Election Litigation Status

[Icarus]

Subs is too stupid to understand what fraud means.

Basically, a "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

The affidavits talking about "irregularities" and "anomalies" are mostly hearsay, unprovable, unsubstantiated assertions that rely on innuendo and hyperbole in order for the Trump gaslighting machine to make use of them.

There is a reason the courts aren't entertaining these idiots.

As RI said, "Many of the affidavits I've seen or read about were signed by election "observers" who didn't understand the process they were observing. So, things that looked like "fraud" to them were actually normal procedures. This happened in one of the Michigan cases. Many of the affidavits are also conclusory -- they go beyond the facts. In this process, courts don't take conclusions by witnesses at face value. So, this process is similar to fact-finding by the judge, only the issue is not who is right, but who is very likely to be right."

Bingo. You're going to have conspiratorial minded Trumpers in the system crying foul over every little thing they perceive to be "irregular." But some idiot claiming he saw "irregularities" because he doesn't understand what's regular, doesn't prove fraud.

[Res Ipsa]

Subs is too stupid to understand what fraud means.

Basically, a "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

The affidavits talking about "irregularities" and "anomalies" are mostly hearsay, unprovable, unsubstantiated assertions that rely on innuendo and hyperbole in order for the Trump gaslighting machine to make use of them.

There is a reason the courts aren't entertaining these idiots.

Sub's definition of "anomaly" is "something that looks suspicious to me because I'm too lazy to get off my ass and spend 15 minutes on google."

[canpakes]

And those irregularities have not yielded fraud.

Fixed that for you, as you’ve not been able to prove ‘fraud’, and given that you don’t even believe that any narrow and targeted fraud scheme exists.

[Res Ipsa]

The Krakken surfaced again, this time in Wisconsin. Same claims, different plaintiffs. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... laint1.pdf

The judge in the Arizona Election contest granted plaintiffs a review of 200 random ballots: 100 to check signatures and 100 damaged ballots. Hearing is set for 12/3.

[canpakes]

Here comes part of the endgame:

Republicans attempting to undo President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to take up their lawsuit, three days after it was thrown out by the highest court in the battleground state.

In the request to the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the Nov. 3 election, and undo any certifications already made, such as Biden’s victory.

They maintain that Pennsylvania’s expansive vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional because it required a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.

Biden beat President Donald Trump by more than 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, a state Trump had won in 2016.

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court on Saturday night threw out the lawsuit, including an order by a lower court judge blocking the certification of any uncertified races.

Justices cited the law's 180-day time limit on filing legal challenges to its provisions, as well as the staggering demand that an entire election be overturned retroactively.

In the state's courts, Kelly and the other Republican plaintiffs had sought to either throw out the 2.5 million mail-in ballots submitted under the law — most of them by Democrats — or to wipe out the election results and direct the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to pick Pennsylvania’s presidential electors.

[Gadianton]

And those irregularities have yielded fraud.

such as?

Barr worded his statement to appease liars such as -- well, you know who I'm talking about.

If there were evidence of any fraud -- minor fraud, miniscule fraud, it would have been put on the table to blow out of proportion by people like -- well, you know.

It does not follow from his statement that any fraud was found, the interpretation that some fraud was found is consistent with the wording but not implied by the wording.

Let's just be clear: nothing that subs has provided indicates any fraud whatsoever. Not minor fraud, not miniscule fraud. No fraud; zero.

Yes, we can infer what we like from "to date"

A classic subs/Ajax argument from ignorance: "The aliens certainly planted the monolith in Utah. We don't have evidence of ET design yet, but nobody can say we won't eventually get it."

[subgenius]

.... We don't have evidence of Russian collusion yet, but nobody can say we won't eventually get it."

FIFY

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

.... I don’t read crap, and I love to drain Trump’s mushroom cock as he insults me and makes me pay for the humiliation.

FTFY.

- Doc

[subgenius]

And those irregularities have yielded fraud.

such as?

Barr worded his statement to appease liars such as -- well, you know who I'm talking about.

If there were evidence of any fraud -- minor fraud, miniscule fraud, it would have been put on the table to blow out of proportion by people like -- well, you know.

It does not follow from his statement that any fraud was found, the interpretation that some fraud was found is consistent with the wording but not implied by the wording.

Let's just be clear: nothing that subs has provided indicates any fraud whatsoever. Not minor fraud, not miniscule fraud. No fraud; zero.

His AP statement literally says there was fraud found; and other States have found fraud (evrn admitting that some fraud occurs during every election). Scale is the point at hand, and the point of the statement (eg "enough to change results").
But let us set the obvious aside for the moment and allow you to answer one simple question.
Given the multiple known "irregularities" , why have none of those irregularities gone for Trump? The overwhelming majority, if not entirety, of "questionable" activities, counts, statistics, anomalies, and ballots have all favored Biden.
What does the empirical reasonable replicatable science tell ya on that?

[canpakes]

His AP statement literally says there was fraud found; and other States have found fraud (evrn admitting that some fraud occurs during every election). Scale is the point at hand, and the point of the statement (eg "enough to change results").

OK, so your position retreats back to something like, “two dozen dead people voted in this election of 155 million ballots cast!!1!”. And half of those ‘dead’ folks have already been discovered to be alive.

Still waiting for some examples of your so-called widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud.

Given the multiple known "irregularities" , why have none of those irregularities gone for Trump? The overwhelming majority, if not entirety, of "questionable" activities, counts, statistics, anomalies, and ballots have all favored Biden.
What does the empirical reasonable replicatable science tell ya on that?

All that you can refer to here are updates to the ongoing count, for which no fraudulent activity has been shown to exist. You just don’t like how the updates occurred. And you have nothing beyond that, let alone something specific to either candidate.

Substituting Trumpy butthurt for examples of so-called widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud isn’t going to make your case. But you don’t even believe your own claim anyway. You certainly won’t commit to saying as much. ; )