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

[GolfingChef]

It may not have affected this result but we have to be honest and recognize that it happened and prevent a recurrence that might.

Well, it is almost 2 years till the next Congressional elections and almost 4 years till the next presidential election.

This should be plenty of time for those who agree with you to prove their case in the proper arena, the courts of law.

My only hope is that you actually focus on all the states that did the things you think were illegal and not just the "swing states". For example both NC and PA changed the date that mail-in ballots could be received and yet you have never once mentioned NC in all your postings on here, instead focusing only on the states that Trump lost. This is the sort of thing that gives people reason to believe you do not really give a **** about legality but only about Trump

 

[LouC]

Well, it is almost 2 years till the next Congressional elections and almost 4 years till the next presidential election.

This should be plenty of time for those who agree with you to prove their case in the proper arena, the courts of law.

My only hope is that you actually focus on all the states that did the things you think were illegal and not just the "swing states". For example both NC and PA changed the date that mail-in ballots could be received and yet you have never once mentioned NC in all your postings on here, instead focusing only on the states that Trump lost. This is the sort of thing that gives people reason to believe you do not really give a **** about legality but only about Trump

Obviously there WAS NO CHEATING IN THE STATES TRUMP WON, right, Right?

 

[bubbabgone]

The lack of comprehension is on your side which has a veryyyy simplistic notion of how the constitution and different laws are intepreted and applied.
Your argument in this thread is like saying that because the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to declare war ( article 1 section 8), the chief of the executive branch cannot take unilateral military actions against another country during an emergency such as after being attacked. The legal interpretations are more nuanced than the way you present them.

Nope.
Without identifying you by name Alito said you were wrong. And your analogy was silly.

“needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,”
“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,”
“That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, it is almost 2 years till the next Congressional elections and almost 4 years till the next presidential election.

This should be plenty of time for those who agree with you to prove their case in the proper arena, the courts of law.

My only hope is that you actually focus on all the states that did the things you think were illegal and not just the "swing states". For example both NC and PA changed the date that mail-in ballots could be received and yet you have never once mentioned NC in all your postings on here, instead focusing only on the states that Trump lost. This is the sort of thing that gives people reason to believe you do not really give a **** about legality but only about Trump

Any state that violated their own election laws should be brought up short before the next election(s).
Kavanaugh mentioned NC and he was right.
I don't really care how suspicious anyone gets because I didn't cover every accusation of election fraud in every State.
They should worry about why they're defending it all.
This is serious stuff.

 

[GolfingChef]

Any state that violated their own election laws should be brought up short before the next election(s).
Kavanaugh mentioned NC and he was right.
I don't really care how suspicious anyone gets because I didn't cover every accusation of election fraud in every State.
They should worry about why they're defending it all.
This is serious stuff.

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.

 

[pamak]

Nope.
Without identifying you by name Alito said you were wrong. And your analogy was silly.

“needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,”
“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,”
“That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

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.

 

[Highlanders]

Highlander. There was no widespread cheating in the election. This election was every bit as fair as any other. There was only one difference: Trump is a psychopath who can't stand losing. So he was claimed fraud in 2016 when he didn't win the popular vote, he claimed fraud before the 2020 election even began, and he claimed fraud when he lost this election. By eight million votes. He couldn't even admit that the crowd at his Inaugural was smaller than Obama's.

That's the only difference between this and other elections. But instead of Republicans being loyal to our democratic institutions, they are loyal to Trump alone. And so they repeat his baseless claims.
The alternative reality media machines of the far right repeat and magnify the baseless claims.

Despite many reviews of the count, and recounts, and hand recounts, and over five dozen failed court cases, Trump and his base of followers still claim fraud.

Now, what would it take for them to admit they lost? Another recount? Seriously? You think that would do it? You think Trump is ever going to say, "Oh, okay, you proved that I lost?" Georgia completed a hand recount. Did that change their minds?

You want integrity and moral necessity? It's called accepting when you lose.

I don't disagree with you, but if I may play devils advocate for a second, why should they accept your word for the loss? It's been stated, there has been no electorial fraud, when the facts stipulate something different, from three voting slips, to one person, to dominion and access to control the vote by fractional counting and voting..... what's wrong with one man, one vote?

 

[Highlanders]

Green is a Qanon conspiracy freak. She'd need to get 218 votes to impeach. She may get five. Not "fascinating"--pathetic.

Yes I agree pathetic and shameful, you espouse the freedom to chose, democratic values, and you cannot run an election!

 

[GolfingChef]

I may play devils advocate for a second, why should they accept your word for the loss?

They should not accept our word. They should accept the word 58 judges (many Trump appointed), 3 state supreme courts, the SCOTUS (with 3 justices hand picked by Trump), the DOJ, the AG, DHS, the Repub parties from multiple states and life long Repubs whom were seen as Trump loyalist on Nov 4th as well as all 50 states that certified their votes and the Congress of the United States that certired the EC vote total.

It's been stated, there has been no electorial fraud

nobody has ever said this

 

[Tahuyaman]

I still haven't had anyone produce a statement that indicates the entire US Supreme Court handed down a decision about any of the challenges to the election.
You say you can produce such a decision?

The SCOTUS pretty much stayed out of the fiasco.

 

[Highlanders]

They should not accept our word. They should accept the word 58 judges (many Trump appointed), 3 state supreme courts, the SCOTUS (with 3 justices hand picked by Trump), the DOJ, the AG, DHS, the Repub parties from multiple states and life long Repubs whom were seen as Trump loyalist on Nov 4th as well as all 50 states that certified their votes and the Congress of the United States that certired the EC vote total.



nobody has ever said this

They the Supreme Court and the state court refused to investigate, the alleged corruption.... not going over all that previous ground.

 

[GolfingChef]

They the Supreme Court and the state court refused to investigate, the alleged corruption....

It is not the job of a court to investigate anything. The court looks at the evidence presented to them. The courts did this and found it "lacking" to be polite.

This is because most of it was bullshit, which is why the "the election was stolen" side had to rely on fake experts and lies

 

[Lursa]

A claim isn't an argument either.

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.

 

[CaughtInThe]

So many people's lives ruined because Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity had the push the massive lie about the election.

 

[Lursa]

At least you recognized your shortcomings.

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

 

[Lursa]

Yes, Alito said that, the rest of the court did not agree. That is how it works. Also, it is interesting that after the election Alito did not choose to reexamine this, wonder why that is.

Just admit you do not give a flying **** about the law and only care about the outcome of this one election.

You didn't read what you linked.
Read it again.
It's the Law that I've been talking about and you've been ignoring.

In what country do you live? In the US, SCOTUS considers laws and rules on their legitimacy and Constitutionality. SCOTUS overturns and/or clarifies laws.

Surely you dont believe that laws are set in stone? I've given you another example of laws passed that have been overturned in SCOTUS decisions...Jeebus, that's their job! LOLOLOLOLOL To examine laws to ensure they are Const and serve the best interests of the people.

You're still being irrelevant, non-responsive, and uncomfortable with the trurth.

LMAO, my post is none of those things...as anyone can see.

And you are unable, AGAIN, to counter my points and just choose personal attack. Your attacks are meaningless...it's a discussion forum...if you cant hold up your argument...you should concede that.

 

[jpn]

I don't disagree with you, but if I may play devils advocate for a second, why should they accept your word for the loss? It's been stated, there has been no electorial fraud, when the facts stipulate something different, from three voting slips, to one person, to dominion and access to control the vote by fractional counting and voting..... what's wrong with one man, one vote?

The facts don't "stipulate something different." Take Dominion. Sidney Powell shot her mouth off with all kinds of accusations regarding their counting machines. The accusations were laughed out of court when experts testified as to their veracity.

Now Dominion is suing Powell for $1.3 billion. They are refusing to settle because they want on open, public court case in which Dominion can show the world what a liar Powell is.

 

[jpn]

Yes I agree pathetic and shameful, you espouse the freedom to chose, democratic values, and you cannot run an election!

We can. It's just that this year we have a psychotic president who refuses to accept he lost, and lick-spittle Republican lackeys who refuse to stick up for democracy.

 

[Highlanders]

We can. It's just that this year we have a psychotic president who refuses to accept he lost, and lick-spittle Republican lackeys who refuse to stick up for democracy.

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.

 

[Highlanders]

The facts don't "stipulate something different." Take Dominion. Sidney Powell shot her mouth off with all kinds of accusations regarding their counting machines. The accusations were laughed out of court when experts testified as to their veracity.

Now Dominion is suing Powell for $1.3 billion. They are refusing to settle because they want on open, public court case in which Dominion can show the world what a liar Powell is.

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!

 

[Highlanders]

It is not the job of a court to investigate anything. The court looks at the evidence presented to them. The courts did this and found it "lacking" to be polite.

This is because most of it was bullshit, which is why the "the election was stolen" side had to rely on fake experts and lies

But as I said, the courts refused to hear evidence, because each court said the other had jurisdiction.

Doesn't change the right of the sovereign nation of America for any court to send it to the Supreme Court to get a judicial review, neither did! Wonder why?

 

[GolfingChef]

But as I said, the courts refused to hear evidence, because each court said the other had jurisdiction.

Yes, I know you said that and that you are just parroting what you were told, but it simply is not true

 

[Highlanders]

Yes, I know you said that and that you are just parroting what you were told, but it simply is not true

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

 

[Plasmaball]

Nothing you say here can be taken for the truth. There may have been ballots shredded by now and there may not but either way you saying so doesn't mean anything. You have a history of just saying whatever sounds good to you, truth be damned.

By law they can't be.

 

[Highlanders]

By law they can't be.

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