U.S. attorney in Georgia: ‘There’s just nothing to’ claims of election fraud

[GolfingChef]

Okay..... did they, the state court or Supreme Court hear the grievances? Yes or no?

In most cases yes. In the Pa case that made it to the SCOTUS both sides were given time to present their briefs to SCOTUS. In the Texas case before SCOTUS the same occurred, in fact many other parties from both sides were allowed to present them as well.

Then in Wi, the Trump legal team was given the opportunity to present all their evidence and for some inexplicable reason they declined. You can read about it here... https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...rom-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/

Then there was the case of Trump campaign et al v. Kathy Boockvar et al. In this case the judge heard opening arguments Nov. 17 in a Philadelphia federal court. What the Trump team asked for was denied and then the denial was upheld by the appellate court.

Then there is the case of Trump campaign v. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. This was denied due to "the lack of evidence and detail provided by the campaign.". So, once again they were given the chance and they failed to provide any real evidence.

Then in Az there was Aguilera v. Fontes, which the Trump legal team joined and when the judge instructed the two sides to find a path going forward, the Trump team withdrew their lawsuit instead of working with the other side and the judge.

I could go on and on and on and on and on....but really what is the poing

 

[GolfingChef]

THE MAN WHO WILL SAVE AMERICA... "This Isn't the Beating of a Drum, This Is the Burning of a City!" - Inventor Jovan Pulitzer DESTROYS Georgia's Corrupted 2020 Election Results | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft | 88

Inventor Jovan Hutton Pulitzer was in front of the Georgia Senate today and he totally destroyed Georgia’s 2020 election results and offered a plan where for free, he will determine the accurate results by examining the paper ballots used in the election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The fact you are linking to the GWP does nothing but further prove you have no real information on this topic.

First off Jovan Pulitzer is neither a hacker nor an elections security expert as the GOP claimed. This is a common tactic for them. In Az they had a financial planner masquerading as a mathematician. If the case is so strong, why do they need to lie about the credentials of their experts?

Second, Jovan Pulitzer provided not one tiny bit of evidence to support the claims he made to the Ga senate fake hearing. There is a reason that nobody was sworn in for these hearings and there was no "cross examination" allowed.

Here is some more information the guy in your link...please take the time to read it and educate yourself

Fact Check Georgia Senate Masquerades Failed Treasure Hunter As Hacker And Election Security Expert | Elections

 

[bubbabgone]

The "why" is because not everyone in the country agrees with you or Alito. Even the majority of the SCOTUS does not agree. All it takes is 4 justices to agree to hear a case.

You don't have to agree with me or Alito to know election fraud needs to be eliminated.
Unless you believe it's okay sometimes and so you choose to remain silent.
As far as the SC is concerned, was it you who posted that NYT article that you hadn't thoroughly read ... and understood?

 

[bubbabgone]

In case, you are not aware of it, the supreme court has nine judges. What the most conservative judge says is not the opinion of the court. And by the way, even when courts have issued opinions against states for unconstitutional practices like racial gerrymandering, such decisions came in some cases after the elections still did not alter the election results.

3 others agreed with him .. "In case, you are not aware of it,"

 

[bubbabgone]

The SCOTUS pretty much stayed out of the fiasco.

They did indeed. Because the voting had begun. That reality has been lost on some here.

 

[bubbabgone]

Proof validated the accuracy of the claim...hence, argument over unless it's refuted. Which you have not managed.

See post 281 for such proof.

And #304 straightened you out. Now you choose to be bent again.

 

[bubbabgone]

Your response makes no sense...it seems you didnt understand that one either. Good lord, I realize the legal decisions may be difficult for you, but to so poorly understand basic English? I see you have just given up.

You havent refuted my argument...and it's here for any who are interested.

Post 281 for reference

#304

 

[Tahuyaman]

They did indeed. Because the voting had begun. That reality has been lost on some here.

some people are intellectually lazy and simply go with what some hack tells them.

 

[bubbabgone]

some people are intellectually lazy and simply go with what some hack tells them.

But their level of persistence in floating the same flawed arguments is impressive. I can't say it's better than nothing, but it is something.

 

[Tahuyaman]

*sigh* Here, again:

The “elections clause” of the U.S. Constitution is Article I, § 4, clause 1. This clause basically says state legislatures can set their own rules for elections:​

​

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of choosing Senators."​

And the previous SCOTUS decision on states changing their election laws:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has said the framers intended the clause as “a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”​

Since Nov, several justices, including right-leaning Alito when he examined personally the PA *STATE* supreme court case (because he oversees that federal court district) said that they are very unwilling to disenfranchise millions of voters who voted in good faith. In other words, the will of the voters is more important than process.

Now do you understand why the challenges to state laws were not heard further? (Not to mention that many had passed their filing deadlines and of course, TX had no standing to challenge other state's decisions (also determined by precedent.)

If not, what do you still challenge here? What dont you understand?

Yes state legislatures are responsible for creating or altering their election laws . Not judges, state auditors or a committee of appointees . Only the state legislature.

 

[pamak]

3 others agreed with him .. "In case, you are not aware of it,"

No, the court did not. agree That is why the result stood,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

and you know nothing about what others thought about the constitutionality of case other than some wanted the court to review it!



Also the difference in Pennsylvania was wider than the number of the ballots that were set separately.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

So, any attempt to argue that the election result should be cancelled makes zero sense

 

[donsutherland1]

Yes state legislatures are responsible for creating or altering their election laws . Not judges, state auditors or a committee of appointees . Only the state legislature.

That’s what happened. The Pennsylvania state legislature established the process through Act 77. That there was a process defect (a second approval was needed given that Act 77 would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution) does not change the reality that the legislature adopted the process and that process was executed in good faith.

The legislature did not contest or otherwise seek to overturn Act 77. Instead, a few Republican legislators sought to do so, but only after the election had been held and the outcome was known.

Their lawsuit (Kelly v. Pennsylvania) was almost certainly filed not to address a procedural defect, but solely to overturn the outcome of an election those Republican legislators (as distinct from the legislature as an entire body) did not like. Those legislators had ample opportunity to address procedural issues well before the election, much less before the election outcome was known. They made no such effort either through the introduction of legislation or in court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized their bad faith and denied them relief. It explained:

Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. Petitioners’ challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment...

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, the court did not. agree That is why the result stood,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

and you know nothing about what others thought about the constitutionality of case other than some wanted the court to review it!



Also the difference in Pennsylvania was wider than the number of the ballots that were set separately.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

The court didn't take any case.
Three other justices agreed with Alito about what looked like election problems .
Apparently you're another one who thinks that if the USSC doesn't take a case it's the same as the USSC rendering an opinion.
It isn't.

 

[jpn]

That my friend is a contradiction requiring one to ignore the oppositions grievances, and the very opposite of democracy you espouse to hold dear. They maybe lackeys, and your president may be psychotic but 74 million Trump voters do not agree with you. Black or white doesn't cut it!
The intelligent procedure would of those responsible to have a full unfettered investigation instigated a full investigation, not the attempts and refusal to have court cases held in camera.

So what does Scotland do when their ruling party becomes a cult and its cult leader refuses to accept defeat? Endlessly coddle their delusions? Or, at some point, after all the recounts and courts fights have ended, move on?

 

[jpn]

THE MAN WHO WILL SAVE AMERICA... "This Isn't the Beating of a Drum, This Is the Burning of a City!" - Inventor Jovan Pulitzer DESTROYS Georgia's Corrupted 2020 Election Results | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft | 88

Inventor Jovan Hutton Pulitzer was in front of the Georgia Senate today and he totally destroyed Georgia’s 2020 election results and offered a plan where for free, he will determine the accurate results by examining the paper ballots used in the election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Just so you know, Gateway Pundit is far right propaganda. Reading crap like this make you less informed and more deluded.

 

[pamak]

The court didn't take any case.
Three other justices agreed with Alito about what looked like election problems .
Apparently you're another one who thinks that if the USSC doesn't take a case it's the same as the USSC rendering an opinion.
It isn't.

From the decision, you chose to quote selectively

But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election.

You make things up. Reviewing a case is different from taking a stance. So, you assume things about the decision of the court

Finally, you make also assumptions about the remedies as a result of any decision. As I said, the difference between Biden and Trump in Pennsylvania was much wider than the number of the ballots that were set separately. So, the decision would not affect the outcome even if it invalidated all ballots that arrived after the election day.

About 10,000 Pennsylvania mail-in ballots arrived after Election Day — far too few to change the result if they’re thrown out

The vote counting continues. Even after races are called, even after the world’s eyes turn from Pennsylvania, workers are continuing to count ballots. Many of the remaining ballots are the sl…

www.chicagotribune.com

Biden had 47,600 more of the already-counted votes than President Donald Trump did as of Wednesday.

While there are tens of thousands of remaining votes — including about 10,000 that arrived during a three-day post-Election Day grace period that Republicans are challenging in court — many of the remaining ballots are not being challenged in any way and will be counted. And the remaining votes being challenged, even if all of them are thrown out, would not reverse Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania.

 

[jpn]

The didn't hear argument as far as I know, each court stated the other had jurisdiction.
Your president stated the same thing, Dominion isn't going after Trump!

You'd think a legal team that actually had something of substance to introduce would be able to figure out the legal requirements to do so. If they can't handle simple legal procedures, how do you expect them to run a nation? (Well, they can't. Look at their disastrous Covid response.)

 

[What if...?]

IOW, you were caught. Trump NEVER filed anywhere near 60 cases.

Don't feel bad. I have destroyed your buddies when they post this bogus claim. You are in a very big group of those who have been decimated by me.

I think that's Big Gulps of Koolade you've decimated.

 

[Tahuyaman]

That’s what happened. The Pennsylvania state legislature established the process through Act 77. That there was a process defect (a second approval was needed given that Act 77 would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution) does not change the reality that the legislature adopted the process and that process was executed in good faith.

The legislature did not contest or otherwise seek to overturn Act 77. Instead, a few Republican legislators sought to do so, but only after the election had been held and the outcome was known.

Their lawsuit (Kelly v. Pennsylvania) was almost certainly filed not to address a procedural defect, but solely to overturn the outcome of an election those Republican legislators (as distinct from the legislature as an entire body) did not like. Those legislators had ample opportunity to address procedural issues well before the election, much less before the election outcome was known. They made no such effort either through the introduction of legislation or in court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized their bad faith and denied them relief. It explained:

Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. Petitioners’ challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment...

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.

In several cases judges altered the law In other cases state auditors or non-legislative committees altered the law/rules Only a state legislature has that authority. They can not grant that authority to the judiciary or political appointees.

 

[What if...?]

T

You'd think a legal team that actually had something of substance to introduce would be able to figure out the legal requirements to do so. If they can't handle simple legal procedures, how do you expect them to run a nation? (Well, they can't. Look at their disastrous Covid response.)

They may have filed them knowing they would be rejected.

Bolstering the cover-up conspiracy.

They have no respect whatsoever for the people who support them.

They know they can lie to them at will and they won't hear any evidence to the contrary. Perfect box.

 

[GolfingChef]

You don't have to agree with me or Alito to know election fraud needs to be eliminated.

Nobody has argued that fact. But most people know that you cannot get rid of 100% of it and that to keep legal people from voting in an attempt to do so is counter productive.

As far as the SC is concerned, was it you who posted that NYT article that you hadn't thoroughly read ... and understood?

Yep, I did post it and I did read it top to bottom and understood it fully. It is you that has the comprehension issue.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Just so you know, Gateway Pundit is far right propaganda. Reading crap like this make you less informed and more deluded.

When you have nothing to stand on, you attack the source. That's a sign of intellectual laziness.

 

[GolfingChef]

3 others agreed with him .. "In case, you are not aware of it,"

If 3 others had agreed with him, then the court would have taken the case, it only take 4 justices to agree to take up a case.

 

[bubbabgone]

From the decision, you chose to quote selectively

But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election.

You make things up. Reviewing a case is different from taking a stance. So, you assume things about the decision of the court

Finally, y ou make also assumptions about the remedies as a result of any decision. As I said, the difference between Biden and Trump in Pennsylvania was wider than the number of the ballots that were set separately. So, the decision would not affect the outcome even if it was made before the election

Alito wrote that for the Court.
He said it was 4 o 4 whether to grant the writ.
He said what the PASC admitted they thought what they did was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,”.
Alito called bullshit on that.
Because it was bullshit.
Don't you people read your own links?

 

[bubbabgone]

Nobody has argued that fact. But most people know that you cannot get rid of 100% of it and that to keep legal people from voting in an attempt to do so is counter productive.



Yep, I did post it and I did read it top to bottom and understood it fully. It is you that has the comprehension issue.

Who agreed with Alito as noted in the article?