Trump would have won if

[Jim_Alaska]

Sorry about that Bill, I must have copied something wrong when I posted that URL. I have fixed it now and it seems to be correct.

[Bouncing Bill]

18 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Here is a link to what has been going on in Pennsylvania regarding election fraud in the last few days.

Pennsylvania Election Fraud Hearings

That was all thrown out of court because those who brought the case could product no evidence to back up their arguments. Indeed, they changed their argument, removing fraud as a charge. You have to have evidence in a court to win, regardless of your beliefs and position. Listen to the give and take  between Giuliani and the judge. It ended up that Giuliani admits he was saying there was fraud. 

Now, these are their actual words, not someone's opinion of what they said. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

If you read the report below the video you see that Giuliani admits he does not know what "strict scrutiny" or "opacity" means. That is embarrassing, especially for a lawyer. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Bouncing Bill

[SureWord]

40 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

That was all thrown out of court because those who brought the case could product no evidence to back up their arguments. Indeed, they changed their argument, removing fraud as a charge. You have to have evidence in a court to win, regardless of your beliefs and position. Listen to the give and take  between Giuliani and the judge. It ended up that Giuliani admits he was saying there was fraud. 

Now, these are their actual words, not someone's opinion of what they said. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-pennsylvania-court-appearance/2020/11/18/ad7288dc-2941-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

If you read the report below the video you see that Giuliani admits he does not know what "strict scrutiny" or "opacity" means. That is embarrassing, especially for a lawyer. 

They want them thrown out of the courts because this will fast track the case to the SCOTUS. The case is about the Constitutional Rights of the POTUS.

Also, nobody believes what that garbage rag WAPO has to say. Pure yellow journalism.

Edited November 27, 2020 by SureWord

[Jim_Alaska]

It may have been thrown out of court, but the charges that were brought were valid and there were credible witnesses to them. You can't fabricate things like how many ballots were mailed out and then disregard 70,000 more ballots coming back than were mailed out. Those were the numbers reported by the precincts themselves, not something that Giuliani made up.

GOP poll watchers not being allowed to watch is valid first hand evidence and patently illegal.

[Bouncing Bill]

35 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

It may have been thrown out of court, but the charges that were brought were valid and there were credible witnesses to them. You can't fabricate things like how many ballots were mailed out and then disregard 70,000 more ballots coming back than were mailed out. Those were the numbers reported by the precincts themselves, not something that Giuliani made up.

GOP poll watchers not being allowed to watch is valid first hand evidence and patently illegal.

This obviously is false information. Why? Because Republicans control both the Pennsylvania House and Senate. If what you posted above was true then they would have been screaming about the fraud. Also, as the controlling party it was the Republicans who set up the counting process. So, I do not believe the charges have any merit. If they had merit the Republican controlled state government would have taken the matter up. But, they, the Republican controlled process was reported by Republicans to have been fair and without fraud.

If you do not like what was done you have to blame the Republicans who controlled the process, IMHO.

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

They want them thrown out of the courts because this will fast track the case to the SCOTUS. The case is about the Constitutional Rights of the POTUS.

Also, nobody believes what that garbage rag WAPO has to say. Pure yellow journalism.

So, you do not believe the recording of what the judge and Giuliani said? It wasn't an opinion pied.

If SCOTUS was going to review the case they would have already done so. Also, even if PA flipped it would not change the results of the electoral college majority. But, it has been certified by Republicans as a Biden win ... certified by PA Republicans. 

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

This obviously is false information. Why? Because Republicans control both the Pennsylvania House and Senate. If what you posted above was true then they would have been screaming about the fraud. Also, as the controlling party it was the Republicans who set up the counting process. So, I do not believe the charges have any merit. If they had merit the Republican controlled state government would have taken the matter up. But, they, the Republican controlled process was reported by Republicans to have been fair and without fraud.

If you do not like what was done you have to blame the Republicans who controlled the process, IMHO.

So, you do not believe the recording of what the judge and Giuliani said? It wasn't an opinion pied.

If SCOTUS was going to review the case they would have already done so. Also, even if PA flipped it would not change the results of the electoral college majority. But, it has been certified by Republicans as a Biden win ... certified by PA Republicans. 

Breaking News just now: 

The case is going to the SCOTUS.

Why would Trump and Giuliani play their hand now? The goal was to get the case to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

And no, the Supreme Court would  not have reviewed it by now. They are the last stop for Constitutional cases. You know that.

By the way, I DO NOT expect Trump to win this case but do not expect him to go away.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by SureWord

[Bouncing Bill]

49 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Breaking News just now: 

The case is going to the SCOTUS.

Why would Trump and Giuliani play their hand now? The goal was to get the case to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

And no, the Supreme Court would  not have reviewed it by now. They are the last stop for Constitutional cases. You know that.

By the way, I DO NOT expect Trump to win this case but do not expect him to go away.

 

I am not doubting your word, but would you give me a reference to that information. I read that a Federal Appeals Court shot down Giuliani today. A caustic comment by the court said, “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,”

The Wall Street Journal quoted the Judge Bibas, and note, Bibas was appointed by Trump

“Calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, for the three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judges-deny-trump-campaigns-appeal-of-pennsylvania-ballot-challenge-11606501438

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-rejects-trump-request-for-emergency-injunction-to-overturn-certification-of-pennsylvanias-election-results/2020/11/27/556540ba-30d7-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Bouncing Bill

[HappyChristian]

A little less biased perspective:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/election-outcome-unclear-amid-pending-recounts-and-legal-challenges_3569967.html

If the fraudulent results are overturned, I'm about certain that Joe and his cronies (like Soros and BO) will push this to SCOTUS.  They could make a ruling, but I'm rather leaning toward thinking they will, with a 5-4 vote that matches the recent religious liberty victories, send it to the House. If they do that - and I know it's an "if" - Trump will win. As I believe he actually did.

[Bouncing Bill]

8 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

A little less biased perspective:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/election-outcome-unclear-amid-pending-recounts-and-legal-challenges_3569967.html

If the fraudulent results are overturned, I'm about certain that Joe and his cronies (like Soros and BO) will push this to SCOTUS.  They could make a ruling, but I'm rather leaning toward thinking they will, with a 5-4 vote that matches the recent religious liberty victories, send it to the House. If they do that - and I know it's an "if" - Trump will win. As I believe he actually did.

How can you continue to believe there was widespread fraud when it was Republican controlled states that made the difference in this election. I am genuinely curious about this, not arguing.  Let's look at the list;

• Arizona
• Georgia
• Pennsylvania
• Michigan
• Wisconsin

Surely you do not believe these Republican controlled states would not have challenged the results if there had been widespread fraud?

Also Federal judges appointed by Trump have thrown cases out, often with caustic remarks about no evidence. 

If the Supreme Court rules without evidence, they everyone of every persuasion is in serous trouble. We are a country of law and if we abandon that then our future is very bleak.

Facts are nasty things sometimes and hard to swallow. 

[Bouncing Bill]

Have y'all noticed that Biden gained a few votes in the Milwaukee County recount of the votes. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/28/939645865/biden-gains-votes-in-recount-of-milwaukee-county-requested-by-trump

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Have y'all noticed that Biden gained a few votes in the Milwaukee County recount of the votes. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/28/939645865/biden-gains-votes-in-recount-of-milwaukee-county-requested-by-trump

And your point is?

[Bouncing Bill]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

And your point is?

Just seems like poetic justice, IMHO.

[Jim_Alaska]

8 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

How can you continue to believe there was widespread fraud when it was Republican controlled states that made the difference in this election.

Also Federal judges appointed by Trump have thrown cases out, often with caustic remarks about no evidence. 

Facts are nasty things sometimes and hard to swallow. 

Yes, facts are nasty things to some people. Ignorance of the process needed to be heard in the SCOTUS seems to be something you either do not know about and are totally ignorant of. For instance your thought processes say that because cases were thrown out, there is no merit or evidence. You fail to realize that this can be, and many times is, the process that leads to the SCOTUS.

Just keep on in your blissful ignorance and we will all be able to see what the SCOTUS has to say in the end.

Just so you do not think that what I said above is something I made up, I would tell you that I have been involved in other legal cases over the years that had nothing to do with the election process, but they were cases that desperately needed to reach the SCOTUS level; many times the deciding process to get them there involved just such instances as I outlined above.

[heartstrings]

21 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Just seems like poetic justice, IMHO.

I find it hard to believe people who push for the baby-killing party, are real Christians.

[Bouncing Bill]

2 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I find it hard to believe people who push for the baby-killing party, are real Christians.

Totally off the topic of this thread.