Bored

[Brooke]

So, what was the case number for the Trump lawsuit where he claimed massive voter fraud and had substantial evidence that the judge refused to look at?

Can you point the exact case in question so we can look it up?

To be clear, judges do read initial complaints.  It's not like they don't read it.

Also, when a case is rejected, there are usually legal reasons listed.  They don't say "I refuse to look at this and reject it because I'm a partisan hack."

What I'm looking at are cases that have solid initial evidence (in my opinion, of course) but are rejected.  Thus, they never go to court, there is no discovery and development of further evidence, and citizens never get to see an exploration of whether or not the full evidence is solid or not.

A couple of examples:

Costantino et al v. City of Detroit et al

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)

[CptTrips]

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)

That's one of the no standing suits. 

You can't sue over something you are not a party too.

I can't sue a pizza company in New Jersey that screwed up a guys order in New Jersey.  I'm not the Pizza company and I'm not the customer.

It's like that old SNL skit about suing for bystander trauma.  "No your honor, I was not involved in the accident but I saw it from across the street and felt traumatized so I'm suing."   

And it's not like they were even claiming any dark evidence of Venezuelans hacking into voting machine.  The whole thing was Texas not liking how PA scheduled their voting. 

Hardly a smoking gun of ballots with Chinese bamboo in them, right?

So where is all that substantial evidence here of the Chinese changing vote tallies?

[Brooke]

That will be interesting.  I await the results.

I'm not sure it will be that interesting.  I think you'll look at the reason for the rejection and say, "Well, here's a bunch of reasons it was rejected."  Which we all know beforehand.

I know of a couple of cases where the judge flat out asked Giuliani if he was alleging voter fraud had occurred, and he nearly fell over himself saying, "Oh no, no, no your honor.  I'm not alleging that!"

Proving fraud is much harder than many other things.  If you have something easier, you go for that.

crap like, "I heard from a guy, that heard from a guy, that talked to a guy in bar that said he saw something on the internet that definitely looked fishy."

You and I both consider that too weak.

Or "these stats sure look fishy." 

Again, too weak.

But:

"These stats sure look fishy.  In fact, here is a statistical analysis that shows this is many standard deviations from the norm."

That's the way you discover cheating, embezzlement, that smoking increases risk of lung cancer, crack WWII enemy codes, etc.

Some were dismissed because of lack of standing.  I mean it's like 1st year law stuff.  Even laymen ought to get that you can't sue over something you are not a party to.

Some uses of that are not so simplistic and clear cut.

You didn't get the results you wanted so you claim the system is rigged.

Yes.  But there are times when a system is actually rigged.

I would say many systems with money in them (unless transparent and audited enough) are likely to get rigged.  That, too, is human nature.

So after about case 30 or so I stopped paying attention.

Totally reasonable.

But as a data guy, to me, there is a lot in the last election that smells very bad.  More even than hanging chads or elections involving Johnson.

[CptTrips]

And the other?

"The court found that the affidavits supplied by plaintiffs, purporting fraud, were "rife" with generalization, speculation, hearsay, and a lack of evidentiary basis. The court held that the evidence supports no credible finding of fraud at the TCF Center. Furthermore, the injunctive relief plaintiffs ask for, against certification of Wayne County results, would amount to judicial activism in light of the other remedies available. The court denied the injunction."

i.e. I heard it from a guy, that heard it from a guy, that saw someone say on the internet that something was fishy.

If they had evidence of illegal vote manipulation, take it to a DA.  They had no documents, they had no video tapes, They had no emails, all just I heard it from a guy that heard it from a guy hearsay.

The appellant court agreed.

Is that it?  Where are the suits claiming millions of votes changed by Venezuelan hackers printing on Chinese bamboo ballots?  Where is the substantial evidence of hacking and vote manipulation?  What about votes beamed in to secret servers in Italy?  Don't you have real substantial evidence of anything juicy? 

[Brooke]

That's one of the no standing suits. 

You can't sue over something you are not a party too.

I know that.

And I understand the Court's reasoning.

I also understand the reasoning of the dissenting Justices who disagreed.

I also feel like a state does have standing in the Supreme Court if some other state screws it over.  Because who is president affects states substantially, one state doing illegal stuff that changes the election seems to affect another state.

The Supreme Court has heard cases on election issues (Bush v. Gore, for example) before, and will hear more (Moore v. Harper upcoming).

The Supreme Court even ruled once that a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption as an interstate issue because:  he would buy less wheat from others in his state, who then might sell it at different prices, which would then affect wheat prices overall, which then affects another state.  (I think this tortured reasoning is pure BS -- but it gives you an idea of what, if the Court is so inclined, can be considered to affect another state.)  Wickard v. Filburn

[CptTrips]

DmonSlyr, any relation?




So Trump launched SpaceX and the space age.  That's quite an accomplishment.

[CptTrips]

So if all this evidence exists, why bother with civil suits?

Take your evidence to the appropriate DA\prosecutor.  Start a criminal investigation.

Oh, wait, I know....

"Barr says he told Trump that election fraud claims were ‘bulls—‘"
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596750-barr-says-he-told-trump-that-election-fraud-claims-were-bulls/

[DmonSlyr]

That will be interesting.  I await the results.

I know of a couple of cases where the judge flat out asked Giuliani if he was alleging voter fraud had occurred, and he nearly fell over himself saying, "Oh no, no, no your honor.  I'm not alleging that!"

Because you can talk all the crap you want on Tucker Carlson but people tend to think better of it when standing in front of a federal judge.

Others were dismissed because the evidence presented in the filling was so ridiculous that it could be dismissed out of hand.  Completely inadmissible crap like, "I heard from a guy, that heard from a guy, that talked to a guy in bar that said he saw something on the internet that definitely looked fishy."

Or "these stats sure look fishy."  You don't bring crap like that into a federal court.  Maybe law enforcement might like to start an investigation based on stuff like that, but you better not be filing before federal judge with a bunch of internet conspiracy rumor horse crap.  That's a good way to get deservedly professionally sanctioned.  Or just get your law license suspended like Giuliani. 

Some were dismissed because of lack of standing.  I mean it's like 1st year law stuff.  Even laymen ought to get that you can't sue over something you are not a party to. Where did these Trump lawyers get their licenses?  From a Cracker-Jack box?

I think there were 63 Trump lawsuits filed.  I think he won 1 on some minor process issue. many of those were in front of conservative judges and many were in fact in front of Trump appointees.  You didn't get the results you wanted so you claim the system is rigged.

So after about case 30 or so I stopped paying attention.  I saw nothing in any of them that looked like there was any there there.  Apparently 62 federal judges agreed.  I'm sure they had a different opinion over on the Q-Anon forums.

And yet, we spent $42M tax payer dollars for an "investigation" by one intelligence official and his witch hunt dems in government to paint Trump as an asset for Russia to undermine that US election and sow doubt in the American people while framing another country for stealing election and you had 0 "proof" what so ever. How is that justified? We had hundreds if not thousands of more testimony and affidavits from citizens at these polling precincts than the Dems ever did. Where is our "Mueller?". Do you understand why I can't f(>,%>ing stand these people?

[CptTrips]

We had hundreds if not thousands of more testimony and affidavits from citizens at these polling precincts than the Dems ever did.

So how many court cases did you win with all that evidence?

[Brooke]

Where are the suits claiming millions of votes changed

I don't know if you could do it in one lawsuit.  It would be the stitching together of numerous single-state cases into one multi-state result.  Going for that would be the most-expensive, most time-consuming, and hardest way to go.

Don't you have real substantial evidence of anything juicy?

To me, the substantial stuff is:
-- Voting stats changing drastically and in highly suspicious ways (if you know data analysis).
-- Voting stats changing drastically in the wee hours, away from observation.
-- A system that is not transparent and not well auditable.
-- Voting counted by proprietary, non-viewable machines/software supplied by private foreign company.
-- Poll watchers barred from key locations.
-- Affidavits on truckloads of ballot deliveries in the middle of the night.
-- Affidavits on irregularities with ballots (wrong paper, no creases, computer replication, etc.).
-- Lots of mandated video that is not available.
-- 2000 Mules.
-- Election rules changed contrary to law.
-- New systems (ballet harvesting, drop-box use, ballot systems, etc.) that make fraud easier going into use shortly before election.

[Brooke]

Take your evidence to the appropriate DA\prosecutor.  Start a criminal investigation.

That does happen.  But it's usually for smaller fish -- individuals here and there.

It's generally way harder to get folks up the chain.

The vote process is so laughably vulnerable, and there's no settlement money in it.

[RotBaron]

That would make you a domestic terrorist.

Good luck with that.

What he said does not equal being a domestic terrorist. He did not say he would join them.

There are probably 10’s of thousands that feel this way and if another election looks highly fraudulent it just may happen. You can argue with Brooke about lawsuits all you want, but you can not explain entire precincts voting for one candidate and sometimes at near 100% voter turnout. 

[CptTrips]

To me, the substantial stuff is:

All you are doing is listing a bunch of Q-Anon forum baloney.

If any of it had any real weight, you would have won suits or gotten successful criminal prosecutions.

When you win suits and get convictions, I will take those claims seriously. 


I understand, throwing around stuff on the internet is a lot more fun.  You can claim everything and prove nothing.

[DmonSlyr]

So how many court cases did you win with all that evidence?

How many court cases did the democrats have?

[CptTrips]

but you can not explain entire precincts voting for one candidate and sometimes at near 100% voter turnout. 

I don't need to.  Go prove your case to the authorities.  Get an indictment.