All Things Presidential Election 2024

SonOfSun

SonOfSun

.308 Win
Messages
4,082
Reaction score
4,870
Location
WNY
Grimscale said:
Plaintiffs: "We have evidence your honor..."
Judge: "Dismissed on procedural grounds...." -ignores evidence.

SonofSam: "There was no evidence."
Click to expand...

Not true. Some cases were indeed dismissed based on lack of standing. Standing is important. That being said, in any if those states they could have had literally 1 person from that state be a plaintiff and they'd have standing. They didn't do that... know why? They knew their cases were bunk and not worth the costs.

Dismissed on procedural grounds you say? Well evidence was heard quite a bit and it was not sufficient. Here are some examples. There are many more, this is just some of them. Links are clickable and go to the public court filings.

Your boy lost, get over it. You all sound like a bunch of whiny bitches after losing a cheerleader competition.

  • Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020.

  • Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest. First, plaintiff’s evidence failed to show fraud or misconduct—rather, it showed that the duplication process of the presidential election was 99.45% accurate, and that the inaccuracies were caused by human error. Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show illegal votes or an erroneous vote count. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the Court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.

  • Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020) – In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three of Trump’s four claims under the doctrine of laches. However, it decided on the merits Trump’s claim that voters wrongfully declared themselves indefinitely confined. Ultimately, the court ruled against Trump on this claim because Trump challenged the status of all voters who claimed an indefinitely confined status, rather than individual voters. Trump petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on Dec. 29, 2020 with a motion for expedited consideration, but the court denied his motion to expedite on January 11.
  • King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.

  • Costantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020) – In denying the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud would unlikely prevail on the merits. The court noted that many plaintiffs failed to include crucial information in their allegations, such as locations of alleged misconduct, frequency of alleged misconduct, names of those involved in alleged misconduct, and so on. Overall, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to be speculative, filled with “guess-work,” and often unsubstantiated. Moreover, defendants provided a sufficient amount of evidence to convince the court that they had acted within the law. This decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 16, 2020, and by the Michigan Supreme Court on Nov. 23, 2020.

  • Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) – The superior court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay legal fees for bringing a “groundless,” bad faith lawsuit challenging Maricopa County election procedures. The court noted that the relief plaintiff sought—an additional hand count of ballots—was not legally available due to the suit’s numerous procedural defects. The court found that plaintiff did not adequately assess the validity of their claims before filing the suit, and thus failed to prove that the county had inappropriately applied the statute in question. The court determined that plaintiff brought the suit for the “improper purpose” of undermining Arizonans’ confidence in election results, rather than to defend election integrity as they claimed
 
Dr. Evil

Dr. Evil

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,192
Reaction score
74,701
Location
My Underground Lair
"Their" 16 year plan in a nutshell:

1. Destroy the economy.
2. Open the borders.
3. Infiltration from within.
4. Bring the country to war.
5. Have the country lose the war.
6. Have the constitution finally removed.
 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
13,895
Reaction score
35,690
Location
On the Trump Train
stokes said:
Biggest clue to me was going to bed at midnite with Trump up by landslide numbers and waking up to a Trump loss.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the same thing here. I follow politics like a lot of people follow sports and it's been that way for a long time. So normally I would follow things to the end even through overtime. But I had a particularly long day that day. Being that Trump clearly had it in the bag around midnight I called it a night.

I got up early that morning and then realized that the election had just been stolen... :mad:
Those fucking fucks! Democrats suck!

This is what happened a few hours after the polls closed and most people went to bed for the night...


b58.png


That Presidential election was stolen no doubt about it.
And Obama got his 3rd term.
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,275
Reaction score
54,629
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
SonOfSun said:
They weren't investigated because the judges basically said, "show us your evidence", and the GOP/Trump representation replied with crickets. The cases are public record.

If you don't present discoverable supporting evidence your case almost always gets tossed, that's how courts work.
Click to expand...
If you recall, very few of the cases ever got to the point that evidence would have been presented.

Most were dismissed on ridiculous technicalities or procedural issues.

Like "standing". As if every man woman and child in the US doesn't have standing to challenge fraud in a presidential election.

Hell, probably even foreign citizens should have that standing. Fraudulently installing a POTUS can cause severe irreparable harm to everyone on the planet and their grandchildren.
 
stokes

stokes

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,845
Reaction score
10,172
Location
Columbia County,NY
And what evidence did Hillary and the DNC have when they claimed collusion between Trump and Russia? A fraudulent FISA warrant and the equally fake Steele Dossier. 3 yr, multi million $$ investigation based on less evidence that I saw in the steal.
 
Defilade

Defilade

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,601
Reaction score
33,781
Location
Elsewhere
SonOfSun said:
Not true. Some cases were indeed dismissed based on lack of standing. Standing is important. That being said, in any if those states they could have had literally 1 person from that state be a plaintiff and they'd have standing. They didn't do that... know why? They knew their cases were bunk and not worth the costs.

Dismissed on procedural grounds you say? Well evidence was heard quite a bit and it was not sufficient. Here are some examples. There are many more, this is just some of them. Links are clickable and go to the public court filings.

Your boy lost, get over it. You all sound like a bunch of whiny bitches after losing a cheerleader competition.

  • Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020.

  • Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest. First, plaintiff’s evidence failed to show fraud or misconduct—rather, it showed that the duplication process of the presidential election was 99.45% accurate, and that the inaccuracies were caused by human error. Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show illegal votes or an erroneous vote count. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the Court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.

  • Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020) – In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three of Trump’s four claims under the doctrine of laches. However, it decided on the merits Trump’s claim that voters wrongfully declared themselves indefinitely confined. Ultimately, the court ruled against Trump on this claim because Trump challenged the status of all voters who claimed an indefinitely confined status, rather than individual voters. Trump petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on Dec. 29, 2020 with a motion for expedited consideration, but the court denied his motion to expedite on January 11.
  • King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.

  • Costantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020) – In denying the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud would unlikely prevail on the merits. The court noted that many plaintiffs failed to include crucial information in their allegations, such as locations of alleged misconduct, frequency of alleged misconduct, names of those involved in alleged misconduct, and so on. Overall, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to be speculative, filled with “guess-work,” and often unsubstantiated. Moreover, defendants provided a sufficient amount of evidence to convince the court that they had acted within the law. This decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 16, 2020, and by the Michigan Supreme Court on Nov. 23, 2020.

  • Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) – The superior court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay legal fees for bringing a “groundless,” bad faith lawsuit challenging Maricopa County election procedures. The court noted that the relief plaintiff sought—an additional hand count of ballots—was not legally available due to the suit’s numerous procedural defects. The court found that plaintiff did not adequately assess the validity of their claims before filing the suit, and thus failed to prove that the county had inappropriately applied the statute in question. The court determined that plaintiff brought the suit for the “improper purpose” of undermining Arizonans’ confidence in election results, rather than to defend election integrity as they claimed
Click to expand...

Oh stop!

 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
13,895
Reaction score
35,690
Location
On the Trump Train
It's not the time for the Democrats to start cheating yet. They're unsuccessfully trying to muck up the Republican primary by supporting Haley. But the Democrats won't start the cheating yet. That time will come during the general election and it will be mostly in the key swing states.

Dominion Voting Systems laughs at fair elections.
 
W

Willyone

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,863
Reaction score
3,417
Location
Elbridge, NY
My tin foil hat thought....
Haley won't back out because she's thinking, hoping, that Donald J will be disallowed to run in the general election. She's thinking, hoping, Trump will either be arrested and jailed, or whacked. If/when that happens she hopes to be the Repub choice to take his place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top