Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Funny you didn't mention it then.
I spent 12 hours yesterday ensuring a terrorist baby doesn't come back to Ireland. Didn't have time for news, just r/conspiracy
I wanted to read the judgement, which I just saw now.
Why would we be let down ?
It proves what we said that there's irregularities in the election that need to be reviewed.
Is that right? Can't a President pardon someone of federal crimes before any charges are even brought? I don't think Nixon was actually charged with anything before Ford pardoned him, and I am certain that he was never convicted.
It seems you're right. But the wording of Ford's pardon placed some constraints on it being crimes he committed whilst president. Trump would need to go further and specify crimes committed before, during and after the presidency which would raise the eyebrows of the supreme court I expect.
It wasn't specific to him being President though, so presumably Trump could be pardoned in a similar way but for a longer time period (like the last 70 years!).
I don't think anyone objected to Nixon's pardon in court, but I rather suspect they would with Trump so it might not work out anyway. It also only covers federal crimes.
He wouldn't need to be pardoned for crimes after he was President you know. He could get around prosecution in the future by simply not committing any crimes after he leaves office.
"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."
US District Court Judge Matthew Brann
"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."
US District Court Judge Matthew Brann
Mate trolling you (and it seems that other limp nutter who's posts I've blocked with great satisfaction) is my daily breakfast smile session)
Last edited:
There hasn’t been an allegation of fraud.
The ruling is fair - you can argue that the rules don’t properly support voter enfranchisement - but they’re clear enough as to what should constitute a valid vote.
For reference Allegheny has been pro Democrat for a long time (2 to 1 split in favour of democrats) - Killary won this County last time out - it includes Pittsburgh and is one of the bigger counties in PA.
Biden won the County by over 145,000 votes.
Again, invalidating these votes doesn’t change the overall election result at County, State or National Level.
Allegheny also doesn’t participate in “vote curing” which may have validated some of these votes.
Ross just got Litt up
What is typically a mere formality during normal elections - the bipartisan certification of state vote totals - has become the latest battleground in the president's attempts to maintain power for the next four years.
Could Trump actually be successful? It's not impossible, but the chances are very, very slim. First of all, the president would have to overturn the results in multiple states, where Biden's leads range from tens of thousands of votes to more than a hundred thousand. This isn't 2000, when everything came down just to Florida.
What's more, many of the states Trump's legal team is targeting - Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - have Democratic governors who are not going to sit idly by while all of this takes place.
That doesn't mean Biden's supporters aren't worried, however. While the odds of this happening are along the lines of the earth being hit by a giant meteor or someone getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery, having victory snatched away at this point would be such a cataclysmic political event that the remote prospect of such a possibility is enough to give Democrats cold sweats.
Could Trump actually be successful? It's not impossible, but the chances are very, very slim. First of all, the president would have to overturn the results in multiple states, where Biden's leads range from tens of thousands of votes to more than a hundred thousand. This isn't 2000, when everything came down just to Florida.
What's more, many of the states Trump's legal team is targeting - Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - have Democratic governors who are not going to sit idly by while all of this takes place.
That doesn't mean Biden's supporters aren't worried, however. While the odds of this happening are along the lines of the earth being hit by a giant meteor or someone getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery, having victory snatched away at this point would be such a cataclysmic political event that the remote prospect of such a possibility is enough to give Democrats cold sweats.
Yes, like me I'm sure he is in a state of utter disbelief that the Rudy masterclass didn't seal victory in the case. It's an outrage!
Meanwhile the appeal is already in, and another lawsuit was just filed. So they won, and now they have twice the lawsuits to defend than they did yesterday.
"“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent,” "
Hahahaha
1-37 I think
It's 2-34 so far.
The first win was shortening the cure deadline in PA for a small subset of rejected mail-in ballots from 9 days to 6 days. Those ballots weren't included in the official count anyway.
The second win was a technicality in PA where 2,349 mail-in ballots didn't have a date entered on the outer envelope, even though all were date stamped by the postal service proving they were within the date limit.
In litigation, when your case is trying to get something to happen that no person and no court wants to see happen, then 2-35 is a better outcome than 2-0. I'm going to have to simplify this for you. Imagine his goal is to get to 10 wins, for arguments sake to remain president let's pretend he needs to get to 10.
At the rate he is going he will get to 9-150. At the rate you would mistakenly consider successful he'd get to 9-0. But this isn't like a football score. So keep those two scores in mind. Now we come to the endgame, the 10th win is up for grabs. Here is the key difference between litigation and football when you're the underdog. The likelihood of winning number 10 is higher, much higher, when you've gone 9-150 than it would be if you'd have gone 9-0. This is because you've been shown and can therefore eliminate virtually all of the possible weaknesses that will result in your defeat. If you were at 9-0, then you'd know nothing, you would still be vulnerable to all 150 different ways of getting fucked.
I've probably wasted my time. Key takeway 2-35 is a healthier position than 2-0.
You realise this is like saying I've been accused of rape 37 times and only been convicted twice.
The point being it has been established you're a rapist by the 2 cases.
You've definitely wasted your time.
My highschool experience was 2-35. I would have preferred 2-0.
It's more like you are trying to prove a case of rape, but so far what you've demonstrated is that there was a typo on the accused's last drivers license.
We're not talking about rapes anymore are we, just to clarify?
Only if you ignore the judgment that states the Election Board categorically and inexplicably failed to adhere to the guidelines.
It's worse than that. The supreme court ruled before the election about the date dispute, asking the counties to set aside ballots that arrived after election day, so that they can rule on whether it is legal to count them or not later on. Then this county despite having that court order, decided to go yeah nah fuck that, if there is no date let's just count it because "technically" we have no ethidence that the date was after. They literally fucking made a mug of the supreme court. Which explains this passage of the judgement:
[article]
We must presume that the Elections Board was aware of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in In re: November 3, 2020 General Election and its earlier decision in Pennsylvania Democratic Party when the Elections Board began the canvass and pre-canvass process for mail-in and absentee ballots. The Elections Board chose, nonetheless, to ignore its obligations under the Election Code to determine the sufficiency of the mail-in and absentee ballots at issue, as recapitulated by the Supreme Court in In re: November 3, 2020 General Election, and apparently took the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Democratic Party as both a ruling against a notice and opportunity to cure remedy for defective ballots and an invitation to, instead, simply ignore defects when canvassing and pre-canvassing. In so doing, the Elections Board even acted in conflict with September 28, 2020 guidance from the Secretary: "At the pre-canvass or canvass, as the case may be, the county board of election[] should... set aside any ballots without a filled out, dated and signed declaration envelope." Pennsylvania Dep't of State, Guidance Concerning Civilian Absentee and Mail-In Ballot Procedures, 9/28/2020, at 8, Where the Elections Board tacitly derived its authority to ignore its statutory obligation to determine the sufficiency of ballots and to violate the will of the General Assembly reflected in Act 77, approved by the Governor, and the guidance of the Secretary is a mystery.
[/article]
Similar threads
