There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: carewemust
The Trump legal team has accumulated and presented more viable/suitable evidence for Election Fraud, than what Congressman Adam Schiff presented for successfully Impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

You're entitled to your belief.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

I should add: Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have especially little patience for litigants that fail to submit evidence to the trial court when that evidence was available to them at the trial court. It is seen as an unjustifiable waste of judicial resources. It would be pointless to even have trial courts if litigants could simply submit new evidence on appeal--the entire premise of our appellate system is that appellate courts determine whether the law was correctly applied at trial based upon that facts that were available to the trial court.

The majority of Trump lawsuits have been shot down in minor courts since 2016 and many are overturned in the top courts. In an unbiased world your right the judicial branch of government should uphold and determine suits based upon the constitution. This has happened more often than not and just looking through the cases since 2016 till now this should alarm most folks as the appearance of justices determining cases along ideological lines and worse covering for the claimants give the perception of the judicial branch being biased as well as the press and the legislative branch. In addition, given the beurucrats who have developed a strangle hold during the Obama administration should alarm all. The process and functioning of government should be messy due to opposing views in all three branches, but should not be paralyzed by idealogical lines in a sense that the current laws are no longer enforced equally.

In other words, the blocking, obstruction, and ignorance of laws is expected in the minor courts when the fat lady (supreme court) starts throwing out cases or refusing to hear them then its time for Trump to hang it up and stop losing so much money to an ungrateful American Voter base that would rather elect a corrupt,racist, rapist, pedophile to the office and the clowns that elected him and the folks in media that chose to ignore all of the signs on behalf of the DNC deserve what they get. Unfortunately those of us that tried to warn so many ignorant voters of the danger will be punished as well for not being louder.

LOL well ill give the poster this He talks like a lawyer LOL .
While most of us don't know all that stuff we do Know claiming 10 s OF Millions cheated would be a cake walk to prove .
We also Know Trump will use any thing and every thing to help him self he is EXTREMLY self centered .
He would be posting it all over twitter .

I think its funny Trump now wants To Kill twitter the place he loves the most LOL .
Were the heck he going to complain if he censors twitter totally ?
His new thing will censor It all including what he post lol .

Anyway Every one know form long before the election Trump would Try using this to be sure he would win . Problem is it backfire as all he did was piss off 80 million [people .
Really only TRUMP and a few poster's here will say HALF the country is EVILLLLLL commies .
And that IS why he lost .
Posters here like to pretend its all about democrat's when Trump ahs flat out called Republicans cheaters along with worst even .

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

I'm not a federal court lawyer I have no way to refute your argument using my own knowledge on the mater. I am simply trying to evaluate the argument you made; and while you did an excellent job explaining why its unlikely for Trump to succeed, your own argument leaves the door open.

You used the word "generally" a few times in your argument which means according to you it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear new evidence.

You also say that "Courts can use their common sense when determining whether to credit allegations and testimony." Which means the Supreme Court can use their common sense to credit the speculative Affidavits if they so choose too.

And finaly your argument also does not address the seriousness of the allegations. I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear credible evidence (assuming it exists) on technicality during such an important case. Refusing to hear credible evidence on technicality and procedure would invite chaos across the electorate; I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would allow that... its far more likely that they would allow the new evidence even if doing so is not normally what occurs in appellate cases.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Which lawsuits have been dismissed?

Here is a good list of where the various lawsuits currently stand:

time.com...

Note a few things about this list:

- Many of the lawsuits have been completely dismissed or denied

- There are very few allegations of actual fraud, and the cases that are ongoing have to do with the interpretation and implementation of state laws/rules. They do not allege fraud, and they are exceedingly unlikely to have any impact on the election.

Here is a link to actual court opinion dismissing the Trump case in PA:

www.cnn.com...

And here is a link to the very recent (a few hours ago) decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal:

www2.ca3.uscourts.gov...

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

Johnnylaw, I would suggest you stick to whatever day job it is that you stick to.

You are half correct, the Supreme Court does not operate as a trial court. It is a court that determines that constitutionality of our legislature.

However, what you're not understanding is that the precedent was already set in the 14th amendment.

14th Amendment to our constitution states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The mail-in voting, with or without factual evidence, is grounds enough for the Supreme Court to rule that this election was not confidently done.

Furthermore, the 12th amendment left us safeguards in the case of this event. The Supreme Court will NOT say "Trump won because Biden committed fraud". They will say "there are way too many problems that have arose because of this, we are kicking it to the legislature, defined in the 12th amendment as a check-and-balance to potential corruption and fraud".

Furthermore, Judge Roberts wrote the majority opinion in 2018 regarding this very fact.

When this arises, you do NOT have to prove a thing except that mail-in voting disenfranchised millions of voters, and at which point, you may present evidence to back that claim.

a reply to: midnightstar

To be honest your side is the only one making a list of folks to reeducate in the future. Our voice is billboards and car parades and rally's. The democratic voice is to burn loot and assault to get their base moving. Happened in 2012 2016 and again in 2020. Its funny how racism only becomes an issue in the election years. In addition, the method in which supreme court justices are treated by the left is mobilizing sexual assault narratives. It is unfortunate that the left has no platform to run on but demonize the right while running a proven racist, rapist accused pedophile for president.

Heck just by the actions for the last 8 years by the democrat party even without evidence its more likely they would cheat than not.

Add the testimonies and the statistical impossibilities among other evidence and discoveries its a sure thing it was cheated.

a reply to: midnightstar

No..not really. A lawyer would say they were a lawyer.
Not, the lines "are familiar with, experienced with, trust me@"as their credentials.
At best a court reporter, maybe the courthouse janitor.
Lame, simplistic assessment based off of their limited experience in court.

Even if this was an actual lawyer, with experience in court, they wouldn't be very smart to claim there is pattern you could follow from their previous cases. This is a supreme court grade case.
The supreme court was made for this case.

The evidence statement is just plain wrong imo.
It's probably in state court as a formality anyway.

while running a proven racist, rapist accused pedophile for president.

Prove it.
Can you prove anything you say? I don't think so.

Just more B.S. by someone who is obviously gullible enough to believe Q lol.

(Yes that's right. The Q crows are pretty much the political equivalent of flat earthers.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Great OP!

Clear, precise, and factual.

a reply to: canucks555

Ask Kamala she pointed out he was a racist and rapist.

He admitted he was a pedophile on television

www.youtube.com...

BTW I have never understood the Q thing maybe I need to give it a closer look since I am being accused of it.

Any article that states

'Here's how we know'
or
'How you should feel'

it's a tried and tested tactic


It Is control and should be viewed with extreme caution

I wonder if all these threads asking for evidence should be combined into one super thread. I can repost the actual evidence that votes in Washington State are being done illegally, our State Secretary even went as far as to outline why she thinks what she is doing is legal, even though it isn't. If I do repost this, will the OP actually read the evidence? I doubt it, I doubt it because in everyone of these threads when evidence is provided that shows, proves, or even highlights voting fraud, the OP will either stop posting and start a new thread, or will just ignore the evidence and go on stating nonsense about there not being any.

It's great that these people can express their personal opinion about voter fraud. It's too bad though that if these same people get their way, they will only be allowed to express what the State Opinion is.

in everyone of these threads when evidence is provided that shows, proves, or even highlights voting fraud,
Show us.
Show us the evidence and perhaps we will be silent.

Kicking them where it hurts, right in the factucles.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Unfortunately Johny Law, this is probably going to be bigger than a legal issue, this will be an “on the street issue”.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
I'm sorry, but that just is not how litigation works. You can't submit new evidence to the Supreme Court that you fail to introduce to the trial court.

You should get a new screen name, because you are woefully wrong.

You would be right if this had actually gone to trial, but it hasn't.

This is civil litigation. Guess what is one the biggest and baddest parts of a civil case?

DISCOVERY.

What is the purpose of DISCOVERY?

To gain access to the real, actual evidence.

Unless and until there has been a thorough discovery phase, there is always room for more evidence to be presented. A lot more room.

Trump has repeatedly failed to offer any evidence to the trial court,

That is because these suits have only been dismissed in their initial stage, there has never been any discovery granted, let alone a trial.

This is my objective analysis based on years of federal court litigation experience, but if you believe I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Consider yourself enlightened.