Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 2020 U.S. Election Irregularities.

Options
1…3132343637…84

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Where are the headlines like

    Judge hears evidence in trump case
    And throws it out.
    Interviews on the court steps the lot
    I think our eyes would be bleeding from them


  • Options
    #993
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Where are the headlines like

    Judge hears evidence in trump case
    And throws it out.
    Interviews on the court steps the lot
    I think our eyes would be bleeding from them
    But in none of the court cases, Trump and co. did not use or present the evidence to any of the judges.

    Why did they not do this?


  • Options
    #994
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/stages-of-a-civil-court-case

    The document that sets civil cases in motion is called a complaint or a petition. This paper sets forth the facts of the case, explains why the court has jurisdiction, and details what the plaintiffs seek as relief for their grievance (e.g. money or an injunction).



    At this point, the defendant may choose to respond with a motion to dismiss. This motion asks a judge to throw the case out based on lack of jurisdiction or the plaintiff's failure to state a valid legal claim, for example. Once the defendant has responded, either party may move for summary judgment.

    A motion for summary judgment asks the judge to make a ruling on the facts as stated in the pleadings because the parties agree on them. Without any material dispute over the facts, a trial isn't necessary, and the judge may issue a summary judgment.

    A lot of them fell at this hurdle


    The link goes through the process and shows when evidence .witnesses are introduced


  • Options
    #995
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    A lot of them fell at this hurdle

    And you believe that this was because of a democrat conspiracy, not because of a legitimate ruling?


  • Options
    #996
    V8 Interceptor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭V8 Interceptor


    What's Zuckerberg been up to in Wisconsin?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    V8 Interceptor wrote: »
    What's Zuckerberg been up to in Wisconsin?

    The dismissed case from nearly a month ago. Oh just Kanye West's lawyer trying to attack postal voting. You guys seem to be really opposed to people voting.


  • Options
    #998
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,583 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Trump lawyers: "irregularities, deception, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.... Look at our poorly put together documents"

    All judges: "these are poorly put together documents, with obviously falsified and misleading information. Have you any evidence to present?"

    Trump lawyers: "no, but... But... But..... The documents!!!"

    All judges: "you have presented no evidence in a poorly put together case. You have proven nothing. Case dismissed"

    Trump supporters: "crooked lefty judges didn't even look at the evidence! Deep state rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb!!!!


  • Options
    #999
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    enno99 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1339813531496038401

    3 supreme court justices appointed by trump also told trump to take a hike. Should they be investigated as well?


  • Options
    #1000
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1339263888785776640


  • Options
    #1001
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    3 supreme court justices appointed by trump also told trump to take a hike. Should they be investigated as well?

    Yea from Mitches list Do you think Trump even heard of any of them before he ran for president

    The swamp protects itself


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    enno99 wrote: »
    Yea from Mitches list Do you think Trump even heard of any of them before he ran for president

    The swamp protects itself

    LOL. The paranoia is strong.


  • Options
    #1003
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Yea from Mitches list Do you think Trump even heard of any of them before he ran for president

    The swamp protects itself
    Ok. So now all republicans are in on the conspiracy against Trump. And the supreme court made an invalid ruling.

    Also why would he appoint people he was told too? I thought the point was that he wasn't under the control of the deep state whatever?
    Did he just appoint them without checking if they were part of the giant conspiracy against them.


  • Options
    #1004
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    enno99 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/JenLawrence21/status/1331947562526416897

    how is he fanboying him? where is the rest of the speech? the mention of roberts seems to be end of a sentence. what was the start of the sentence?


  • Options
    #1005
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,583 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    enno99 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1339263888785776640

    i assume you see the word "ALLEGES" in that clip yeah??

    let him bring that to court and see how he gets on


  • Options
    #1006
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    i assume you see the word "ALLEGES" in that clip yeah??

    let him bring that to court and see how he gets on

    Yea he was under oath in that hearing

    Sure thats what they want a court to hear the evidence
    Dems fighting tooth and nail to avoid it

    Why is that I wonder ?


  • Options
    #1007
    relax carry on
    Registered Users Posts: 4,079 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    For those few still presenting the same tired arguments of conspiracy and overwhelming evidence that never seems to get to court/be of sufficient standard to meet any sort of credibility; just what will it take for you to see Trump as pretty much everyone in the world see him? Would you even admit to yourselves that maybe you've been a bit blind in your devotion to him if he came out and admitted that he has been lying etc.

    There is no conspiracy here. Trump has always been a terrible human being and businessman. He's now added terrible POTUS to that list. It isn't a media, left, liberal, RINO, alien, lizard people, etc conspiracy. Its just Trump being the serial lying, narcissistic compromised third rate conman he has always been.


  • Options
    #1008
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    3 supreme court justices appointed by trump also told trump to take a hike. Should they be investigated as well?

    They abstained..


  • Options
    #1009
    Trigger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,541 ✭✭✭✭Trigger


    Mod: Enno99, do not dump links without adding your own opinion or commentary, please see charter, ref below:

    Do not just plagiarize or regurgitate source material.
    This is NOT a facebook wall. Videos/media/links you do include in your arguments need to be supported with your own words, enough that a reader should be able to follow the conversation without viewing the media - users may be on dial-up, behind firewalls, etc. that restrict their access to streaming content.

    Link dumps deleted


  • Options
    #1010
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They abstained..

    this is the order issued by the court. can you tell me where you got your information from?
    TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
    The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
    complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
    the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
    cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
    conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
    as moot.
    Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
    In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
    bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
    jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
    (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
    grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
    grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.


  • Options
    #1011
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    this is the order issued by the court. can you tell me where you got your information from?

    They're the other two conservative judges.. The three Trump appointed abstained..The four on the other side didn't allow the case (apparently at least one was worried about riots if they did, according to the senate hearing..)

    I'm sorry..It escapes me now where I saw it, and it appears it's not being reported..

    So Trump's appointments weren't actually right wing partisans..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They're the other two conservative judges.. The three Trump appointed abstained..The four on the other side didn't allow the case (apparently at least one was worried about riots if they did, according to the senate hearing..)

    I'm sorry..It escapes me now where I saw it, and it appears it's not being reported..

    So Trump's appointments weren't actually right wing partisans..
    So why did they abstain?
    Why didn't they and the other two conservatives hear out the case?


  • Options
    #1013
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    So why did they abstain?
    Why didn't they and the other two conservatives hear out the case?

    They didn't want to appear to have a conflict of interest..


  • Options
    #1014
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They didn't want to appear to have a conflict of interest..
    And for that reason they were ok with allowing the other judges from making an incorrect statement that would block the case from being heard?

    Are they part of the conspiracy? Are they aware of the conspiracy?

    Why did the other republic judges throw out the case? Are they part of the conspiracy?


  • Options
    #1015
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They're the other two conservative judges.. The three Trump appointed abstained..The four on the other side didn't allow the case (apparently at least one was worried about riots if they did, according to the senate hearing..)

    I'm sorry..It escapes me now where I saw it, and it appears it's not being reported..

    So Trump's appointments weren't actually right wing partisans..

    I would really love to see a source for that claim. I don't remember anything about abstentions and a google search returns nothing


  • Options
    #1016
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    Are they part of the conspiracy? Are they aware of the conspiracy?

    Why did the other republic judges throw out the case? Are they part of the conspiracy?

    Some people think ethics are more important than scoring political points.. You probably wouldn't understand..

    The 2 remaining conservative judges said they would hear the case..

    The 4 *liberal* judges argued not to hear it, saying there wasn't riots in 2000, so because there are riots now they should throw it out..


  • Options
    #1017
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Some people think ethics are more important than scoring political points.. You probably wouldn't understand..

    The 2 remaining conservative judges said they would hear the case..

    The 4 *liberal* judges argued not to hear it, saying there wasn't riots in 2000, so because there are riots now they should throw it out..

    where does the order of the court mention riots in 2000? I posted the full contents of the order above so it should be easy for you to find it.


  • Options
    #1018
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Some people think ethics are more important than scoring political points.. You probably wouldn't understand..

    The 2 remaining conservative judges said they would hear the case..

    The 4 *liberal* judges argued not to hear it, saying there wasn't riots in 2000, so because there are riots now they should throw it out..
    Sorry, you've dodged my questions.

    I asked if the conservatives were part of the conspiracy to commit election fraud.
    Are they or aren't they?

    Also, the other two judges did throw it out:
    The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
    complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
    the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
    cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
    conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
    as moot.
    Statement of Justice Alito,

    Do you believe that this judgement is incorrect and made under false pretenses?


  • Options
    #1019
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,971 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Some people think ethics are more important than scoring political points

    Yet you are clearly supporting someone who is trying to undermine democratic elections and has a history of doing so via completely baseless claims (as well as being documented telling thousands of lies)

    Genuine question: why are ethics suddenly important to someone who holds these views?


  • Options
    #1020
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    where does the order of the court mention riots in 2000? I posted the full contents of the order above so it should be easy for you to find it.

    This was said in the senate hearing in the last couple of days..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,425 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This was said in the senate hearing in the last couple of days..

    were these four judges at those hearings? I don't remember them being there. I'm pretty sure there argument was that Texas did not have standing. I haven't seen any legal argument that says they were wrong.
    The 4 *liberal* judges argued not to hear it, saying there wasn't riots in 2000, so because there are riots now they should throw it out..


Advertisement