Joe Biden Wins

[Albion]

Have you heard what judges Trump appointed said, when they saw lawsuit evidence?

Your post is not the first one to do it around here, but what's the point in making this serious matter be about who appointed any judge?

I get that some people think in those terms, particularly those who believe in a spoils system, but there's nothing unusual about a Republican judge holding to what he considers to be the rules of evidence or proper procedure or the intent of the written law, etc. And of course, that's only one decision.

 

[Archivist]

Your post is not the first one to do it around here, but what's the point in making this serious matter be about who appointed any judge?

I get that some people think in those terms, particularly those who believe in a spoils system, but there's nothing unusual about a Republican judge holding to what he considers to be the rules of evidence or proper procedure or the intent of the written law, etc. And of course, that's only one decision.

But that was the decision by a three-judge panel. It just happened that a Trump appointee wrote the opinion.

 

[Halbhh]

Your post is not the first one to do it around here, but what's the point in making this serious matter be about who appointed any judge?

I get that some people think in those terms, particularly those who believe in a spoils system, but there's nothing unusual about a Republican judge holding to what he considers to be the rules of evidence or proper procedure or the intent of the written law, etc. And of course, that's only one decision.

Because some people think in those terms.

As I'd said way back, during Amy Barrett's nomination, before confirmation, I think these conservative judges are very good ones in general -- just like you are saying -- and we are well off to have them.

Would it be of interest to see where I said that??

 

[Danthemailman]

And if all these eyewitnesses exist, why isn't the evidence being presented in court?

It won’t make it that far when the cases are not even considered being heard.

 

[Postvieww]

by liberal judges you mean ones' that actually follow the law....shame on them.

. Liberal judges that actually follow the law, surely you jest.

 

[Archivist]

It won’t make it that far when the cases are not even considered being heard.

Judges are examining the evidence. Perhaps you should read post 819.

 

[Archivist]

. Liberal judges that actually follow the law, surely you jest.

You are saying that liberal judges do not follow the law. Do you have proof of that?

 

[Albion]

Because some people think in those terms.

I know, but if I'd cited the best examples, readers would be telling me that I was just being partisan.

As I'd said way back, during Amy Barrett's nomination, before confirmation, I think these conservative judges are very good ones in general -- just like you are saying -- and we are well off to have them.

Would it be of interest to see where I said that??

I believe you, but why the most recent post, then? The issue of vote fraud is important, too important to dismiss by implying that the judge in one case was a Trump appointee so there can't have been any vote fraud.

 

[Halbhh]

I know, but if I'd cited the best examples, readers would be telling me that I was just being partisan.


I believe you, but why the most recent post, then? The issue of vote fraud is important, too important to dismiss by implying that the judge in one case was a Trump appointee so there can't have been any vote fraud.

We can learn from the experts -- the good judges -- that actually have the job to look at the lawsuits, and are responsible to accept or reject the lawsuits, on the merits.

They have overwhelmingly said the lawsuits do not have merit, and thrown them out.

That tells us something clear and definite and certain: the lawsuits did not have merit.

They said more: that there was no proof.

They said a lot more, of a variety of things.

Great, first-rate judges.

In a scathing ruling late Saturday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption.
Trump's legal team cried vote fraud, but courts found none

Would you like more?

Do you want to see more to see that fact shown in more detail?

(But if you don't accept even just these 2, already, I wonder if you'd accept anything at all; some have even gone to the insane extreme of trying to claim all the judges are corrupt -- a truly insane viewpoint. If you think that, tell me, so that I can pray for you. I'm serious.)

 

[Danthemailman]

Judges are examining the evidence. Perhaps you should read post 819.

Believe what you want to believe, but you will never convince me that this election was legitimate.

 

[Halbhh]

Believe what you want to believe, but you will never convince me that this election was legitimate.

Why did the conservative republican-appointed judges (including ones Trump) appointed -- why did they all reject the lawsuits?

Why did the judges say the lawsuits had "no merit", that there was "no proof" to support the claims made, and so on?

Would you like to see some of their statements, from conservative republican-appointed judges, including Trump appointed? Please see post #829 and #820 above for a start.

 

[Danthemailman]

Why did the conservative republican-appointed judges (including ones Trump) appointed -- why did they all reject the lawsuits?

Why did the judges say the lawsuits had "no merit", that there was "no proof" to support the claims made, and so on?

Would you like to see some of their statements, from conservative republican-appointed judges, including Trump appointed? Please see post #829 and #820 above for a start.

Still not convinced. People can be bought off and threatened, even judges. This has been the worst scandal I have seen in my entire lifetime!

 

[Archivist]

Still not convinced. This has been the worst scandal in my entire lifetime!

This was a legitimate election. Trump's own Attorney General has said so. Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has said so. Judges have tossed almost every case brought by Trump for lack of evidence. There is no scandal.

 

[Guinan]

This was a legitimate election. Trump's own Attorney General has said so. Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has said so. Judges have tossed almost every case brought by Trump for lack of evidence. There is no scandal.

The SCOTUS also rejected the Texas lawsuit attempting to overturn the election.

 

[rjs330]

Then where is this "ignored evidence?" Why have the courts thrown out almost every case for lack of evidence?

You have been shown evidence. But at this point courts are refusing to consider it. It's not that it's not there. They are just refusing to look at it. There's a difference.

 

[Danthemailman]

This was a legitimate election. Trump's own Attorney General has said so. Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has said so. Judges have tossed almost every case brought by Trump for lack of evidence. There is no scandal.

Keep telling yourself there was no scandal, but once again, you will NEVER convince me otherwise.

 

[Archivist]

You have been shown evidence. But at this point courts are refusing to consider it. It's not that it's not there. They are just refusing to look at it. There's a difference.

And if you read post 819 you know that isn’t true. Courts have examined evidence and rejected it.

 

[Archivist]

Keep telling yourself there was no scandal, but once again, you will NEVER convince me otherwise.

If you want to ignore facts that is your choice.

 

[Danthemailman]

If you want to ignore facts that is your choice.

Even so called facts can be manipulated.

 

[Danthemailman]

I’ve seen what the liberal Democrats have done to America and will continue to do and so has this ex Navy seal and ex Senator.