Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

What did they damned well know?  

That they were going to march directly over to the capitol to, in Trump's words, to "fight like hell" for, in his lawyer's words, a "Trial By Combat". And immediately after the insurrection, Ivanka called the rioters, "patriots"!

"House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on a Monday GOP conference call that President Trump told him he takes some responsibility for inciting the riots that took place at the Capitol on Wednesday, two GOP sources confirmed to The Hill."
"“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong,” Trump told a rally of supporters in Washington shortly before the Capitol siege."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/533754-gop-lawmakers-told-trump-takes-some-responsibility-for-capitol-riot

“McCarthy told all members on the call that he has been receiving FBI briefings and it is clear that antifa was not behind this,” one source familiar with the call said. “That it was in fact right-wing extremists and QAnon adherents, and he urged members to stop spreading false information to the contrary.”
Of course, the GOP reps go ahead and do it anyway:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/533759-house-gop-leader-tells-members-to-quit-spreading-lies-on-riot-antifa

"A growing list of companies are cutting off donations to politicians who opposed the Electoral College results, targeting the 147 Republican members of the House and the Senate who voted against affirming President-elect Joe Biden’s victory."
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/533795-here-are-the-companies-suspending-political-contributions-following-the

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

OK, Greg, just one example. Are you claiming the legislature in Michigan, which is run by the republicans, and who made up all of the rules for this election, including mail in balloting in years past, was wrong to certify the election that Biden won by over 100,000 votes?

Trump won Michigan by less than 10,000 last time. I guess we all should have taken up our guns and Clinton flags, stormed the state capital, and demanded that she be declared the winner.

Greg is simply echoing what he hears or reads on wingnut sources like OAN. It doesn't even phase him or his sources that these same lies about election fraud have been continually refuted in the courts. The usual response from him or his sources will be along the lines of, "it's a matter of record that so and so was changed in state election codes and therefore..." First, if these were so important, they would have been brought up in court, and in some cases they may have been, but the courts have found them to be without merit. Second, many of these challenges occurred before a ballot count, and the courts found the states to be compliant in their laws. There's NO basis for what Greg and his cohorts at OAN and elsewhere are peddling...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

They haven't REFUTED anything Bonebrain, they've simply summarily dismissed all the lawsuits on "procedural" grounds or "standing", i.e. not having the ability to sue for various reasons such as saying they weren't harmed or that the plaintiff couldn't show a connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury sustained, by the plaintiff.

Therefore the cases never even got to the stage where they could introduce evidence, as they have been summarily dismissed by these judges, who most likely were terrified of getting involved and didn't have the Stones to take on the case.

Some did, like the gal who was a judge in the lower court in Penn, and she even stated she thought that the plaintiff, i.e. Trump and the Republicans challenging, would prevail.

Yet, the state Supreme court in Penn overruled her, and they threw out the case.  

The only thing the left ever does is just mouth the same shit they always mouth "nothing to see here, move along".

Every friggin' news outlet prefaces their reporting about these charges, by summarily dismissing any facts about the charges.

The typical line is "Donald Trump is bringing another lawsuit today, even though he has ZERO evidence of wrongdoing or fraud in the election".

Now that's REAL objective reporting isn't it?

They have no idea, but these leftist news outlets just assume there is no evidence.  Why?

Because they are simply an extension of the Dem party and they coddle to and support any lies the Dems spew.

And you keep repeating your lie that Donald Trump has sued and been denied 60X, a flat out falsehood.

His lawyers have brought exactly 3 lawsuits, the rest were brought by other Repubs who weren't involved with Trump's lawyers.  

That's such BS, where do you even come up with this crap? Which wingnut sources do you get this crap from?
The elections cases were either brought about by Trump, his campaign or Republicans who support Trump and contest the cases at a state or federal level. It's all on behalf of Trump. 
Let's look at the procedural refusals: 
"Cases where courts said that alleged violations, even if true, shouldn’t be remedied by canceling votes. This issue came into play with some pro-Trump lawsuits that challenged how much access observers had to the ballot-counting process. Procedural issues, courts decided, "don’t automatically lead to the conclusion that ballots were cast illegally," said Richard Pildes, a New York University law professor." "In Wisconsin, Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that a request from a voters’ group to invalidate the entire election would be "unprecedented in American history."
"This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter," Hagedorn wrote."
"And Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, said in dismissing one Pennsylvania challenge: "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
The above are some examples of cases denied on procedural refusals.
Let's look at examples of those denied on the merits:
"In his dismissal of a case seeking to invalidate Pennsylvania’s election results, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann concluded that lawyers presented "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations un-pled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."
"Sometimes courts rejected cases where the pro-Trump briefs were riddled with errors. One was based on an affidavit that attempted to cite results from precincts in Michigan, but actually cited ones in Minnesota. (The statistics about Minnesota were wrong too.) One lawsuit filed by Powell claimed wrongdoing in Edison County, Mich. — a place that doesn’t exist."
"Early on, people were saying that even if these claims were valid, there weren’t enough ballots to overturn the election," Pildes said.
But now that several dozen cases now dismissed, it’s possible to draw an even more sweeping conclusion, he said. "We can say that these claims were just overwhelmingly rejected on substantive grounds."
"No court has yet credited the evidence presented, said Rebecca Green, an election law professor at the College of William and Mary. "Such cases have involved evidence that has been remarkably flimsy," she said."
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/10/donald-trump-has-lost-dozens-election-lawsuits-her/

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Rich already shot down that line of thought James....I see no reason to repeat it.

Really, when did he do that? He should have told the Trump legal team when there was time to do it. Oops, they forgot to do it even when they had the time to do it. Trump should have consulted Rich...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

The sheer volume of delusion rattling around in your head and spilling out here is fascinating to behold Lacey.....

The nerve of you to print that. You offer zero evidence to back up what you state just like the failed efforts of the so-called "Kraken" which, in itself, IS purely delusional, and has been virtually laughed out of court by every Republican-appointed judge who had to listen to it. The only thing delusional here is your brainwashed head. Oh, and Lol...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I have never once mentioned the "kraken" although you seem to be preoccupied with it, why is that? 

Because the goofy unsubstantiated conspiratorial theory of voter fraud and a stolen election that underlies it typifies the belief system you espouse...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

What belief system would that be? LOL

The belief system created by Newsmax and OAN...