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?  

464 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

13 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I read this and was thinking - who could his lawyer be in this one?  Its John Eastman from Chapman University.  This is the guy who made the news a while back by writing an OpEd in Newsweek taking the position that Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be VP.  His argument was generally not well received in the legal community.

The same guy said it was "silly" to question the Constitutional eligibility of Ted Cruz...who was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a nonresident American mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

Trump's intervention request asks for the Court to award him costs to file as a plaintiff in intervention which is completely on brand.

 

From Twitter:  The document appears to be a brief-length version of the president's Twitter account.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

Humor me and let's assume the Court does not want to hear the Texas case.  How does that work? 

Do they ignore it, have Alito respond since Texas falls in his circuit assignment or does the full court issue an opinion?

I think they just refuse to grant cert, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

Humor me and let's assume the Court does not want to hear the Texas case.  How does that work? 

Do they ignore it, have Alito respond since Texas falls in his circuit assignment or does the full court issue an opinion?

As with the PA case, whichever judge is assigned to Texas will almost certainly refer it to the entire court for consideration. That's not mandatory, but with a big important case like this, its probable.  I believe they need a majority of 5 to take the case.  If they don't have 5, it is usually just a one-sentence order indicating they won't take the case, without explanation (as we saw yesterday in the PA case.)  In some cases, there will be a dissent or a concurring opinion if a judge wants to explain himself.  One recent example is when Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado a few years ago regarding Colorado's marijuana law.  The court refused the case, but Thomas wrote a dissent indicating he believes the Court has to take these cases. His theory is that, since SCOTUS jurisdiction is exclusive, they can't refuse or they will leave the complaining state with no venue in which to make its claim.  In other words, Thomas believes the SCOTUS' jurisdiction in cases between states is original, exclusive AND mandatory.  Alito joined him (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf).  If they both still feel this way, that means there are probably at least 2 votes in favor of taking the case, so they need 3 more.

 

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

41 minutes ago, the rover said:

Trump tweeting "this is the big one" can't help but remind people of Clark Griswold opening his jelly of the month membership.

Now most people don't even get that because CEOs and others in the C-suite deserve 1000* more than the rest of the employees because they somehow work 1000* harder. 

Sorry, bitter for not getting a bonus for 5 years despite tangible proof of high performance and contribution to the bottom line but that's America today isn't it?  Everything for the 1%.

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:

Damn coastal elites trying to tell everyone what to do.  Oh wait...

Speaking of which....Mike Pompeo justified his campaign trip to Georgia by saying (paraphrasing) "John Kerry and Hillary Clinton got to travel to coastal elite states, why can't I travel to Georgia?"

It's funny and sad on multiple levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I read this and was thinking - who could his lawyer be in this one?  Its John Eastman from Chapman University.  This is the guy who made the news a while back by writing an OpEd in Newsweek taking the position that Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be VP.  His argument was generally not well received in the legal community.

 

He also helped write the Texas suit. And from what I understand, writing a brief in support of your own lawsuit is generally frowned upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to comment earlier on the Texas SCOTUS filing over the swing states breaking constitutional law. Oh the irony. The Texas Governor this year changed voting processes and timelines on his own via executive order, clearly in violation of Texas’ constitutional law on voting procedures. So Texas did EXACTLY what they are suing PA, GA, WI, and MI of doing. 

  • Like 7
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not fraud but more republican voter suppression.   This is more than "smoke". 

Cobb County under fire for cutting early voting locations

Quote

Cobb County elections officials scaled back the sites for Georgia’s two Senate runoff races to just five locations: two in Marietta, and the others in Kennesaw, Austell and Powder Springs. That’s less than half of Cobb’s November early voting options.

 

Has there ever been a case of a democrat suppressing votes?  I honestly don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

As with the PA case, whichever judge is assigned to Texas will almost certainly refer it to the entire court for consideration. That's not mandatory, but with a big important case like this, its probable.  I believe they need a majority of 5 to take the case.  If they don't have 5, it is usually just a one-sentence order indicating they won't take the case, without explanation (as we saw yesterday in the PA case.)  In some cases, there will be a dissent or a concurring opinion if a judge wants to explain himself.  One recent example is when Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado a few years ago regarding Colorado's marijuana law.  The court refused the case, but Thomas wrote a dissent indicating he believes the Court has to take these cases. His theory is that, since SCOTUS jurisdiction is exclusive, they can't refuse or they will leave the complaining state with no venue in which to make its claim.  In other words, Thomas believes the SCOTUS' jurisdiction in cases between states is original, exclusive AND mandatory.  Alito joined him (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf).  If they both still feel this way, that means there are probably at least 2 votes in favor of taking the case, so they need 3 more.

 

 

I realize the S.Ct. can over rule itself, but isn't Thomas's belief against the weight of precedence? Its fairly well-settled that its not mandatory, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

I realize the S.Ct. can over rule itself, but isn't Thomas's belief against the weight of precedence? Its fairly well-settled that its not mandatory, correct?

Yes - he discusses that in the dissent in the Colorado case. He says the common practice of exercising discretionary review over these cases "bears reconsideration."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

BREAKING: Arizona Federal Court DISMISSES Kraken conspiracy lawsuit. "Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings" Trump and his allies are now 1-54 in post-election litigation.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336823023089946629

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

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

BREAKING: Wisconsin federal court DISMISSES last Kraken case. "Federal judges do not appoint the president in this county." It began with 4 Kraken: It has ended with none: Trump and his allies are 1-55 in post-election litigation.

ALERT: VICTORY IN WISCONSIN

democracydocket.com

11:15 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336887195056046081

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

3 minutes ago, Witz said:

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

BREAKING: Wisconsin federal court DISMISSES last Kraken case. "Federal judges do not appoint the president in this county." It began with 4 Kraken: It has ended with none: Trump and his allies are 1-55 in post-election litigation.

ALERT: VICTORY IN WISCONSIN

Filmed live in the courtroom.

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

45 minutes ago, Witz said:

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

BREAKING: Wisconsin federal court DISMISSES last Kraken case. "Federal judges do not appoint the president in this county." It began with 4 Kraken: It has ended with none: Trump and his allies are 1-55 in post-election litigation.

ALERT: VICTORY IN WISCONSIN

democracydocket.com

11:15 PM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336887195056046081

That’s the last of the 4 kraken cases, filed barely a week ago. I’m sure she made a ton of money filing these ridiculous lawsuits, but has to have some shame today. I would want to quit and change careers if I read this- 

Quote

The plaintiff also asserts that the “cutoff for election-related challenges, at least in the Seventh Circuit, appears to be the date that the electors meet, rather than the date of certification.” Dkt. No. 72 at 24. He cites Swaffer v. Deininger, No. 08-CV-208, 2008 WL 5246167 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2008). Swaffer is not a Seventh Circuit case, and the court is not aware of a Seventh Circuit case that establishes a “cutoff for election-related challenges.” And the plaintiff seems to have made up the “quote” in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer. The plaintiff asserts that these words appear on page 4 of the Swaffer decision: “even though the election has passed, the meeting of electors obviously has not, so plaintiff’s claim here is hardly moot.” Dkt. No. 72 at 24- 25. The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court’s colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words. In fact, Swaffer did not involve a challenge to a presidential election and it did not involve electors. 

 

  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

The sad thing is that assuming the SCOTUS decides to not hear the Texas case it will not change the mind of most Republicans that Biden stole the election from Trump.   The ballots in Georgia were counted three times, once by hand, and that wasn't enough proof for them.

Bottom line:  the only person they trust to tell the truth is Donald Trump.  

Quite possibly the biggest liar on the planet.  I'm not sure if that's ironic or just pathetic.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

That’s the last of the 4 kraken cases, filed barely a week ago. I’m sure she made a ton of money filing these ridiculous lawsuits, but has to have some shame today. I would want to quit and change careers if I read this- 

 

The second part you quoted (that the board didn’t quote for me), sure seems like something that could/should lead to a referral to the bar for sanctions. 

Citing a quote from a case as precedent in the District Court you are arguing in when:

a) the case isn’t from that District and

b) the quote is apparently made up and not in the case cited

Sure seems like making up evidence is something courts generally frown upon.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, shader said:

Yeah I just saw this pop in.  I don't know how this works with the president joining in with states.  

There's another document added in as well (I believe the defendants filed this one) making a total of 3 for the day.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9 Texas Scotus Amici Brief- FINAL.pdf

I'm thinking I should file a Motion to Intervene. The Plaintiffs are attempting to disenfranchise me. I should be allowed to defend my vote, as should everyone in all 4 defendant states.

 

ETA: Or, maybe I should file a class action suit on behalf of all the potentially disenfranchised voters against the State of Texas. If each of the millions of voters affected has damages of only $100, that's a sizeable enough claim that I should be able to find counsel willing to handle it.

Edited by apalmer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my forays around the internet, it appears that the right has put all their eggs in this TX Supreme Court basket.  If this gets rejected, there's literally nothing left.  So from that standpoint, there's a decent chance this is all over maybe even by this afternoon? 

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

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336870248142811136

Quote

Nothing that happens at this point will result in Trump winning the election. He lost. What he's trying to do is remain in power anyway.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337040686839963650

Quote

You don't have to look any farther than President Trump's own filing at the Supreme Court. He's not asking the court to help him win the election. He's asking it to set aside the election and either have state legislatures pick their own electors or maybe have none at all.

 

How can anyone be okay with any of this?

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:

Appealing to the Supreme Court?  Why would anyone have an issue with it? If it's a ridiculous lawsuit, they will turn it away.  If it has merits, they will possibly consider it.  If they consider it and set aside electors in those states, it would likely be because the states did things they weren't supposed to do.  What am I missing?  

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shader said:

Appealing to the Supreme Court?  Why would anyone have an issue with it? If it's a ridiculous lawsuit, they will turn it away.  If it has merits, they will possibly consider it.  If they consider it and set aside electors in those states, it would likely be because the states did things they weren't supposed to do.  What am I missing?

You're asking why people might have an issue with a ridiculous lawsuit seeking to end democracy?

Whatever you think of democracy, ridiculous lawsuits are bad.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, shader said:

Appealing to the Supreme Court?  Why would anyone have an issue with it? If it's a ridiculous lawsuit, they will turn it away.  If it has merits, they will possibly consider it.  If they consider it and set aside electors in those states, it would likely be because the states did things they weren't supposed to do.  What am I missing?  

 

Because it seeks to disenfranchise 20+ million voters and overturn the will of the people?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You're asking why people might have an issue with a ridiculous lawsuit seeking to end democracy?

Whatever you think of democracy, ridiculous lawsuits are bad.

If the lawsuit is actually ridiculous and seeks to end democracy ( that language wasn't in the lawsuit, so someone would have to take your word for it), than the Supreme Court will likely say so.  Then you're free to think whatever you want about those that filed it.  Until then, the logical thing to do is to wait and see how the Supreme Court feels about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

If the lawsuit is actually ridiculous and seeks to end democracy ( that language wasn't in the lawsuit, so someone would have to take your word for it)

You can't understand the goal of throwing out the votes of millions of people is seeking to end representative democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Because it seeks to disenfranchise 20+ million voters and overturn the will of the people?

If the questions raised in the lawsuit are legally valid, then like Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court will make a decision and the process will play out based on the decision they made.

But as you've said, this is a ridiculous lawsuit that has no chance of even being heard by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

You can't understand the goal of throwing out the votes of millions of people is seeking to end representative democracy?

I've not seen one person on the right that claims to want to end democracy.  That's literally not their stated goal.  If you want to understand people, it might help you to actually learn how they feel.  Those skills might come in handy if you want to appeal to them in the future.

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

I've not seen one person on the right that claims to want to end democracy.  That's literally not their stated goal.  If you want to understand people, it might help you to actually learn how they feel.  Those skills might come in handy if you want to appeal to them in the future.

 

They wrote in the lawsuit that the Attorney General of Texas filed with the US Supreme Court and 17 other states signed on to, and Trump supported, that they want to throw out the votes from the election and have the electors assigned in a different way. How is that not "one person on the right" in your mind?

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

5 minutes ago, shader said:

I've not seen one person on the right that claims to want to end democracy.  That's literally not their stated goal.  If you want to understand people, it might help you to actually learn how they feel.  Those skills might come in handy if you want to appeal to them in the future.

 

There has been zero evidence presented so far, so what is the driving force to do this?  What is the stated goal in your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, shader said:

If the questions raised in the lawsuit are legally valid, then like Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court will make a decision and the process will play out based on the decision they made.

But as you've said, this is a ridiculous lawsuit that has no chance of even being heard by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Even if I grant everything you say, 20+ million voters will be disenfranchised and the will of the people overturned.  Based on your responses so far I take it you don’t have a problem with that.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nysfl2 said:

They wrote in the lawsuit that the Attorney General of Texas filed with the US Supreme Court and 17 other states signed on to, and Trump supported, that they want to throw out the votes from the election and have the electors assigned in a different way. How is that not "one person on the right" in your mind?

I've not seen one person on the right that claims to want to end democracy.  Their claims are that the rules weren't followed and that rules were broken.  Yes, their end goal is Trump, not Biden.  But their claim is not that they want to end democracy.  No need to use absurd rhetoric.

 

  • Laughing 1
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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...