Georgia poll workers targeted by Trump are cleared of false election fraud claims

[Rumpole]

Those excuses mean nothing. There was never an evidentiary hearing. Al Gore got one and lost.

So all those republican and Trump appointed judges were out to get Trump.

Your logic wanes. No, there was no evidence, or rather, what Trump & Co believed was evidence was, in fact, crap--it was considered and rejected in a number of cases:

While it's true that many of the lawsuits filed by Trump's legal team following the 2020 election were dismissed, it's not accurate to claim that none of them were given an evidentiary hearing or that the system was biased against Trump.

Most of the lawsuits filed were dismissed on grounds of legal procedure, standing, or for lack of credible evidence, rather than through an alleged systematic bias. There were indeed several instances where courts permitted arguments to be made and considered evidence presented.

Here are some notable examples:

1. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the certification of the state's election results. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote, "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption… That has not happened." This suggests that a full consideration of the evidence and arguments was given but found to be insufficient.
2. In Wisconsin, Trump's team filed a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court, which was rejected 4-3, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn writing in the majority opinion: "The campaign's challenges to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots challenged fail under the doctrine of laches." Here, the Court did review the claims and evidence but found them to be without merit.
3. In Nevada, Judge James Russell rejected a lawsuit brought by Trump's electors in the state. In his ruling, Judge Russell wrote, "Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than... the purported margin of victory." Here again, the judge considered the evidence but found it lacking.
4. In Michigan, State Judge Timothy Kenny dismissed a lawsuit brought by Trump supporters, writing, "Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible." Kenny specifically pointed to "incorrect and not credible" witness statements as a reason for dismissing the case.

More:
TRUMP V. BOOCKVAR
"Charges require specific alleations and proof. We have neither here."

TRUMP V. WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION
"The Court has allowed [the former President] the chance to make his case and
he has lost on the merits."

KING V. WHITMER
"...nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were
destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden."

KING V. WHITMER (sanctions against 9 attorneys including Sidney Powell)
"...a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process."

REPORT: LOST, NOT STOLEN (A report by Republican Attorneys)
"Donald Trump and his supporters have failed to present evidence of fraud or
inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
Presidential Election."

These quotes from judges show that they did consider the arguments and evidence presented by Trump's legal team but found them to be insufficient, and in many cases, so lacking in merit as to not rise to a level sufficient to allow an evidentiary hearing. It's a misunderstanding or misrepresentation to suggest that no hearings were held or no evidence was considered. Therefore, your argument is without merit.

More information:

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

Yes, courts heard ‘evidence’ of alleged 2020 election fraud

Former President Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden in November 2020. Unwilling to accept that def

www.politifact.com

Many post-election lawsuits were thrown out for jurisdictional or procedural reasons, but several judges also noted that the allegations of fraud lacked proof.

Judges want more evidence from Trump campaign as election cases get tossed

President Trump vowed to continue to pursue all legal options.

abcnews.go.com

If you scrutinize each and every case, you will discover that the Judges acted according to the facts and the law. I mean, if that weren't true, where were the appeals, where was the SCOTUS rulings on lower courts's rulings?

It thus remains a fact that either there was no evidence, or Trump's lawyers are incompetent, and both indicate one conclusion: Trump is unfit for the office.

 

[Lastamender]

So all those republican and Trump appointed judges were out to get Trump.

Your logic wanes. No, there was no evidence, or rather, what Trump & Co believed was evidence was, in fact, crap--it was considered and rejected in a number of cases:

While it's true that many of the lawsuits filed by Trump's legal team following the 2020 election were dismissed, it's not accurate to claim that none of them were given an evidentiary hearing or that the system was biased against Trump.

Most of the lawsuits filed were dismissed on grounds of legal procedure, standing, or for lack of credible evidence, rather than through an alleged systematic bias. There were indeed several instances where courts permitted arguments to be made and considered evidence presented.

Here are some notable examples:

1. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the certification of the state's election results. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote, "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption… That has not happened." This suggests that a full consideration of the evidence and arguments was given but found to be insufficient.
2. In Wisconsin, Trump's team filed a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court, which was rejected 4-3, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn writing in the majority opinion: "The campaign's challenges to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots challenged fail under the doctrine of laches." Here, the Court did review the claims and evidence but found them to be without merit.
3. In Nevada, Judge James Russell rejected a lawsuit brought by Trump's electors in the state. In his ruling, Judge Russell wrote, "Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than... the purported margin of victory." Here again, the judge considered the evidence but found it lacking.
4. In Michigan, State Judge Timothy Kenny dismissed a lawsuit brought by Trump supporters, writing, "Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible." Kenny specifically pointed to "incorrect and not credible" witness statements as a reason for dismissing the case.

These quotes from judges show that they did consider the arguments and evidence presented by Trump's legal team but found them to be insufficient. It's a misunderstanding or misrepresentation to suggest that no hearings were held or no evidence was considered. Therefore, your argument is without merit.

I do not care what corrupt courts rule or say. There were still no evidentiary hearings. You cannot prove shit without one. All you have are legal opinions from traitors who call themselves judges.

 

[otto105]

DumpHole lacks any shred of credibility.

Ho hum.

Awww, poor baby boi.

You need some McDonald’s

 

[Rumpole]

It was a lucid period of honesty. It is common with people with dementia.

Oh yes, that must be it. All those republican and Trump appointed judges are corrupt.

As if I'm going to believe some pathetic dude on the internet.

If you scrutinize each and every case, you will discover that the Judges acted according to the facts and the law. I mean, if that weren't true, where were the appeals, where was the SCOTUS rulings on lower courts's rulings?

It thus remains a fact that either there was no evidence, or Trump's lawyers are incompetent, and both indicate one conclusion: Trump is unfit for the office.

Sorry, your logic wanes.

And guess what? I don't give a damn what you think because:

You're ignorant.

 

[otto105]

I do not care what corrupt courts rule or say. There were still no evidentiary hearings. You cannot prove shit without one. All you have are legal opinions from traitors who call themselves judges.

Geezsus lasty

Just going to be a loser to the end.

 

[Rumpole]

I do not care what corrupt courts rule or say. There were still no evidentiary hearings. You cannot prove shit without one. All you have are legal opinions from traitors who call themselves judges.

You are a liar.

You read that on some right wing rag and now you are clinging to it.

Like a fly clings to shit.

Repeat after me;

Trump is a sex abuser, conman, fraudster, criminal who loves Putin, the 'poorly educated', not to mention that he despises democracy and has betrayed America

 

[Lastamender]

Oh yes, that must be it. All those republican and Trump appointed judges are corrupt.

As if I'm going to believe some pathetic dude on the internet.

If you scrutinize each and every case, you will discover that the Judges acted according to the facts and the law. I mean, if that weren't true, where were the appeals, where was the SCOTUS rulings on lower courts's rulings?

It thus remains a fact that either there was no evidence, or Trump's lawyers are incompetent, and both indicate one conclusion: Trump is unfit for the office.

Sorry, your logic wanes.

And guess what? I don't give a damn what you think because:

You're ignorant.

I have gone through this with much smarter people than you. Fraud happened. It was massive and quite obvious. The cover up failed before it even started.

 

[Rumpole]

I have gone through this with much smarter people than you. Fraud happened. It was massive and quite obvious. The cover up failed before it even started.

You talk shit, but you don't prove shit. If you had a modicum of 'smart' you'd know the evidence isn't there.

 

[BackAgain]

Awww, poor baby boi.

You need some McDonald’s

Don’t fret Odd0. You also lack any shred of credibility.

Now, despite your consistent efforts to post off-topic, share with the Board your theory of who it was, exactly, who “cleared” the Georgia poll workers?

Bonus points if you can answer this additional question: On what alleged bases were they “cleared?”

Go.

 

[Lastamender]

You talk shit, but you don't prove shit. If you had a modicum of 'smart' you'd know the evidence isn't there.

I do not need to prove the obvious.

 

[Rumpole]

I do not need to prove the obvious.

In a court of law, you'd be toss out of the court with a line like that.

That's not an argument, a fact which is obvious to intelligent people.

Well, here's a more 'smart' response, which will clearly be above your mental paygrade:

But is 'voter fraud' the real question? The real question, the one we should be asking, for me, is this;

Is stealing a national election doable?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, if it is by external means, though it would be very difficult. No, if it is by internal means, via ballot tampering, machine hacking, and the like.

There only have been isolated cases of voter fraud. There has been small amounts of 'irregularities', and both are common to all elections. In a larger election, with more ballots, it is logical these numbers will increase. To date, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, to prove Trump's allegation that 'Democrats stole the election'.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/community/johnson-county/joco-diversions/article251485983.html

We Kansans owe Kris Kobach warm thanks for his greatest triumph: He proved that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in our state. He achieved that by fiercely striving to prove the opposite.

In 2010 he got himself elected as Kansas secretary of state, then won legislative authority to prosecute illegal voters — a power no equivalent state official elsewhere holds.

He secured a 2013 law requiring that those registering to vote prove they are American citizens. His bar to voting was among the most severe in the nation until overruled in federal court.

Kobach recently filed to run for Kansas attorney general in the next election.

So how many fraudulent voters did Kobach’s dragnet convict during his eight-year tenure in office? Just nine. Nine convictions in a state with nearly 2 million registered voters. Among those were older citizens who mistakenly voted in two different places where they owned property.

A college student filled out an absentee ballot for her home state before voting months later in Kansas, both times for Trump. Steve Watkins, a former Republican congressman, was charged with three felony voting offenses and got off with diversion.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, supports the arguments of Donald Trump and Kobach. Going back as far as 2005, Heritage lists 15 convictions for voter infractions in Kansas, presumably including those from the Kobach era. Over 15 years, one offense per year.

The Heritage website also reports 1,322 “proven instances of voter fraud” in the United States since the early 1980s. How could America have passed 40 years with a measly 1,322 proven instances of voter fraud? Among our 168 million registered voters?

Both for Kansas and the nation, the rate of fraud has been less than one one-thousandth of 1%. Would that we religious Americans sinned at such a microscopic rate.

Fully armed, Trump, Kobach and the Heritage Foundation marched out on an elephant hunt and bagged a gnat.


And so it goes for every state in the union: in audit after audit, no state had issues sufficient to reverse any certification.

None of the 60 plus lawsuits filed by Trump and/or his surrogates provided evidence that survived forensic scrutiny.

And, the very idea that one party could steal an election, at least in terms of tampering with ballots, as Trump is alleging, is absurd on its face.

First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of state, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE.

Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence.

Thirdly, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win.

Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in.

Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin.

Sixth, in many states, Dems won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen? What, to make it seem 'real'. No, I really am not buying that argument.

sixth, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd,

Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable.

WHERE ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS? There are NONE.

Trump's and your allegations are therefore, completely, utterly, totally, inescapably ABSURD.

 

[Lastamender]

In a court of law, you'd be toss out of the court with a line like that.

That's not an argument, a fact which is obvious to intelligent people.

Well, here's a more 'smart' response, which will clearly be above your mental paygrade:

But is 'voter fraud' the real question? The real question, the one we should be asking, for me, is this;

Is stealing a national election doable?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, if it is by external means, though it would be very difficult. No, if it is by internal means, via ballot tampering, machine hacking, and the like.

There only have been isolated cases of voter fraud. There has been small amounts of 'irregularities', and both are common to all elections. In a larger election, with more ballots, it is logical these numbers will increase. To date, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, to prove Trump's allegation that 'Democrats stole the election'.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/community/johnson-county/joco-diversions/article251485983.html

We Kansans owe Kris Kobach warm thanks for his greatest triumph: He proved that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in our state. He achieved that by fiercely striving to prove the opposite.

In 2010 he got himself elected as Kansas secretary of state, then won legislative authority to prosecute illegal voters — a power no equivalent state official elsewhere holds.

He secured a 2013 law requiring that those registering to vote prove they are American citizens. His bar to voting was among the most severe in the nation until overruled in federal court.

Kobach recently filed to run for Kansas attorney general in the next election.

So how many fraudulent voters did Kobach’s dragnet convict during his eight-year tenure in office? Just nine. Nine convictions in a state with nearly 2 million registered voters. Among those were older citizens who mistakenly voted in two different places where they owned property.

A college student filled out an absentee ballot for her home state before voting months later in Kansas, both times for Trump. Steve Watkins, a former Republican congressman, was charged with three felony voting offenses and got off with diversion.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, supports the arguments of Donald Trump and Kobach. Going back as far as 2005, Heritage lists 15 convictions for voter infractions in Kansas, presumably including those from the Kobach era. Over 15 years, one offense per year.

The Heritage website also reports 1,322 “proven instances of voter fraud” in the United States since the early 1980s. How could America have passed 40 years with a measly 1,322 proven instances of voter fraud? Among our 168 million registered voters?

Both for Kansas and the nation, the rate of fraud has been less than one one-thousandth of 1%. Would that we religious Americans sinned at such a microscopic rate.

Fully armed, Trump, Kobach and the Heritage Foundation marched out on an elephant hunt and bagged a gnat.


And so it goes for every state in the union: in audit after audit, no state had issues sufficient to reverse any certification.

None of the 60 plus lawsuits filed by Trump and/or his surrogates provided evidence that survived forensic scrutiny.

And, the very idea that one party could steal an election, at least in terms of tampering with ballots, as Trump is alleging, is absurd on its face.

First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of state, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE.

Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence.

Thirdly, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win.

Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in.

Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin.

Sixth, in many states, Dems won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen? What, to make it seem 'real'. No, I really am not buying that argument.

sixth, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd,

Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable.

WHERE ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS? There are NONE.

Trump's and your allegations are therefore, completely, utterly, totally, inescapably ABSURD.

TLDR

 

[Rumpole]

TLDR

To adequately tackle the subject VOLUMES have been written and are necessary given the complexity of the subject, but you can't handle a few lines.

You are ignorant.

You cling to lies like a fly clings to shit.

 

[Rumpole]

TLDR

First you assert that you argued with far more intelligent people than me.

Okay, I provided you with robust, intelligent, rebuttal.

What do you do?

You run away like a kid on a tricycle.

You ignorant son of a bitch.

 

[Lastamender]

To adequately tackle the subject VOLUMES have been written and are necessary given the complexity of the subject, but you can't handle a few lines.

You are ignorant.

You cling to lies like a fly clings to shit.

GFY troll.

 

[Chillicothe]

Ah, poster Rumpbole....your patience is admirable.
But you are debating with a black-hole. There is no there there.


And then to good poster Lastamender:
We must admire your intransigent obsession with a stolen election in 2020.
And that's OK, you be you.

However, don't you feel an adult man's sense of responsibility to do more than merely complain and whine?
Can't you do something more than merely hissyfit anonymously on a social media site....while using a fake name?

In my real world reality, such folks are considered ineffective men. Ne'er-do-wells. Dry-fires. Slow leaks.

So, the obvious questions must be: What are you gonna do....what have you done? .....about this conviction of a stolen election?

Have you taken your evidence to the FBI?
To the DOJ?
To the Secretary of State ...or whoever is responsible for elections in your State?
Or even your precinct or county?
Have at least spoken to your local sheriff?
Filed or joined in a lawsuit contesting the election in your locale? Or any locale?

Merely, whining and posting 'pooping' emoji's' about a stolen election on an internet gossipboard ain't manly.
Do something. So something adult. Something responsible.
Be a can-do get-er-done kind of citizen.
Don't be a Karen. Or a Dick. Or a whiner.

Just sayin'.

 

[Faun]

It has been proven that anything that close should not be defended unless it is by fellow perverts. Where does that leave you?

It leaves me laughing at perverted idiots like you who don't understand English.

 

[Faun]

Shit for brains anyone into incest is the one who brought the subject up. That would be you.projectionist

LOL

False, ya inbred incel. Lastamender brought it up. Now you're accusing him of being into incest.

 

[Faun]

Nope, there was no honesty, no sharing of information, no transparency, just actibely fighting against allowing the public to see the books.

You're deranged. The SoS office immediately released the entire surveillance video to show Trump's attorneys were lying to the GA Senate by cherry picking selected scenes from the video to cobble together a false narrative of election fraud where there was no fraud at all. They couldn't have been more transparent.

 

[Faun]

None of that changes the fact the 2020 election was stolen.