and the contentions would mean a lot to the nation, whichever way it went.

To have the courts simply refuse to take the case leaves us all in the situation of thinking that vote fraud isn't particularly interesting to the judiciary which in turn cannot fail to encourage more of it in coming elections. Why would any political party (or at least whichever party benefitted from voter "irregularities" in 2020) from taking that route in coming elections?

I agree, and disagree... to the extent that the courts have received the evidence, and found it lacking as even trump lawyers have stated. The courts have not refused to hear the cases, it is just that with a minimal of scrutiny the cases failed...even by trump's own judicial appointments! The distinction is clear, what is stated in public is contrary to what the lawyers state in court. As stated in court cases:

In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud

Again, to reiterate - "As has been shown republican governors, secs of state, republican (and trump supporters) election officials, trump's attorney general, Krebs, trump appointed judges, and even trump's attorneys guliani, goldstein, etc., republican senators and congress members (with spines) state plainly that the claims of voter fraud and voter machine flipping votes is NONSENSE! So the FACT is that those who continue to insist on such evidence which when scrutinized has been shown to be vacuous do so out of biased emotions not reasoned consideration!"

As noted elsewhere the ossified trump supporter will never believe that the election was fair... this is clear here on CF as noted above - if even Barr's assessment is not to be taken serious...what is the point?

Last point...it is an obvious fact that trump has lied in the past about "voter fraud", and that he "primed the pump" for 2020 fraud, however, as in the past his "evidence" is lacking in all regards!