2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Catch The Rainbow]

The thing is that to present evidence to the Supreme Court, you have to also present evidence to the lower courts to prove your case has any merit what so ever. The Trump team has submitted NO evidence of voter fraud beyond affidavits that fell apart under cross examination. Many of the viral videos about “voter fraud evidence” are standard procedures in every election like ballot curing. They have no evidence which is why the federal case in PA was dismissed with prejudice - if they had evidence they should have already submitted it, and they’d amended their complaint before and still didn’t provide evidence. As such they’d had their shot in court and blew it. The “appeal” they’re crowing about is begging the Appeals court to allow them to appeal at all, arguing that their case as is has at least some merit by virtue of the evidence they have. The opinion and ruling was the Judge telling them that they’re wasting his time, the states time, their clients time, and the courts time, and should stop because they’re embarrassing themselves.

The problem with this is they haven't submitted any evidence that stands up to strict scrutiny. The Appeals court is like 99% likely to simply say no.

The judge who dismissed with prejudice refused to see evidence and the defense defended their practice of ballot curing, something that's illegal in PA. The combination of the two will advance the case up the ladder.

 

[Nathan Higgers]

Absolutely no evidence of voter fraud whatsoever, huh?

Sorry sweaty, there is not even one mention of 'science', 'experts' or 'fact checkers' in that article. How can I believe anything written in there?

 

[Nobunaga]

The thing is that to present evidence to the Supreme Court, you have to also present evidence to the lower courts to prove your case has any merit what so ever. The Trump team has submitted NO evidence of voter fraud beyond affidavits that fell apart under cross examination. Many of the viral videos about “voter fraud evidence” are standard procedures in every election like ballot curing. They have no evidence which is why the federal case in PA was dismissed with prejudice - if they had evidence they should have already submitted it, and they’d amended their complaint before and still didn’t provide evidence. As such they’d had their shot in court and blew it. The “appeal” they’re crowing about is begging the Appeals court to allow them to appeal at all, arguing that their case as is has at least some merit by virtue of the evidence they have. The opinion and ruling was the Judge telling them that they’re wasting his time, the states time, their clients time, and the courts time, and should stop because they’re embarrassing themselves.

The problem with this is they haven't submitted any evidence that stands up to strict scrutiny. The Appeals court is like 99% likely to simply say no.

Will you eat the hat instead of being a little bitch?
No?
Then fuck off

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Darren Beattie wrote an interesting article on whether the US State Department and the media would have regarded the 2020 as election as legitimate if it had happened in a foreign country

https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/i...gn-country-it-would-be-considered-fraudulent/
https://archive.vn/HQnG9

During the 2019 coup against against Bolivian incumbent Evo Morales, the vote count was stopped — without explanation — for four days, and then resumed, only to discover he was the narrow victor.

Bolivians found this so obviously implausible that the army suggested he leave power.

As you read this excerpt from the BBC, you’ll have to remind yourself it’s about Bolivia, not the US.

With 83.8% of the votes verified, its website showed Mr Morales leading with 45.3%, leaving Mr Mesa in second place with 38.2%.

That result suggested there would be a run-off, prompting celebrations in the campaign camp of Mr Mesa, who jubilantly declared: “We’ve made it to the second round!”

But then the website with the quick count stopped being updated for 24 hours, prompting electoral observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS) to express their concern.

As counting was suspended, Mr Morales told his supporters he was confident that when votes from rural areas were tallied, there would be no need for a run-off.

When the quick count was finally updated on Monday evening, Mr Morales had a lead of 10.12 percentage points — just wide enough to stave off a second round.

The OAS electoral mission called the change “drastic and hard to explain.” [BBC]

Clearly, the BBC and other western media found this deeply suspicious and an obvious indication of illegitimacy. Western media does not credulously accept a “winner” who emerges with a wide victory margin after a sudden and inexplicable suspension of the vote count.

When describing foreign elections, our press gives extra attention to individual abnormalities, even if they might not by themselves shift the outcome. Foreign governments invariably describe these anomalies as circumstantial or irrelevant. Western media and governments assert that they are not — at least if the anomalies occur in a foreign election.

The Iranian election of 2009 presents a perfect example.

The Guardian Council…acknowledged ‘minor violations that happen in every election and can be ignored,’ but insisted that… the results were valid. Musavi [the opposition candidate]… [has] continued to reject the election results, and Musavi has called for ‘independent arbitration’ of the election disputes. Meanwhile, the government continues its crackdown on protestors… and continues to level accusations of ‘foreign interference’ in Iran’s domestic affairs by Great Britain and other Western countries.” [Congressional Research Center]

 

[AMHOLIO]

This thread has better seethe, at least in the highlight posts, the doomsday thread has much more quality cope, which kind of makes sense, if only there could be dimensional merge of the two;

Sorry champ, HK-47 already said mos stuff like that will for now be in the doomsday thread. You'll have to focus on that one for now for the quality of post you're looking for.

Here's the simple chart:

 

[Techpriest]

Exactly. All evidence needs to be in the public domain, and frankly, unless CNN says there is a evidence of worldwide (perhaps even planet-wide) fraud, I will not agree to let drumpfg undermine this beautiful nation's democracy.

Strict Scrutiny is a legal definition. Nothing Rudy submitted meets that standard for what he’s arguing or how he’s arguing it. It’s not that the evidence has to be shown to the public, but that there has to be evidence submitted to the court at all - which Rudy hasn’t done.

the judge's ruling means the that pa cant certify until it gives voters a chance to cure. every individual voter who wasnt give the chance to cure has to sue their district for the opportunity.

thats how pa expects the voters to maintain their right to vote, not to cast out the tainted ballot.

he acknowledges that curing may be illegal, but that's not at stake.

You’re entirely fucking wrong. What he said is that suing the counties around Philly for offering something your own county didn’t under the equal protection clause is ass backwards. Their proposed remedy is out of proportion to any damages they claim. They can sue their counties to cure their ballots and should have done so far earlier - he mentions this.

He also mentions that the case Rudy is trying to push is a legal Frankenstein’s monster, trying to wiggle around a bunch of long standing precedents and asking for something fucking crazy while providing no proof of why that remedy is needed. He also makes a point that this only is targeted at the presidential election, not at any other election in the state. If they were truly concerned with curing their ballots, they’d have expanded it to the whole ballot.

As for the other lawsuits potentially stopping certification, it’s highly unlikely as certification is happening today and there have been no filings against other counties, and those filings should have happened weeks earlier to have merit.

Ballot curing is not illegal. The other lolsuit currently being filed in PA by a member of the state legislature would essentially invalidate every single election held in the state for like 4 years, including his own.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Data point of one, but with how many lawsuits flying around, a lot of lawyers want to get in on that shit in the hopes of being one of the big ones that establishes a major casebreaker. It'd be the top-hat atop any resume, so you're going to see some of the biggest ambulance-chasers on both sides of the political aisle emerge and claim to be in-the-know. Sit back and enjoy the ride.


This is a tactic when dealing with a ideologues that was actually used to surprising effect against fundie idiots back in the 90s and early 2000s. Reframe their arguments and confront them with something equally fucking ridiculous and it forces them to pivot to defend against their own idiocy. The key is to do it in a way that forces them to reflect upon the way they're making arguments, and it can actually be quite effective because it forces them to self-confront.

Except the parties at fault this time have no concept of shame, which makes getting them to self-confront nearly impossible.

 

[Eggplant Wizard]

The thing is that to present evidence to the Supreme Court, you have to also present evidence to the lower courts to prove your case has any merit what so ever. The Trump team has submitted NO evidence of voter fraud beyond affidavits that fell apart under cross examination. Many of the viral videos about “voter fraud evidence” are standard procedures in every election like ballot curing. They have no evidence which is why the federal case in PA was dismissed with prejudice - if they had evidence they should have already submitted it, and they’d amended their complaint before and still didn’t provide evidence. As such they’d had their shot in court and blew it. The “appeal” they’re crowing about is begging the Appeals court to allow them to appeal at all, arguing that their case as is has at least some merit by virtue of the evidence they have. The opinion and ruling was the Judge telling them that they’re wasting his time, the states time, their clients time, and the courts time, and should stop because they’re embarrassing themselves.

The problem with this is they haven't submitted any evidence that stands up to strict scrutiny. The Appeals court is like 99% likely to simply say no.

Wait a second, where in the rules of procedures for the Supreme Court does it say that the evidence has to be shown in a lower court first? If that was the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to receive evidence of threats made towards someone before showing up for a SCOTUS trial, or any statements from the judge of the previous court as evidence as well, if said statements could qualify. You could straight up wait until after a federal court of appeals rules on something, then spill the beans before going to SCOTUS and nothing could happen to you. This doesn’t sound right.

 

[Techpriest]

The judge who dismissed with prejudice refused to see evidence and the defense defended their practice of ballot curing, something that's illegal in PA. The combination of the two will advance the case up the ladder.

He never refused to see evidence. What he refused was a request to amend their case again, since they’d already done so and not submitted evidence to back their complaint. In oral arguments they showed no indication that they had any evidence. Everything indicated that they were acting in bad faith, or completely failed to submit their case properly with a complaint that matches their evidence, despite having already amended their complaint before. That’s the reason it’s dismissed with prejudice, because there’s no indication that they will somehow magically make their complaint valid.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Strict Scrutiny is a legal definition. Nothing Rudy submitted meets that standard for what he’s arguing or how he’s arguing it. It’s not that the evidence has to be shown to the public, but that there has to be evidence submitted to the court at all - which Rudy hasn’t done.



You’re entirely fucking wrong. What he said is that suing the counties around Philly for offering something your own county didn’t under the equal protection clause is ass backwards. Their proposed remedy is out of proportion to any damages they claim. They can sue their counties to cure their ballots and should have done so far earlier - he mentions this.

He also mentions that the case Rudy is trying to push is a legal Frankenstein’s monster, trying to wiggle around a bunch of long standing precedents and asking for something fucking crazy while providing no proof of why that remedy is needed. He also makes a point that this only is targeted at the presidential election, not at any other election in the state. If they were truly concerned with curing their ballots, they’d have expanded it to the whole ballot.

As for the other lawsuits potentially stopping certification, it’s highly unlikely as certification is happening today and there have been no filings against other counties, and those filings should have happened weeks earlier to have merit.

Ballot curing is not illegal. The other lolsuit currently being filed in PA by a member of the state legislature would essentially invalidate every single election held in the state for like 4 years, including his own.

Ballot curing is not illegal federally but it is in PA. It's been explained to you. Having democrat counties cure votes while republican counties actually followed state law is a classic example of the equal protection clause.

 

[GuntPunt]

CNN has decided to throw BLM pets under the bus starting with Kapernick.

Also, strangely:

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Another interesting Revolver News article trying to reverse engineer the fraud from the published data

https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/one-possible-fraud-scenario-montgomery-county-pa/
https://archive.vn/EYGUr

Suppose, hypothetically, someone was planning to commit electoral fraud in Montgomery County, PA, in favor of the Democrats.

By 5:43am Wednesday morning after election night, Trump is ahead by 618,840 votes, with counting still proceeding. So far, Montgomery County, PA had reported 148,100 mail votes (running 24.4% Trump, and 74.9% Biden) and 388,018 votes total (running 40.8% Trump, 58.2% Biden) (Raw data, Fact 6). Montgomery County has the third highest expected number of votes of all counties in Pennsylvania (Raw data), so they’re one of the few places in a position to be large enough to possibly affect the outcome via fraud. Pennsylvania was always going to be close, and so the fraud perpetrators wanted to keep as many uncounted ballots as possible in reserve, so that if needed they could produce fraudulent ballots and run up the statewide total for Biden. But crucially, the perpetrator didn’t know in advance exactly just how many ballots would be needed to win the election. So they kept a fair amount back, holding 23% of precincts still in reserve. (Raw data) The amount of mail ballots they had counted by Wednesday morning relative to Edison forecasts is relatively low in the data.

On Tuesday night, the county had held a press conference pre-announcing an approximate number of absentee ballots they’d already collected, but somehow not counted. Some people wondered if it might look weird for a county to hold a press conference on election night rather than just count the votes, but ostentatious displays of transparency make great cover, even if just by unrelated groups taking advantage of them.

Over the course of Wednesday, counting goes on. But for some reason, and this possibility is somewhat open to interpretation, somebody screws up and enters each new update into the “in-person category.” It’s hard to know quite why this happens, but you can imagine different variations at this point. In one, it’s just a pure screw-up – someone doesn’t know how the scheme works, and enters the wrong vote type in a database, then has to correct it later. In a different variant, it could be pre-planned – a great cover story if you need to make extra changes on Wednesday night is “these obvious mail ballots, which were pre-announced, have to be changed to the correct category.” In any case, there isn’t a single update made to mail-in ballots over the day on Wednesday (Raw data).

Wednesday night arrives, and organizers of the fraud realize they now have not one, not two, but three problems with their fraud scheme.

Firstly, statewide, Trump is still up by 164,414 ballots. They need to get more votes from somewhere, or he’s likely to win Pennsylvania and maybe the White House. Commit fraud for the winning side, and they’ve got a good chance of getting by. Commit fraud for the losing side, and they risk winding up in jail. As one of the three biggest counties in Pennsylvania, they’ve got to play a big part.

Second, one way or another, they’re going to have to correct the ballots that were classified as “in-person.” The county had pre-announced details of how many mail ballots were still to be counted, so it would look very strange if this number were to radically change. In general, in-person ballots have a clearer paper trail than mail ballots. So if they’re going to have a chance of not getting caught, they need to do it with mail ballots. In-person ballots are delivered by voters to the actual polling booths around the county, but mail ballots throughout the county have all been sent to a single postal address (Fact 4). This gives them not only one place to control everything, but one single place where they can hide the evidence by mixing up genuine and fraudulent ballots afterwards. Furthermore, the decision to only add totals to in-person votes has left them with a series of updates that look very strange. (Fact 7, Fact .

Third, in their effort to produce a smooth glide to the finish, they’ve already spent most of the precincts. They’re now up to 492,027 total votes that have already been announced, or 97.6% of the Edison estimated total (Raw data). They can’t push the total number of votes too high, or it’s going to raise too many eyebrows – high turnout smells like election fraud. They can use mail ballots for the rest, but with just 12,210 estimated votes left before hitting the Edison expected turnout, they run the risk of not having enough.

So between Wednesday night and Thursday morning, they decide to do several things at once.

 

[PepsiVanilla]

people who aren't just Dem partisans but also have a genocidal hatred of Republicans.

Is there a difference?

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

CNN has decided to throw BLM pets under the bus starting with Kapernick.
View attachment 1744578

If a Biden presidency leads to more of the left turning on itself, I may just want it.

 

[Techpriest]

Wait a second, where in the rules of procedures for the Supreme Court does it say that the evidence has to be shown in a lower court first? If that was the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to receive evidence of threats made towards someone before showing up for a SCOTUS trial, or any statements from the judge of the previous court as evidence as well, if said statements could qualify. You could straight up wait until after a federal court of appeals rules on something, then spill the beans before going to SCOTUS and nothing could happen to you. This doesn’t sound right.

Ok, so let me clarify this for you. The current case was dismissed with prejudice. This was made mostly because they didn’t have the evidence to back their complaints, and had failed when allowed to amend to provide more evidence (all they did was change their legal argument slightly). Dismissed with Prejudice means you cannot amend further and cannot appeal your case upwards. It’s done when the judge deems the case to be so without merit that it isn’t worth the time of any higher court to even look at.

This might seem a bit unfair. But there’s remedies for this which is what the trump campaign is trying. The appeals court can be petitioned to look at the dismissal, and determine if the judge was correct to deem it worth dismissing with prejudice. The appeals court looks at the case as filed, because what they are evaluating is if the case as it currently is, has enough merit to be allowed to appeal. Not potential evidence, but current evidence. If they say the judge ruled correctly, the case is thrown out and you have to start again with a new case and complaint. If they say there is enough merit in the case that dismissal with prejudice was an overreach, then the case can be amended further and appealed.

Basically, to get to the Supreme Court at all you have to have enough merit in your case to go through several layers of judicial scrutiny. Then you have to have the Supreme Court decide your case is worth their time. The Supreme Court doesn’t take every case handed to it. A lot of the time, they just kick it back down to a lower court, or say the earlier ruling stands as the current appeal doesn’t have enough merit. The Supreme Court deals mostly with constitutional questions. Basic criminal cases are not going to come before it.

 

[iRON-mAn]

Can Samuel Jackson play Justice Thomas?

*Biden stutters*

Thomas: ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER CAN YOU SPEAK IT?!

I knew her before the pandemic, retard. Plus, gyms are still open in some states

I believe some personal trainers are also operating on a one to one basis, so gyms are still open for them, even if they aren't for the wider public.

 

[Meat Target]

CNN has decided to throw BLM pets under the bus starting with Kapernick.
View attachment 1744578

Also, strangely:
View attachment 1744584

Kapernick started his whole BLM spiel to obscure the fact that he sucked and was about to get cut from the team.

Can Samuel Jackson play Justice Thomas?

I would have proposed James Earl Jones as Thomas, but he's sooo old.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

CNN has decided to throw BLM pets under the bus starting with Kapernick.
View attachment 1744578

Also, strangely:
View attachment 1744584

The first makes me think that the Uniparty regime is getting ready to throw BLM under the bus rhetorically so that when the next BLM riot gets crushed they've already been reclassified from 'The Good Guys Fighting Systematic Racism' to 'Burn Loot and Murder' and Biden will be applauded as 'brave' for confronting them.

On the other hand, the second one makes me think the Biden regime is collapsing and we're going to see the media distance itself from Biden's 'win' as we head towards December 14th.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I still have no idea what's going to happen. Still, it keeps life interesting I guess.

 

[Techpriest]

Ballot curing is not illegal federally but it is in PA. It's been explained to you. Having democrat counties cure votes while republican counties actually followed state law is a classic example of the equal protection clause.

No, it was legal in PA, state wide. There was a PA Supreme Court ruling about this IIRC. The suit was saying that because their counties didn’t have a cure and notify procedure in place despite the fact it was legal, but because another did offer it, somehow violated the equal protection clause. That’s a hard argument to make in the first place, and even harder because it falls under the constitutional law definition of strict scrutiny.

Read the fucking opinion. It sums up a lot, is publicly available, and I shouldn’t have to do all your research for you just to prove you’re a fucking moron.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Do you know the good news about Powell? Now she's been disavowed she can be omitted from the movie.

So that means Kristy Swanson can play Jenna.

Rudy Giuliani: Robert Duvall
Jenna Ellis: Kristy Swanson
Donald Trump: Jon Voight.

Directed and financed by Mel Gibson from all the cash he made from The Passion of The Christ. Vince Vaughn could play some obnoxious Democrat reporter and antagonist.

The ending scene of the movie would be some allusion to Powell's claims finally getting to court.

Title suggestions welcome. No, you can't have "The Passion of The Trump". You know why.

We don't have to kick her out completely.

I was thinking Christopher walkins could play a good trump.

Janes Marsden would be a good pick for trump Jr.

Jonah Hill for fred Trump.

Donald Glover for Clarance Thomas.

Not sure for Melania Trump

The Miz for tucker Carlson

Clint Eastwood for Joe Biden.

Lessile Jones for Kamala?