Or fake conspiracies just in case they are thwarted legitimately @busillis

I mean, ultimately, that's nothing new. Evidence is evidence by any reasonable definition. If a group of people is determined and set in their view then they'll call anything contradictory "not evidence". I think it's very telling just how many of the cases weren't even heard.

@james j It is the response.

From the PA response:

*"The Court recently recognized the primacy of voters’ reliance interests in Andino v. Middleton, 20A55 (Oct.5, 2020). There, a South Carolina District Court order (entered on September 18, 2020), enjoined that state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 5, this Court stayed the District Court’s decision,thus reinstating the wit-ness requirement. Recognizing that South Carolina voters submitted ballots without witnesses in the timeframe between the District Court’s September 18 injunction and this Court’s October 5 stay, however, this Court specified that “any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the wit-ness requirement.” Andino v. Middleton,2020 WL 5887393 *1 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020).

This Court thus acknowledged that voters should not be punished for relying upon the rules in place when they voted. Similar reliance interests here compel this Court to maintain the status quo for Pennsylvania voters at this late juncture. Overturning Pennsylvania’s election results is contrary to any metric of fairness and would do nothing less than deny the fundamental right to vote to millions of Pennsylvania’s citizens."*

To my knowledge yes.

The campaigns would likely have very accurate polling data.@james j

Exactly.

The cases were heard you just blame your opponents for presenting junk 😅

*Finally, if original jurisdiction is allowed, this type of litigation will crowdthe Court’s docketevery four years. Given the global pandemic, many States were forced to modify their election process, including mail-in voting procedures. Texas did.7And most, if not every, state has been sued during this election.Texas has.*

This is hilarious, lol.

Context?

Or at least page # 🙏🏼

There is a distinction... I can allege anything about anyone. I can allege that my neighbor is a serial killer because I saw him leaving his house at odd hours and taking things into his shed at night in a sneaky manner. That allegation means nothing without actual proof.

>rejected on laches
>many rejected on grounds of not being the offended party

That's not being heard.

without evidence*

> in any event, are barred by laches,
lol, the laches catch-22 again.

> and are moot, meritless,
so they say

> and dangerous.
It's very dangerous to call speech or allegations dangerous.

> Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election
Conjecture on motive [directly contradictory to stated motive], gross.

I just want to hear the cases. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Too much to ask?

Yes it is. They could have presented better cases not dismissed by such things but they didnt 🤷

Apparently so.

If Trumps legal team made good faith lawsuits they would have been heard

???

Perhaps that was never the intention.

@yetiCodes you heard their low quality arguments in the hearings. The mellisa carone lady was heard by the court and found to be non credible

I have not read or seen anything put forward in the Trump, Trump Campaign, Powell, Wood, etc. lawsuits that were anything other than allegations. If they had any substance, they would be able to point to arrests made. You mean to tell me that not one law enforcement officer supported Trump enough to investigate fraud and pursue any fraud cases?

There was no proof in the hearing just more allegations @yetiCodes

🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

>Video evidence isn't proof

Man, it's the OJ case all over again.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

How do you investigate things that are unverifiable @yetiCodes like I said the state witnesses was deemed not credible by the court and she was heard there

We disagree on this and neither of us will budge, so let’s move on from this one.

Criminal cases would have to have a much higher bar of evidence than civil.

The video was doctored.

LOL

Clearly 😂

How can you disagree that nothing was proven or verifiable @yetiCodes

> Perhaps that was never the intention.
@busillis Still right there with you. Also still can't figure out how any of it works tactically.

The video wasnt doctored it just followed the official investigations version of events.

The video was investigated and found no malfeasance or mystery ballots. @yetiCodes how did you miss out on this key part surrounding the video @Starscraper

Just remember, if he's robbed, video evidence, witnesses, audio recordings, and anomalous activity of the suspects are all "not evidence" in his case.

It was like a bad lip reading video. They simply overlayed the context they desired.

I’m just poking fun at the “no evidence ever” camp.

Trumps team wanted to present an alternative theory as to the version of events

They haven't stood up to the lowest bar... as asserted by the judge in the NV case last week. This was after reviewing actual testimony from affiants and experts under oath and cross examination.

There was no robbery in the video. You are just seeing people doing their job and interpreting it as fraud . Like I said did you see the results of that investigation @Starscraper

One of those versions was more credible 😂

If SCOTUS hears this case, will any of that be live-streamed?

@james j Correct. The proper comparison would be claiming that the video showed a kidnapping or something, with witnesses etc.

I love the "oFfIcIaL iNvEsTiGaTiOn" where all the press and GOP workers were told to leave the room and corroborating media reports from the time say the center closed but then they pulled crates of ballots from a hidden spot under a table out to count for hours after everyone was gone.

Love it. I should do one of those late-night "no opposition present" tabulating parties next election if they're so legal and legit.

Does violation of Election Laws require Intent or are they Strict Liability Based?

Lol. I want to join team “no evidence exists ever” just so I can be a full-time devil’s advocate.

@yetiCodes, you just advanced to level 12!

If you tell people so and so is a drunk for months and then you show someone a video of them drinking a clear liquid, (if they trust, and want to believe you, as Trump has done to his base with faux voter fraud) you make be more prone to believe that person is drinking vodka when in reality they are just drinking water @Starscraper

Months of planting with his seed.

No honest person can watch that video and say it's not at least highly suspect.

No honest person.

Lmao

Damn! "Texas liter-ally seeks to decimate the electorate of the United States"

See, I agree. Official stories are normally BS. But if you say that then people dismiss you as having a collection of tinfoil hats and you don’t get to have meaningful discussions.

Months of "hey, don't listen to that guy if he calls fraud, okay! Because we totally won't."

Do you not know what an investigation is? 😅

@Starscraper the investigation found that all the press and poll watchers were present for the processing of ballots. They left out of confusion however the counting of the ballots did not require them and so the continued with the counting as per law

LOL

So which is it, were they all present or did they leave?

Like, it's not even a contradiction at all.

No, show the video and make up what is happening when it was already known. That's an investigation.

You just admitted they left.

You realize there are two different steps right? The processing and counting? @Starscraper

Did anyone happen to catch that quote that I posted a few minutes ago? It was from the South Carolina case before the election. South Carolina had relaxed the requirement of having witness signatures on mail-in ballots. The US SC decided that they did not have the authority to make that change - so signatures needed to be required. In their ruling, SCOTUS ordered that the votes received up until their ruling and 2 days after did NOT have to have signatures of witnesses, because they did not think it was appropriate to disenfranchise the citizens of South Carolina who voted in good faith...

TX is drawing dead. Even if they won, the precedence set in this election by SCOTUS would preclude them from granting the relief sought.

💩 read again

@yetiCodes the official investigation involved hours of footage not just 2 min

I wouldn't change a word of the response preliminary statement. Priceless.

If that's how it goes, then I hope to God these states secede. There's no point in talking to people who can cheat, get caught cheating on video, and STILL get away with it. There's no point in playing these games anymore if the other side just cheats their way to victory and there's no recourse.

Such certainty.

Such bold ignorance

I hope the red states secede, leave the majority of the population alone and quit being leaches to the union

Almost like had direct access. Almost.

My statement is more broadly addressing that every conspiracy theory is just that until it’s not. That’s why I’m just sitting back and waiting to see how this all shakes out.

Up until today, maybe yesterday, the Hunter Biden allegations were a baseless smear campaign... and now we find out (conveniently after the election) that he’s been under investigation for two years..

I wonder if that would have influenced some votes.

@yetiCodes this video conspiracy theory has been shredded to pieces

Perhaps it did.

"conspiracy theory"

Uh what? Are you linking the investigation to Guilianis fiction?

The feeling is mutual.

Or... your assumptions might be wrong. GA is a fairly red state, the investigations were conducted by the Republican SoS's office, the vote was certified by the Republican governor who has been an ardent Trump supporter.

Those Republicans are Soros shills. Theory bandaid successful.

@Starscraper only I am speaking about reality. Red states leech money off of blue states as they have no real industry to sustain themselves. Aside from Texas which is already turning blue

And blue states don't make their own food.

So you keep your money, we'll keep our food, and that'll go well for everyone, right?

Except one of those is a bit more important than the other.

We can get food from around the world

We aren’t depending on red states for food

Of course, though, independent government doesn't mean no trade.

Laptop? Crack? Hookers? Foreign money? Big politicians son unqualified for job gets job and has sketchy dealings... you know, Hunter?

The media dismissed it and didn’t cover it at all other then to denounce it.

Can buy it from red states, just like now.

California produces almost all of the fruits and vegetables in America

California can't even provide their own power.

Lol California will be ok.

CA is the number one agriculture producer in the nation... Fact.

Yet they do and are also the worlds 5 th biggest economy

It's divided among more states.

Also CA produces its food from red areas.