Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 58
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,818

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    It's alway tough to contextualize the nugget of truth in these claims amid the mountain of bullshit they are set in.

    Here's a news report from the Atlanta Fox station:

    Georgia county recertifies election results, rejecting fraud claims tied to viral video
    Source said video has been investigated and debunked
    by Audrey Conklin By Audrey Conklin, Evie Fordham · Fox News
    December 4, 2020
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/geo...n-county-video

    Mr Wingate has talked about this before. Here are the meeting minutes from the meeting of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections on Nov 13, 2020:
    (NOT the same meeting as the one referenced in the report above. Remember Georgia recounted twice, so they would have had board meetings to certify three times. I found these November minutes before I found the Fox report.)

    BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS REGULAR MEETING – NOVEMBER 13, 2020
    https://www.fultoncountyga.gov/-/med...-11132020.ashx

    (The all-caps on "FOR THE RECORD" is in the original; also the ellipses above, dunno why.)


    So back in Nov 2020 he was saying that the signature verification was "derived by a manual process", because the electronic component was down. Not skipped entirely, but "derived by a manual process".

    That's consistent with this news report from an NBC-affiliated station owned by a company called Tegna Inc:

    Fulton County elections board narrowly recertifies recount results in 3-2 vote
    Vote count changed for third time after machine recount
    December 4, 2020
    https://www.11alive.com/article/news...8-49ef25949a0d
    The elections director said that if the online tool isn't working then the procedure is match signatures "through the voter registration application"; and at the November 2020 board meeting Wingate said those signature verifications had been "derived by a manual process". Those two things sound consistent to me.



    This is funny:

    At that November board meeting, they had to vote to certify the results of ALL the elections on the ballot, not just the presidential race. The vote to certify the presidential results, was 3-2, with the two Republicans (Wingate and Dr Kathleen Ruth) voting nay. But they then had to vote to certify each of other items on the ballot.

    I copy/pasted from the embedded PDF to get this list, might have missed one or two:

    • Unexpired Term of Johnny Isakson, US Senate
    • Special Democratic Primary Election
    • Proposed Constitutional Amendments: House Resolution 164 Act No. 597
    • Proposed Constitutional Amendments: House Resolution 1023 Act No. 596
    • Statewide Referendum: House Bill 344 Act No. 149
    • Special Election for the City of Union City: Referendum for Homestead Exemption
    • Special Election for the City of East Point: Referendum on Whether to Allow Sunday Alcohol Sales
    • Special Election for the City of Atlanta: Referendum for Homestead Exemption

    The board certified each and every one of these by vote of 5-0. Wingate & Ruth voted aye with the rest of the board. Whatever the problem with signature-matching, it only affected the presidential election? Ha, right. Someone skeptical of Wingate's motives might wonder about that vote. But I'm sure you'll tell me there's nothing to see here.



    This bit was in the report from the NBC station:

    Those two discrepancies in total votes, 742 & 852, represent 0.141% and 0.161% of the total votes cast. That's zero point one percent.
    Accounting has a concept called "materiality". Just sayin'.
    You copy and paste what they voted on but not the results. I find that interesting.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  2. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I don't think any of them have ruled at all on the evidence because they haven't taken the cases up. They dismiss them on technical grounds like standing before they even look at evidence.
    You've said this at least a couple times, in the big 2024 election thread, and here. It isn't true.

    You're right that at least some of the cases in some states were dismissed for standing – I remember one in Pennsylvania. There's a conversation to be had about whether "standing" is merely a technicality. The Twiqbal principle that "heightened the pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" is based on two Supreme Court cases where the justices in the majority were:
    2007: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
    2009: Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
    I suspect you're pretty happy with it most of the time, and are only complaining now because it doesn't give you the result you want.



    But you're completely wrong that courts haven't looked at the evidence. A federal civil case isn't like a criminal trial on Law & Order, where the evidence comes out at trial. The plaintiff has to show all their evidence in the initial filing. They have to lead with the evidence. So the judge gets to read the case right at the outset.

    In at least two states (Atlanta, I think two cases there, & I think Wisconsin) the judge dismissed "on the merits", which means they considered the evidence and decided it didn't make a case.

    I read the evidence in one of the Atlanta cases 3½ years ago. It was in a LONG, un-indexed Appendix at the end of the intial filing. And it was gobbledycook. It was nonsense. It was disconnected ramblings from "witnesses" who weren't sure what they saw and couldn't describe why it was wrongdoing. Bullshit like, "I followed a truck for two hours and it went around the beltway." Why? What truck? What does that have to do with the election? The filing doesn't make that clear. It was ridiculous; I mean the idea that it consituted "evidence" was ridiculous. The judge punted that one on the merits.

    Here all the filings in Sidney Powell's Kraken lawsuit:


    I don't think this is the same case I looked at 3½ years ago. It doesn't look the same; if it is the same one, some clerk has done heroic work to separate out all the appendix affadavits into separate PDFs. You can look at the supporting affadivits yourself (I haven't yet).

    Judge Timothy Batten did look at all the affadavits. In the hearing transcript (which is Doc #23, on Nov 30, about a third of the way down the page) he said this on page 16:
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Batten
    ...But what I do have an opinion on is that the burden is on the Plaintiffs, and the relief that they seek is extraordinary. And although they make allegations of tremendous worldwide improprieties regarding the Dominion voting machines, those allegations are supported by precious little proof.
    He dismissed. Not on a technicality.





  3. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    You copy and paste what they voted on but not the results. I find that interesting.
    Check out the sentence after the last bullet-item in the list.





  4. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Well good for you. Now please verify the chain of custody for those reams of ballots. That's right. You can't.
    Of course I can't. I was in Maryland at the time. Probably paying more attention to Lamar's perfect second half against Indy that weekend than to Fulton county reams.

    Your post is another fun example of a common Republican bullshit argument tactic: misplace the burden of proof.

    Please verify that Trump wasn't born on Venus, and that his birth certificate isn't an elaborate forgery done by aliens. That's right. You can't.





  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,818

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Check out the sentence after the last bullet-item in the list.
    I did. Now I want to see the proof. I've read the 3-2 decision but I want to see the proof of 5-0 on the rest.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  6. #18

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Of course I can't. I was in Maryland at the time. Probably paying more attention to Lamar's perfect second half against Indy that weekend than to Fulton county reams.

    Your post is another fun example of a common Republican bullshit argument tactic: misplace the burden of proof.

    Please verify that Trump wasn't born on Venus, and that his birth certificate isn't an elaborate forgery done by aliens. That's right. You can't.
    Okay whatever. If you care about our Democratic process and the integrity of our elections, or the perception of integrity, then you should at least want there to be things like voter ID and/or a biometric requirements etc.. But Democrats, and their fun common bullshit tactic, is to claim those things that would actually increase integrity of our elections, or at least improve peoples confidence in them, "disenfranchise" people.

    Ideally our process should make it easy to vote but impossible to cheat and be 100% transparent. It's tricky. I think the only way you could ever eliminate fraud is to make people, all but the very sick and those overseas like military, go someplace and vote in person. Kind of like it's always been. Add an ID requirement or a biometric. That biometric could be voluntarily given. Shit, add purple die on their thumbs.

    If you can't meet me half way on the Voter ID thing then your opinion doesn't really matter to me.

    2020 and 2022, particularly 2022 were complete bullshit. In 40 years of watching the dynamic of generals and mid-terms there is no way an unpopular guy like Biden avoids the fate of Obama, Regan, Clinton etc.. There is no way unless our system is completely broken.

    I'm updating this to add it I think election day should be a Federal Holiday and we should limit it to something like a 3 or 4 day weekend window. This "election season" stuff? Forget about it. It's in invitation for abuse.
    Last edited by BustOfPallas; 04-11-2024 at 06:21 PM.





  7. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    I did. Now I want to see the proof. I've read the 3-2 decision but I want to see the proof of 5-0 on the rest.
    Okay, goalpost mover. Go ahead and read it.
    The link is right there in my post.





  8. #20

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Okay, goalpost mover. Go ahead and read it.
    The link is right there in my post.
    No thanks. My post to Shade was to try to force him to address the OP's claim which he didn't. The reason we are bickering is that some of us think Bidens election in 2020 and the 2022 midterm results are questionable. Trump is a wildly polarizing person so I could buy an 80 year old guy with cognitive decline and that campaigned out of his basement beating him in 2020 as a protest vote. 2022 though, the lack of a wave, that doesn't compute. Trump wasn't on the ballot. You can fall back on the "Election denier!" thing and point at me and shriek or you can try to engage. I've seen your history here on RSR so I doubt you will try to engage me good faith. You are kind of a pompous opinionated guy (like Greg's self professed handle). I'm hoping you will surprise me here but I'm not counting on it.





  9. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,818

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Okay, goalpost mover. Go ahead and read it.
    The link is right there in my post.
    No it's not.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    You've said this at least a couple times, in the big 2024 election thread, and here. It isn't true.

    You're right that at least some of the cases in some states were dismissed for standing – I remember one in Pennsylvania.
    Looks like I was wrong that the Pennsylvania 2020 election case was dismissed on standing.

    The case was Trump v Boockvar, heard by Judge Matthew Brann.
    (There were SO many cases; there could've been another that was dismissed on standing, that I didn't find today..)

    Judge Matthew Brann is a Republican, a Federalist Society member (and NRA member) who served on the Pennsylvania GOP State Committee, and on his county Republican committee for 18 years. Brann was nominated to the federal bench during the Obama administration as part of a two-fer. The Republican senator (Pat Roomey) nominated a judge (Brann), and the Democrat senator (Bob Casey) nominated one (Malachy Mannion). Both were confirmed unanimously.

    You can find the filings here:


    The dismissal is Doc 202, dated Nov 21 (have to go to the second page of the list, or re-sort by date descending.)
    In the openint the judge wrote this:

    Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

    That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.
    He lays out the filing history, and the relevant legal background, and continues:
    (note the word "merits" that I bolded)

    With these background principles firmly rooted, the Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ equal-protection claims. The general gist of their claims is that Secretary Boockvar, by failing to prohibit counties from implementing a notice-and-cure policy, and Defendant Counties, by adopting such a policy, have created a “standardless” system and thus unconstitutionally discriminated against Individual Plaintiffs. Though Plaintiffs do not articulate why, they also assert that this has unconstitutionally discriminated against the Trump Campaign.

    As discussed above, the Court will address Individual Plaintiffs’ and the Trump Campaign’s claims separately.
    In the section on the individual plaintiffs, the judge writes:
    (starting page 29)

    Here, because Defendants’ conduct “imposes no burden” on Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote, their equal-protection claim is subject to rational basis review. ...
    Individual Plaintiffs’ claims fail because it is perfectly rational for a state to provide counties discretion to notify voters that they may cure procedurally defective mail-in ballots.
    ...
    Moreover, even if they could state a valid claim, the Court could not grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek. Crucially, Plaintiffs fail to understand the relationship between right and remedy. Though every injury must have its proper redress, a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted. By seeking injunctive relief preventing certification of the Pennsylvania election results, Plaintiffs ask this Court to do exactly that. Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race.* This is simply not how the Constitution works.

    When remedying an equal-protection violation, a court may either “level up” or “level down.” This means that a court may either extend a benefit to one that has been wrongfully denied it, thus leveling up and bringing that person on par with others who already enjoy the right, r a court may level down by withdrawing the benefit from those who currently possess it. Generally, “the preferred rule in a typical case is to extend favorable treatment” and to level up. In fact, leveling down is impermissible where the withdrawal of a benefit would necessarily violate the Constitution. Such would be the case if a court were to remedy discrimination by striking down a benefit that is constitutionally guaranteed.

    ___________
    * FOOTNOTE
    Curiously, Plaintiffs now claim that they seek only to enjoin certification of the presidential election results. They suggest that their requested relief would thus not interfere with other election results in the state. But even if it were logically possible to hold Pennsylvania’s electoral system both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time, the Court would not do so.
    In the section on the Trump Campaign, the judge writes:
    (starting page 33

    Count I of the [complaint] makes no mention of disparity in treatment of observers based on which campaign they represented. Instead, Count I discusses the use of “standardless” procedures. These are two separate theories of an equal protection violation. That deficiency aside, to the extent this new theory is even pled, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead that there was “uneven treatment” of Trump and Biden watchers and representatives. Paragraphs 132-143 of the First Amended Complaint are devoted to this alleged disparity. None of these paragraphs support Plaintiffs’ argument.
    ...
    None of these allegations (or the others in this section) claim that the Trump Campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers. Simply alleging that poll watchers did not have access or were denied access to some areas does not plausibly plead unequal treatment. Without actually alleging that one group was treated differently than another, Plaintiffs’ first argument falls flat.
    The judge dismissed with prejudice.

    Not on a technicality. He reached the merits of the case, and found that the legal arguments were without merit and the accusations were speculative and unsupported by evidence.



    This is what happened in jurisdiction after jurisdiction: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota. Some of the cases were so precedurally defective that yeah, they were dismissed without reaching the "merits". But when judges did reach the merits, they found poor dumb legal arguments and a lack of facts.

    There is a reason that the Trump Campain was using the D team (and the E team ad the F team) of Sydney Powell and Rudy Guiliani et al on these cases. And it's not just because The Donald doesn't pay his legal fees and he's running out of lawyers who'll work for him.. These cases would probly have been funded by the RNC. But the cases were such stinkers that the good Republican constitutional attorneys (and they have enough) wouldn't touch them.





  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    No it's not.
    Further up the post than you're probably looking.

    Search the post for the bolded heading "BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS REGULAR MEETING"
    The line under it has a link to the fultoncountyga dot gov domain, that ends with ".ashx"





  12. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Okay, goalpost mover. Go ahead and read it.
    The link is right there in my post.
    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    No thanks.
    That one was directed at Willbacker, not you.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->