Voter Fraud

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

As a reminder, a Trump-appointed Judge ref PA voter fraud charges ruled, “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

- Doc

[Brack]

... Wayne County elections officials encouraged fraud, including changing legal names and dates on ballots, ballot-harvesting, voter intimidation, and preventing poll watchers from challenging irregularities in the vote-counting process.

Amazing how some Republicans still focus on Wayne County, MI?? While Biden won Wayne County, MI by larger margin than Hillary Clinton, Obama won Wayne County, MI by a much larger margin back in 2012.

Biden won Michigan due to winning Oakland County, MI by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton, by Biden winning three more MI Counties than Clinton, and by him not losing Macomb County and Ottawa County by as much as Clinton did in 2016.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/sta ... =0&elect=0



"Biden flipped the counties of Leelanau, Kent, and Saginaw."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Un ... n_Michigan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_County,_Michigan

[Gunnar]

Apparently Giuliani and probably Trump himself are seriously anticipating that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a sure bet to overturn the election, simply because a majority of the Justices belong to his own political party, three of whom were his nominees to the court. If a presidential candidate could overturn the results of an election he lost by challenging it court whenever a majority of the justices shared his party affiliation, there would not be much point in holding the elections at all. The only people the presidential candidates would have to appeal to and persuade to vote for them would be the members of the Supreme Court.

I'm fairly sure that if Trump's appeals manage to get to and be considered by the Supreme Court, all 9 Justices will vote them down, which would be Trump's greatest humiliation yet. I doubt that the Supreme Court would even agree to hear his case, because it is so pathetically weak.

[Gadianton]

subs,

what was requested is evidence of fraud, and not evidence of irregularities. Real cases aren't based on innuendo. Right now, you have less than a suspicious neighbor who suspects a murder dungeon, and points to lights coming on at odd times as evidence.

I hate to give your innuendo credibility by even considering it, it's as bad as getting caught up debating the three witnesses to the gold plates. I guess I'm weak. Anyway, you want me to believe that some guy out there has a fake-vote operation that starts with registering fake people to vote. So this guy invents 13,000 fictional people with names, IDs that don't trigger suspicion, and addresses that won't cause him a problem for actually receiving the absentee ballots, but then, he doesn't take the time to invent gender and birthdays, both of which would be the easiest things to fabricate but by putting nothing could raise a question?

I'll tell you where your irregularity is going to come from. A bug in the code for online registration, that for at least a time, accepted a blank entry rather than kick the form back to the user to fill out. But by all means, let's use republican donation money to fix as many mundane problems as we can.

[subgenius]

...
The only possible response at this stage is "Really? Tell that to the judge."

You, of course, mean Judge Patricia McCullough.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Jesus. McCullough’s opinion doesn’t add anything to the GOP case as a practical matter. It just provides the judge’s reasoning for having ordered a temporary delay back in November. Lawyers for the state and the governor said constitutional challenges to the election law passed in 2019 were possible within 180 days of it becoming effective.

It’s almost like you don’t read anything, and just copy and paste links from your nutty sources where you see headlines and are like, “Yup! Looks about right!”

- Doc

[subgenius]

subs,
what was requested is evidence of fraud, and not evidence of irregularities. Real cases aren't based on innuendo.
...

asked and answered.

sworn affidavits are evidence of fraud.
affidavit
[ˌafəˈdāvit]
NOUN
law
affidavit (noun) · affidavits (plural noun)
a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.
synonyms:
testimony · statement · sworn statement · attestation · declaration · avowal · plea · submission · claim · contention · charge · allegation · deposition · representation · asseveration · averment
(emphasis mine)
"Irregularities" are evidence of fraud as explained above. The Irregularities aren't "proof" because they are the evidence. And grown-up people know that evidence is gow you "prove" stuff in court.
Evidence suggests and proof concludes.
Im not sure how to dumb this down any more for ya. Are your parents available to assist?

[Chap]

subs,
what was requested is evidence of fraud, and not evidence of irregularities. Real cases aren't based on innuendo.
...

asked and answered.

sworn affidavits are evidence of fraud.

Gadianton's point was simple enough, surely.

Fraud is the deliberate doing of acts which are designed to obtain a wrong advantage by deception. You have to prove intention to prove fraud: it is not enough to show that something irregular happened that meant that a vote was allowed or disallowed that should not have been. Proving fraud is a considerably higher bar than simply proving that irregularities took place.

And of course it is quite another thing to be able to show that the things complained of were of sufficient magnitude to render an election void, whether fraud or error was behind them.

So far a series of judges has mostly decided that Trump's legal team has simply failed to show evidence that anything worth bothering about has occurred, let alone fraud of a magnitude that might have changed the result of an election.

[subgenius]

asked and answered.

sworn affidavits are evidence of fraud.

Gadianton's point was simple enough, surely.

Fraud is the deliberate doing of acts which are designed to obtain a wrong advantage by deception. You have to prove intention to prove fraud: it is not enough to show that something irregular happened that meant that a vote was allowed or disallowed that should not have been. Proving fraud is a considerably higher bar than simply proving that irregularities took place.
...

I wasn't asked to "prove" anything. I was asked for evidence and I provided several posts providing just that. As for "proving", you have yet to prove that the evidence I provided proves irregularities. I conclude that the evidence points to fraud more than it points to "irregularities".
But yeah, as predicted you guys need to move the goalposts you limey schmuck. Take your monarchy mentality and shove off.

[canpakes]

As for "proving", you have yet to prove that the evidence I provided proves irregularities. I conclude that the evidence points to fraud more than it points to "irregularities".

And there’s your problem. You simply want to state that without showing why that is the case, and that’s even before you have offered to define what constitutes an event as an ‘irregularity’ or not, or how one translates into voting fraud.