• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barr Says Justice Dept. Has Not Seen Evidence of Fraud That Would Undo Biden’s Win

Donald Trump personally does not have standing to file. That is why he is not a plaintiff in any of these cases.

You are correct in saying that there have not been 40 cases filed and lost. The number comes from how many times Trump (or, more accurately his surrogates) has been ruled against.

Some of those cases involved multiple negative rulings.

I'm being colloquial, but while the none of the lawsuits were "lost," being ruled against sure as hell ain't winning.
 
Did you read my post?

If you want me to be specific, pick a case. There are plenty. I don't really feel like running around after moving goalposts.
So does that mean you don't want to answer or you don't know? The majority of the cases are being thrown out under one legal doctrine.

You either know it or you don't. Do you?
 
So does that mean you don't want to answer or you don't know? The majority of the cases are being thrown out under one legal doctrine.

You either know it or you don't. Do you?

Most of the cases that have already been tossed out have been based on standing, or failure to state a claim, or laches.
 
What's "laches"?

A legal doctrine in which claims that are made after unreasonable delays are dismissed.

As an example of the doctrine of laches will likely apply in Powell's Michigan Kraken - in which one of her claims is that using Dominion in the first place is unconstitutional.

Michigan started using Dominion machines in 2017. The fact that Powell waited three years (until after her pseudo-client lost the election) to file that claim - which could have been filed at any point before - is almost certain to doom the claim entirely.
 
A legal doctrine in which claims that are made after unreasonable delays are dismissed.

As an example of the doctrine of laches will likely apply in Powell's Michigan Kraken - in which one of her claims is that using Dominion in the first place is unconstitutional.

Michigan started using Dominion machines in 2017. The fact that Powell waited three years (until after her pseudo-client lost the election) to file that claim - which could have been filed at any point before - is almost certain to doom the claim entirely.

That sounds like acquiescence.
 
When the “Kraken” “laches” on to your ass, you will know............. ;)
 
Barr can't unimpeachably state that he has seen no fraud, because he hes been part of perpetrating it. That's why he qualified it, that he'd seen none that would have changed the outcome.
 
It is very similar - both are types of estoppel.

The difference is technical - estoppel by acquiescence requires an intentional act (giving "permission"), whereas laches does not.

It's possible I've been using the wrong word this whole time.

A neighborhood covenant prohibits giant naked statues of Roseanne Barr. I build a naked Roseanne statue anyway in violation of the covenant on my front lawn where everybody can see it. Ten years pass without anybody saying anything about it, until one day I refuse to loan a neighbor my lawn mower and in retaliation he sues me over the covenant violation. The judge, I assume, would throw out the case under the reasoning that he had ten years to file a complaint and through his silence he had...acquiesced...to the existence of the statue.

Acquiescence or laches?
 
It's possible I've been using the wrong word this whole time.

A neighborhood covenant prohibits giant naked statues of Roseanne Barr. I build a naked Roseanne statue anyway in violation of the covenant on my front lawn where everybody can see it. Ten years pass without anybody saying anything about it, until one day I refuse to loan a neighbor my lawn mower and in retaliation he sues me over the covenant violation. The judge, I assume, would throw out the case under the reasoning that he had ten years to file a complaint and through his silence he had...acquiesced...to the existence of the statue.

Acquiescence or laches?

Laches.

Acquiescence would apply if you asked someone at your HOA if you could put up a statue of naked Roseanne, and someone said yes - and then 6 months later they try to fine you for it.
 
I believe Powell and Wood have come to the conclusion that there is more money in being Q Prophets than actually and seriously practicing law.
Maybe they will get all the Trump followers to donate money to them so they can keep their case going and make millions like Trump is.
I am sure Trumps followers are stupid enough to donate to them seeing they are stupid enough to give money to somebody who says he is a Billionaire
Have a nice evening.
 


Brad Heath's most on-point tweet in all of this: "Covering bullshit intelligently is maybe the biggest challenge in journalism right now."
 
Another deflection, again contrary to the evidence. Snakestetcher literally claimed Trump stopped whining about an election he won; it's untrue, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, and clear that Trump does not have that much restraint. Do you have any evidence of such, since you jumped in to defend SS who was defending Trump, or are you going to do the same tactic of stomping your foot and saying "uh nuh"?

I've literally given you both a chance to explain yourselves; and you've both only defended Donald Trump by denying that he did things he clearly did, and then turn around and say "I'm not defending Trump." Why?

Why don't you go back and read. Quote me defending Trump by denying he did things he clearly did. Go ahead, I'll wait. While I'm waiting, just who do you think you are that anyone has to 'explain themselves' to YOU. Pft...

You have NOT 'repeatedly' demonstrated anything. You literally posted ONE link (at that time) that DID NOT say what you said it did. I'm not disputing what Trump did or did not do, I'm disputing what YOU did.

And AGAIN, SS was NOT defending Trump. Good grief!
 
Pretty big. And pretty systemic. we've got to lock our elections down, especially the mail in balloting process, and the transparency in canvassing the votes.. You don't think we should do better?
Better than what?
So far there hasn't been anything that says we need to be better. But the goal of every thing we do, is to get better. There's always room for improvement.

But there's also a cost vs benefit analysis.
There's noting big or systemic wrong with the vote process at this time. At least nothing any one can shed some light on.
 
You said the headline, "Barr Says Justice Dept. Has Not Seen Evidence of Fraud That Would Undo Biden’s Win," was incorrect because he never said that. His actual words, "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” does not change the meaning of the headline.
If you really care you should look at what I was responding to again.
 
A legal doctrine in which claims that are made after unreasonable delays are dismissed.

As an example of the doctrine of laches will likely apply in Powell's Michigan Kraken - in which one of her claims is that using Dominion in the first place is unconstitutional.

Michigan started using Dominion machines in 2017. The fact that Powell waited three years (until after her pseudo-client lost the election) to file that claim - which could have been filed at any point before - is almost certain to doom the claim entirely.
Better than what?
So far there hasn't been anything that says we need to be better. But the goal of every thing we do, is to get better. There's always room for improvement.

But there's also a cost vs benefit analysis.
There's noting big or systemic wrong with the vote process at this time. At least nothing any one can shed some light on.

There were a lot of big issues with this election. Many of them aren't really even related to cost benefit - but with things like transparency, good practice, and even flat following the law.
 
There were a lot of big issues with this election. Many of them aren't really even related to cost benefit - but with things like transparency, good practice, and even flat following the law.

You're looking at this wrong.

Even if some of Powell's allegations are true, does that mean she is automatically entitled to the relief that she demands?

One of the Krakens demanded that a quarter of a million ballots be delegitimized because *a law the legislature passed 3 years before* should be declared unconstitutional.

Think about that. Do you think the votes of 250,000 Americans should be discounted because of a law the state government passed three years before the election - and that no one had an issue with until they lost their elections?

Does that make sense?
 
You're looking at this wrong.

Even if some of Powell's allegations are true, does that mean she is automatically entitled to the relief that she demands?

One of the Krakens demanded that a quarter of a million ballots be delegitimized because *a law the legislature passed 3 years before* should be declared unconstitutional.

Think about that. Do you think the votes of 250,000 Americans should be discounted because of a law the state government passed three years before the election - and that no one had an issue with until they lost their elections?

Does that make sense?

Courts don't grant the relief requested all the time. Laches shouldn't be the easy cop out the judiciary is using it as. Its pretty hard to tell if election law is going to affect an election until you have an election, for instance. So how do you know to sue over the law until you see its impact?

Laches is a lazy catch 22 legal excuse to adjudicating something that has immense implications.
 
Courts don't grant the relief requested all the time. Laches shouldn't be the easy cop out the judiciary is using it as. Its pretty hard to tell if election law is going to affect an election until you have an election, for instance. So how do you know to sue over the law until you see its impact?

Laches is a lazy catch 22 legal excuse to adjudicating something that has immense implications.

Every piece of evidence that Powell cited to further her argument that simply contracting with Dominion was unconstitutional was available to her, and everyone else in the world years ago.

Do you think she would have brought this lawsuit if Trump had won? (Don't bother answering)

Thats why the doctrine of laches is relevant. You can't wait until after you lose to challenge rules of the game.
 
Every piece of evidence that Powell cited to further her argument that simply contracting with Dominion was unconstitutional was available to her, and everyone else in the world years ago.

Do you think she would have brought this lawsuit if Trump had won? (Don't bother answering)

Thats why the doctrine of laches is relevant. You can't wait until after you lose to challenge rules of the game.

So years ago, we knew Dominion was principally a foreign company? Secondly, how do you show harm unless and until the possibility occurs due to an election? Without an election you don't have harm to show standing, but by using laches, you can't show standing after harm has occurred. Laches is lazy law on the part of the bench.
 
So years ago, we knew Dominion was principally a foreign company? Secondly, how do you show harm unless and until the possibility occurs due to an election? Without an election you don't have harm to show standing, but by using laches, you can't show standing after harm has occurred. Laches is lazy law on the part of the bench.

Dominion is not a "principally foreign company". The founders of the company are Canadian by birth, but the company is American.

If contracting with Dominion was unconstitutional, any registered voter in the state would have had standing - years ago.

I think you're not understanding how the doctrine works.
 
Dominion is not a "principally foreign company". The founders of the company are Canadian by birth, but the company is American.

If contracting with Dominion was unconstitutional, any registered voter in the state would have had standing - years ago.

I think you're not understanding how the doctrine works.

You lack standing until harm has occurred. Harm cannot occur until an election. The courts are holding that because they didn't sue before harm occurred, when they would have no standing, they don't have standing.

Its lazy jurisprudence.
 
Back
Top Bottom