Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

471 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, lardonastick said:
1 hour ago, shader said:

Question for lawyers.  Does this case being docketed today mean that the case has just been filed, or does this mean the Supreme Court will hear this case?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

 

 

The biased lawyers here? Like their opinions mean anything.

/s 

A case being docketed means it met the filing requirements.  The clerk has to docket it (give it a docket number) in order to consider the petition. In making this statement, I am free of any bias.

edit: to clarify, being docketed does not mean the court will consider the case on its merits.  The can decline to hear it, as they did earlier today with the Mike Kelly case involving Pennsylvania.

 

Edited by CletiusMaximus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Witz said:

 

Adam Liptak

@adamliptak

BREAKING: The Supreme Court denies Pennsylvania Republicans’ election challenge

4:43 PM · Dec 8, 2020·TweetDeck

https://mobile.twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1336426171236560901

From what I remember reading about the case, they were not appealing for SCOTUS to hear the case, they were seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the state from certifying the results and selecting electors. IIRC, the GOP did not request SCOTUS to accept the case and hear oral arguments. Rudy and Jenna said they would appeal their side of the case to SCOTUS back at Thanksgiving (but have not done so yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shader said:

He calls it "crazy and insane" and predicts it will never make it to the Supreme Court.  Thanks for sharing.  I'm sure as the day goes by, many constitutional lawyers on both sides will weigh in.  I'm looking for more of an educated breakdown of the lawsuit rather than someone who just flat out dismisses it as "indefensible nonsense" on twitter.

It's an embarrassment from a state AG who should know better.   I don't think they'll even get past lack of standing to get to any of the "substantive" arguments.   

They're arguing that every citizen has a stake in the national election, so Texas should be able to file a lawsuit asking the SC to enjoin the states whose outcomes they don't like from seating electors and letting them vote.  

Even if they had standing, the evidence is the same garbage that has been bounced out of court 40+ times and debunked countless times.   

Even if they had standing and evidence, the seating of electors is driven by the constitution and the electoral count act of 1897.   The remedy they seek would be unconstitutional.

There is no chance this gets heard by SCOTUS, unless they want to impose sanctions against him for filing it.   

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

From what I remember reading about the case, they were not appealing for SCOTUS to hear the case, they were seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the state from certifying the results and selecting electors. IIRC, the GOP did not request SCOTUS to accept the case and hear oral arguments. Rudy and Jenna said they would appeal their side of the case to SCOTUS back at Thanksgiving (but have not done so yet).

Serious question: can the Trump Legal Team file appeals while Rudy is in the hospital and Jenna is (presumably) quarantined? What is the procedure there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

A case being docketed means it met the filing requirements.  The clerk has to docket it (give it a docket number) in order to consider the petition. In making this statement, I am free of any bias.

edit: to clarify, being docketed does not mean the court will consider the case on its merits.  The can decline to hear it, as they did earlier today with the Mike Kelly case involving Pennsylvania.

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure many of you know this, but since I've only seen a couple people link to an unroll rather than a tweet broken into 40 parts:

Instead of trying to read 1/40, 2/40, etc...   reply to the first post with "@threadreaderapp unroll"

You get the twitter thread looking like this instead, which is much easier to read.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Serious question: can the Trump Legal Team file appeals while Rudy is in the hospital and Jenna is (presumably) quarantined? What is the procedure there?

Bill Barr might have some availability soon. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, shader said:

Thank you

Amy Howe at Scotusblog writes with very little commentary or opinion/bias. That said, her stuff is pretty much just the facts and she expresses no opinion on the merits.  Her short piece on the Texas lawsuit is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/#more-298075

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, the rover said:

I'm sure many of you know this, but since I've only seen a couple people link to an unroll rather than a tweet broken into 40 parts:

Instead of trying to read 1/40, 2/40, etc...   reply to the first post with "@threadreaderapp unroll"

Do you have to have a Twitter account to execute the part in red?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Amy Howe at Scotusblog writes with very little commentary or opinion/bias. That said, her stuff is pretty much just the facts and she expresses no opinion on the merits.  Her short piece on the Texas lawsuit is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/#more-298075

 

That’s a great read, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

From what I remember reading about the case, they were not appealing for SCOTUS to hear the case, they were seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the state from certifying the results and selecting electors. IIRC, the GOP did not request SCOTUS to accept the case and hear oral arguments. Rudy and Jenna said they would appeal their side of the case to SCOTUS back at Thanksgiving (but have not done so yet).

I think this is correct. It was referred to Alito just based on him being assigned to that geographic region.  He could have granted or denied it himself, but referred it to the entire court as one would expect.  The fact there were no public / written dissents doesn't mean it was necessarily 9-0, just that they didn't have the necessary 5 votes to grant the request.

The Texas case is similar - the AG is asking for an immediate injunction, without the need for any further (opposition) briefing, because the "issues presented here are neither fact-bound nor complex."  This seems odd since his filings total 154 pages and seem to implicate numerous factual and complex (or at least convoluted) premises.

 https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, the rover said:

It's an embarrassment from a state AG who should know better.   I don't think they'll even get past lack of standing to get to any of the "substantive" arguments.   

They're arguing that every citizen has a stake in the national election, so Texas should be able to file a lawsuit asking the SC to enjoin the states whose outcomes they don't like from seating electors and letting them vote.  

Even if they had standing, the evidence is the same garbage that has been bounced out of court 40+ times and debunked countless times.   

Even if they had standing and evidence, the seating of electors is driven by the constitution and the electoral count act of 1897.   The remedy they seek would be unconstitutional.

There is no chance this gets heard by SCOTUS, unless they want to impose sanctions against him for filing it.   

I would like to see a lot of this for filing these asinine lawsuits.  These lawyers are acting like this is some sort of carnival game. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, shader said:
6 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'd love to see any analysis you find that gives this lawsuit any respect or remotely suggests it has even a sliver of merit.  This is a State attorney general, who has filed an original petition to the US Supreme Court (purporting to bypass the District Court and federal court of appeals) to complain about how the election was conducted in other states,  where each of those states themselves have numerous lawsuits pending. Calling it "insane" is for me the wrong word. This is a publicity stunt and a shameful waste of Texas taxpayer money. 

I'm no lawyer and I'll probably get bored of this conversation sometime after lunch because ultimately my opinions don't matter and 99% of the analysis I've read on this is heavily biased.  That's typically where I throw my hands up and move on to something else.  If this is in fact a publicity stunt, then the Supreme Court will reject it in record time or never even take the case, right?  If that's the case, than this really isn't much of a story.

What do you mean by the bolded statement?  How does one determine constitutional law analysis to be bias or unbiased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zoonation said:
4 hours ago, Gr00vus said:

the states in the lawsuit want to stay in the union if some other state can determine their state laws for them?

Can you imagine how this would go if the California AG started trying to bring suits directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine Texas state laws?

The whole thing is absolutely bananas. I haven't been able to post in a while because I got suspended for telling someone the foundation of their argument was "rotten" (lol), but watching everything that has happened since the election is so crazy it would have been unthinkable only a few short years ago.  In 5 short years Trump has basically turned America into a post-truth society.   

All the lies, the erosion of democratic institutional norms, the assault on the rule of law and the demonization of anyone who questions him have all led us here:  A place where the very foundation of democracy is under attack by close to half the country.

I honestly can't believe it, really.  I know social media is poison, but it has apparently done a far bigger number on America than any other western liberal democracy.  Trump and social media have ruined America.

Well done post.  It made me cry.  Because its true. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Witz said:
2 hours ago, Witz said:

nnsylvania Republicans’ election challenge

4:43 PM · Dec 8, 2020·TweetDeck

https://mobile.twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1336426171236560901

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Replying to

@steve_vladeck

And for those who will inevitably say “but see the new Texas suit,” just stop. If the Court had any interest in the issues raised in these cases, it would’ve stepped in here. That no Justice publicly dissented here is a pretty clear message about where that case is going, too.

4:47 PM · Dec 8, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336427248262537216

So how many times has Biden won PA now?

Edited by JAA
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

·

1m

BREAKING: A unanimous Arizona Supreme Court AFFIRMS "the trial court decision and confirming the election of the Biden Electors under A.R.S. § 16-676(B)." Arizona is DONE!!! Trump and his allies remain 1-51 in post-election litigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336446671346077700

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

·

1m

BREAKING: A unanimous Arizona Supreme Court AFFIRMS "the trial court decision and confirming the election of the Biden Electors under A.R.S. § 16-676(B)." Arizona is DONE!!! Trump and his allies remain 1-51 in post-election litigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336446671346077700

If they win their next one, they'll be 2-51.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, it's all Trump's fault. 

I don't know if you guys realize how tone deaf your posts sound?  You guys act like you had zero culpability in any of this.  It's breathtaking the magnitude of irresponsibility.

Huh?   Seriously, the left created a con man?   This has rarely happened in US history.  Huey Long is the best comparison I can think of.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, it's all Trump's fault. 

I don't know if you guys realize how tone deaf your posts sound?  You guys act like you had zero culpability in any of this.  It's breathtaking the magnitude of irresponsibility.

clearly it's not all trumps fault.  trump is a symptom of a rot inherent in American politics - a rejection of facts and expertise in favor of wild conspiracy theories, a win at all costs/no compromise stance, abdication of conservative principles once held dear, and demonization of political opponents.  This is much more than one man, and has been brewing beneath the surface for decades, if not generations.

  • Like 14
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, President Trump is now trying to distance himself from the rejected Pennsylvania lawsuit.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

"This was not my case as has been so incorrectly reported. The case that everyone has been waiting for is the State’s case with Texas and numerous others joining. It is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET. How can you have a presidency when a vast majority think the election was RIGGED?"

 

Just keep moving those goalposts until January 20th, I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to bring up some situations where the GOP has alleged blatant, rampant fraud, and perhaps people can show me where my interpretations of things may be off.

PA: State legislators passed a more relaxed absentee ballot system 18+ months ago, they let an election cycle pass, did not fight it, left the same system in place for this election, and only after Trump lost in November have they complained Article 77 is unconstitutional. They effectively are looking to toss millions of mail in ballots when those voters followed the rules and guidelines in place when they voted. The votes received after the election were minimal, so even if a court wanted to intervene and not count those votes, there were hardly any of them.

GA: Trump has demanded signature verification multiple times because he claims that will swing the election in Georgia to him. However, the absentee ballots already went through a double verification process to be able to be counted in the first place. Voters had to have a signature on file to request an absentee ballot (which had to be validated when they requested it) and again when the ballot was opened. How many times does a signature need to be matched and verified? Similarly, all the talk of "illegal ballots" cast by people that moved, people living in different counties, people underage, felons, the deceased, etc. does not consider what party affiliation those folks had (and does not mean they automatically voted illegally).

GA / MI / WI: Allegations have been raised that hundreds of thousands of ballots magically appeared or the same ballots were scanned over and over again. However, voters had to be checked in to vote in person and mail in votes were registered upon receipt. If there really were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, the total number of votes cast would not come anywhere close to the number of votes that were logged in. If there was a massive conspiracy, how did those hundreds of thousands of votes get attributed to actual voters in a matter of minutes? Did someone go through the voter registrations and randomly select a name that had not voted yet?

GA / MI / WI: If the Dominion system either added votes that never happened (by hundreds of thousands) or allocated votes at 1.25 to 0.75 for Biden, what about the fact that the machine printed out a receipt of who the person voted for and also printed out a paper ballot as a record of the vote / ballot? Once again, the total number of votes would be nowhere close to the official tally of votes cast. Each state had their counties certify the results, and if the totals were off by hundreds of thousands of votes, we would have heard about it.

TX SCOTUS END AROUND: So now there are 10 states alleging that the 4 battleground states broke their own constitutions and the only relief is for SCOTUS to toss the results and allow state legislatures to select their own electors. Mind you, one of the provisions that should apply to state vs. state filings in SCOTUS is that there is not suppose to be any other place (lower courts) to argue the merits of the case. There have already been countless lawsuits filed in lower courts, so not sure how enjoining 10 states and trying to enjoin electoral votes makes any sense. The voting mechanism in PA has no bearing on the voting mechanism in TX. If this gains any traction (I have my doubts), then blue states will almost certainly file that there were inconsistencies in the elections in TX / FL / NC / ETC. So the Texas suit essentially is asking SCOTUS to completely ignore over 20 million voters AFTER their votes were cast and NOT BEFORE the election. IMO, SCOTUS will not intervene after the fact and will point out that if these states had issues about unconstitutional voting processes, they needed to have filed their grievances long before the election, not a month afterwards when they didn't like the outcome.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Meanwhile, President Trump is now trying to distance himself from the rejected Pennsylvania lawsuit.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

"This was not my case as has been so incorrectly reported. The case that everyone has been waiting for is the State’s case with Texas and numerous others joining. It is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET. How can you have a presidency when a vast majority think the election was RIGGED?"

 

Just keep moving those goalposts until January 20th, I guess.

 

He also tagged the SC with a tweet claiming he won since no president had won Ohio and Florida and lost the election.  Which is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:
20 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

From what I remember reading about the case, they were not appealing for SCOTUS to hear the case, they were seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the state from certifying the results and selecting electors. IIRC, the GOP did not request SCOTUS to accept the case and hear oral arguments. Rudy and Jenna said they would appeal their side of the case to SCOTUS back at Thanksgiving (but have not done so yet).

I think this is correct. It was referred to Alito just based on him being assigned to that geographic region.  He could have granted or denied it himself, but referred it to the entire court as one would expect.  The fact there were no public / written dissents doesn't mean it was necessarily 9-0, just that they didn't have the necessary 5 votes to grant the request.

I just read up on this since I like to keep track of efforts to invalidate my vote.Plaintiffs asked the court to treat the application for injunctive relief additionally as a petition for certiorari,
But the SC did not do so. So, while there is nothing currently pending,  they do plan to file.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck

Wednesday fact-check:

1.@MikeKellyPA's case isn't still pending at #SCOTUS.

2. SCOTUS hasn't voted 6-3 to do *anything* election-related.

3. SCOTUS hasn't "agreed to hear" the Texas case.

4. No states have "joined" the Texas case (or moved to do so).

5. The Earth is round.

12:36 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336726518966472704

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Witz said:

 

Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck

Wednesday fact-check:

1.@MikeKellyPA's case isn't still pending at #SCOTUS.

2. SCOTUS hasn't voted 6-3 to do *anything* election-related.

3. SCOTUS hasn't "agreed to hear" the Texas case.

4. No states have "joined" the Texas case (or moved to do so).

5. The Earth is round.

12:36 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336726518966472704

7-10 states may join the Texas lawsuit *IF* the Supreme Court agrees to hear it

So, add Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota to the list of state AGs who oppose the Constitution.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are living out of their head if they think the United States Supreme Court is going to a) hear this Texas case and b) make a ruling that would disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and effectively blow up American representative democracy.

Yet, there are millions of Americans who actually believe not only a) but b).

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Surprised the Democrats haven't filed multiple lawsuits in Ohio and Florida.

 

Why get in the mud on this?  Lloyd Christmas had a better chance with Mary Swanson than this utter nonsense will have in the Supreme Court.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mystery Achiever said:

"Four justices must agree for the court to hear a case."
Either Vladeck or one of the other Twitter lawyers said that,  as a new case vs appeal, five justices would need to agree to hear the Texas case. Can anyone confirm?

I saw that for SCOTUS to hear a completely new case would require 5 justices. Vladeck posted earlier today that all the current members of SCOTUS, only two of them had ever voted to hear a state vs. state case. The point being, to date, the current justices have been reluctant to intervene in these types of filings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...