Tech Tyrants attacking Parler

[Spank]

Parler being taken down by AWS has nothing to do with a TOS breach. It was an anti-competitive move on behalf of Twitter and the latest example of a monopoly taking down a threat to its power. Parler was previously valued at around a half-billion dollars. Twitter didn't like that. They liked it even less when droves of people started jumping ship.

What does Twitter have to do with AWS?

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/15/twitter-taps-aws-for-its-latest-foray-into-the-public-cloud/

Twitter just partnered with AWS to massively expand itself in a deal I can only imagine starts in the tens of millions of dollars. Don't kid yourself. Social media doesn't give even the remotest fuck about you or your safety, let alone the integrity of politics and news. Like any monopoly, all they care about is money and power and they'll do whatever it takes to get it.

 

[DadJokes]

That’s extremely simple. EVERY INDIVIDUAL that, as a fully grown adult, decided to get stupid and participate in a fight with the police and damage public property.

And, just to make sure I'm following you here, at no point were they encouraged to engage in acts of violence by anyone at the rally before hand?

Were you privy to the conversations between each attendee during and before the events? Be specific if that’s not what you’re meaning.

Of course.

I mean was there anyone calling for violence that was directed towards congress regarding the certification of Joe Biden winning the election from anyone that spoke on stage at the rally before hand?

In your opinion of course since you claim to have watched the speech more than once. If you only watched Trump's speech more than once I'll understand if you feel like you're not in a position to comment on that.

Why play a game? If you saw something, say it. Be direct. It seems that you feel someone did this so tell me who said it and I will go verify it. Tell us who specifically told people to go up there, bust down the doors, fight with police, hurt people, and damage public property.

Why do people keep accusing me of things I haven't implied or said? I've never said I felt like anyone incited violence yet here you are saying I have.

I asked you if you think anyone called for violence that was directed towards congress in the lead up to the "riot". Simple question was all.

Perhaps something is being lost in your text and conversation style.

I will not give an absolute answer as to whether “anyone” on stage precisely called for what transpired because I can’t claim to have heard every conversation, every speech, or evidence outside of some of those publicly accused. What I have heard are claims, such as the President incited sedition. I heard the same speech and if someone considers protest, being strong, and having one’s opinion heard outside a government building sedition, we’ve been slacking on prosecution since...the beginning.

So we have Congress grandstanding and having at some political revenge it appears when the hypocrites are on video being indifferent, supportive, or encouraging their constituents to be hostile the past 4 years. Again, that’s what you do when you want to avoid the pitfalls of explaining how you’re going to enable individuals to have the opportunity to improve their lives.

So if people are just animals needing a bone thrown to get them to do what a politician wants them to, I guess they really aren’t responsible for their own decisions to do wrong. We’re in a world of hurt. And this isn’t directed specifically at you gringostarr.

And objectively, we don’t know he won the election and they had the opportunity to prove that.... but they didn’t. He did win this political round though.

 

[landshark99]

Is Bernie Sanders to blame for his supporter trying to kill Republicans at a softball game because he said they "want to kill your grandmother"?

One Jerk is not a mob of rioters.

Is Obama responsible for the 5 Dallas officers killed at a trash BLM rally by a follower because of his anti-cop rhetoric?

Where is Obama anti-cop rhetoric?

Is the collective left to blame for all the riots and city burning by BLM and Antifa which they were silent about and basically approved of ?

Big difference for supporting valid protest and encouraging riots and looting, almost everybody condemned the riots and looting, and look how quick 45 wanted to call out the national guard on those events

Is that dope LeBron James responsible for the racial division by spouting all the "systemic racism" crap?

No bias on your part for insulting the man and blaming him for racial division

 

[DadJokes]

Who gets the final word on what is a “valid” protest? In the country I grew up in, it was an individual, not a party, pundit, or an elected official like some think it is now. Me, I’ll hear an argument, not take just your word for it (I know... shocking), and look for evidence, not opinion, to see if it is supported. Well, that’s if evidence is allowed to be disseminated... which some countries don’t allow to control the unskeptical population.

 

[Zotch]

Answer the questions

 

[Gringostarr]

And objectively, we don’t know he won the election and they had the opportunity to prove that.... but they didn’t. He did win this political round though.

Regardless of everything you posted, there is zero evidence of voter fraud outside of the two confirmed cases from Pennsylvania, both of which voted for Trump.

There is zero evidence because any time the court asked for such evidence to be presented there wasn't any because submitting false evidence to the court is a crime, and the courts heard over 40 cases regarding the election.

So 40+ court cases were reviewed by judges yet at exactly zero was there ever any evidence presented of voter fraud.

Feel free to link to any actual evidence of voter fraud though since you just claimed there was.

 

[DadJokes]

Regardless of everything you posted, there is zero evidence of voter fraud outside of the two confirmed cases from Pennsylvania, both of which voted for Trump.

There is zero evidence because any time the court asked for such evidence to be presented there wasn't any because submitting false evidence to the court is a crime, and the courts heard over 40 cases regarding the election.

So 40+ court cases were reviewed by judges yet at exactly zero was there ever any evidence presented of voter fraud.

Feel free to link to any actual evidence of voter fraud though since you just claimed there was.

You do not know this. You aren’t privy to anything except what is said by pundits. There was no testimony, there was no investigation of the evidence by any judge but there are affidavits....where apparently some think it was collusion on their part to get together and waste their time....AT THEIR OWN PERIL. That is not logical, at all. There was no discovery. All conversations were shut down, dismissed, laughed at, or BLOCKED without a reason why other than nothing to see here essentially. Please illustrate the left’s or right’s research and investigation impartially into every accusation.

If the left said there were irregularities, that more voted than was on the last current voter roll, that Mail in ballots were dated earlier than they arrived, that electronic tallies were fluctuating up and down for their candidate, I’d defend their right to investigate and have their day in court. It never got there for any legal team that I’m aware of, even if it wasn’t Trump’s team.

The irregularities should worry even you... because one day, with this standard of conducting elections lowered, it might just be a problem for ALL of us. History is a valuable resource there. Never BEFORE has this been such a problem so it’s not just this President. It’s from many people.

I have the honesty to say, because I’m at the mercy of a deluge of information the same as you, that we don’t know and there was absolutely no transparency. There I go again not trusting what I cannot verify but I saw no evidence to the contrary OR....an attempt to WISELY and honestly try to alleviate concern on the right with information. Why not explain away every point the legal team made rationally? Why not be transparent. Again, we don’t know what happened. You don’t know what happened because nobody said anything. They wanted it to just go away. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If so... that’s still scary. The death of 1000 cuts.
I’ve seen the left build a case on a lie that has many many many many hearings, spent millions and millions on investigations to come up with a big fat 0 in the last 4 years. These attorneys, intel people, and statistical data and probability people had more to go on. Biden seems to have won the lotto.

 

[Gringostarr]

You do not know this. You aren’t privy to anything except what is said by pundits. There was no testimony, there was no investigation of the evidence by any judge but there are affidavits....where apparently some think it was collusion on their part to get together and waste their time....AT THEIR OWN PERIL. That is not logical, at all. There was no discovery. All conversations were shut down, dismissed, laughed at, or BLOCKED without a reason why other than nothing to see here essentially. Please illustrate the left’s or right’s research and investigation impartially into every accusation.

No one was willing to say what was in those affidavits in court before a judge under penalty of perjury. That's not a guess, that's not "just what the pundits tell us" that's the factual truth. Furthermore there was no discovery because a judge determined there was no grounds for discovery. Again, that's not a guess, that's not "just what the pundits tell us" that's the factual truth. +40 judges reviewing +40 cases and not one of them thought there was enough to hold a trial or even grant discovery.

If the left said there were irregularities, that more voted than was on the last current voter roll, that Mail in ballots were dated earlier than they arrived, that electronic tallies were fluctuating up and down for their candidate, I’d defend their right to investigate and have their day in court. It never got there for any legal team that I’m aware of, even if it wasn’t Trump’s team.

Matters of elections are civil and therefore subject to a judge reviewing all evidence and then deciding if there is enough cause for a trial. If there was never a trial it means there wasn't sufficient evidence that one should even take place. That's how civil court works. And the claim of "no investigation" is completely erroneous. There were multiple investigations, there were multiple people and agencies offering massive sums of money for any hint of fraud. The only two found to my knowledge were the two instances in Pennsylvania that voted for Trump. That's it. Anything else is nowhere even close the real of anything that could be considered factual.

The irregularities should worry even you... because one day, with this standard of conducting elections lowered, it might just be a problem for ALL of us. History is a valuable resource there. Never BEFORE has this been such a problem so it’s not just this President. It’s from many people.

What evidence of irregularities? And, just to be clear, someone making a statement at a press conference or a hearing where they're not willing to be sworn in isn't evidence. Again, zero. Nothing. No evidence.

I have the honesty to say, because I’m at the mercy of a deluge of information the same as you, that we don’t know and there was absolutely no transparency. There I go again not trusting what I cannot verify but I saw no evidence to the contrary OR....an attempt to WISELY and honestly try to alleviate concern on the right with information. Why not explain away every point the legal team made rationally? Why not be transparent. Again, we don’t know what happened. You don’t know what happened because nobody said anything. They wanted it to just go away. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If so... that’s still scary. The death of 1000 cuts.
I’ve seen the left build a case on a lie that has many many many many hearings, spent millions and millions on investigations to come up with a big fat 0 in the last 4 years. These attorneys, intel people, and statistical data and probability people had more to go on. Biden seems to have won the lotto.

And while you have all this information it contains zero facts about actual fraud. I can't stress enough when I type zero I mean absolutely nothing, the total and complete absence of fraud outside the two cases I've already mentioned. Out of +40 lawsuits filed across multiple states nothing. And no one gives a damn what you can or can't verify in these issues, what matters is that the courts, you know those things with judges and evidence, concluded that there wasn't even sufficient evidence to hold a trial or even grant discovery on any accusation of fraud. And "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is also garbage because yet again, there was zero evidence of fraud. There is no middle when it comes to facts and the facts, once again, was that in +40 cases that were brought before a judge there was absolutely zero evidence of fraud.

What is true is the both sides are absolutely capable of building cases on a lie that spans many hearings. Or are you going to tell me that we actually needed 10 whole investigations about why my friend Sean Smith, or as I knew him vilerat, was murdered.

 

[DadJokes]

No one was willing to say what was in those affidavits in court before a judge under penalty of perjury. That's not a guess, that's not "just what the pundits tell us" that's the factual truth. Furthermore there was no discovery because a judge determined there was no grounds for discovery. Again, that's not a guess, that's not "just what the pundits tell us" that's the factual truth. +40 judges reviewing +40 cases and not one of them thought there was enough to hold a trial or even grant discovery.



Matters of elections are civil and therefore subject to a judge reviewing all evidence and then deciding if there is enough cause for a trial. If there was never a trial it means there wasn't sufficient evidence that one should even take place. That's how civil court works. And the claim of "no investigation" is completely erroneous. There were multiple investigations, there were multiple people and agencies offering massive sums of money for any hint of fraud. The only two found to my knowledge were the two instances in Pennsylvania that voted for Trump. That's it. Anything else is nowhere even close the real of anything that could be considered factual.



What evidence of irregularities? And, just to be clear, someone making a statement at a press conference or a hearing where they're not willing to be sworn in isn't evidence. Again, zero. Nothing. No evidence.



And while you have all this information it contains zero facts about actual fraud. I can't stress enough when I type zero I mean absolutely nothing, the total and complete absence of fraud outside the two cases I've already mentioned. Out of +40 lawsuits filed across multiple states nothing. And no one gives a damn what you can or can't verify in these issues, what matters is that the courts, you know those things with judges and evidence, concluded that there wasn't even sufficient evidence to hold a trial or even grant discovery on any accusation of fraud. And "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is also garbage because yet again, there was zero evidence of fraud. There is no middle when it comes to facts and the facts, once again, was that in +40 cases that were brought before a judge there was absolutely zero evidence of fraud.

What is true is the both sides are absolutely capable of building cases on a lie that spans many hearings. Or are you going to tell me that we actually needed 10 whole investigations about why my friend Sean Smith, or as I knew him vilerat, was murdered.

The affidavit itself was under penalty of perjury and legally binding. So you mean to tell me if they raised their hand and swore they were telling the truth on a Bible, leftists heads wouldn’t explode and they would all look at each other, sigh, and say “Yep, they’re definitely telling the truth now!” lol That wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

There was no authority given to investigate by the judge and any case required access. That’s an inconvenient truth. Without it, all you might have are affidavits. Nothing more. Thus, you’re dependent on, hopefully, an objective judge... which is doubtful in this political environment.

Exactly how many cases again? Who brought them? What districts were they in? Who were the judges? What did the judge say specifically? Seems many attorneys conclude they need the case to present the evidence and do fact finding... which didn’t happen.

For each case, where was the accusation made and please feel free to scour the Internet to show us what allegation was investigated, what discrepancies were resolved and the details for each. Seems you have an answer for anything so you might have a go at answering that as well.

I have “information “? The problem is I do not. Neither do you.

And you expect these states to objectively “investigate” themselves? To critique themselves especially with death threats, their families in fear? Same goes for judges. That’s what you get when the freedom of speech without fear of financial or physical harm is a POTENTIAL factor.

Evidence of irregularities...you think I can recall all of them? I doubt you can. Dozens at minimum if not many more things that made me want to know more the past couple of months. It’s not hidden. Plenty of statistical, historical, and counting anomalies that are atypical. There’s people paid to do that, collate, not me. You might not want to look into it as it may be a rabbit hole for you to go into. How about you show there were no dead voting, underage voters, illegal voters, or people voting out of state, district, and voting twice? See how that works? Apparently there’s nowhere to go now to have one’s grievances objectively considered after hearing both sides and it’s ok that 75 million people, about 20% of the population, think their vote was possibly cancelled out. How long before that’s a real problem? Again, if you have this information, as to the summation of the courts that heard however many cases from many citizens...share it. Set my mind at ease.

As to credibility, the left isn’t concerned about repairing theirs when they continue to know so much that just isn’t so. Are you old enough to remember journalism? Where you investigate both sides and insert no opinion of your own, and you let the reader decide? Nowadays, people are so distracted...lazy? They just want it summarized and to give them the jist. Maybe even tell them what to think by citing “anonymous” sources and then giving their opinion. Yeah.... it’s not better in many ways today. Society is certainly not in a renaissance.

Gasp! I take offense nobody gives a damn about my need to verify. lol Hurts my heart. You do you. I’ll do what’s worked for me and journalism in the past by the way. Now, there’s no “whoops, sorry about that...we totally got that wrong”...no integrity. And it’s obvious the left has no ideas left that haven’t already been tried and repeatedly, historically failed.

Sean Smith of Benghazi didn’t need hearings. They are always for show and a waste of time. I personally think dereliction of duty should be an offense a Secretary of State should be accountable for. I say action, not words and that’s all both sides give. They distract from their failures by sloughing responsibility and using the art of distraction, pitting people against each other in their theatrics of pretending to give a damn. There might be the occasional exception for a politician but it’s becoming exceedingly rare.

 

[Gringostarr]

The affidavit itself was under penalty of perjury and legally binding. So you mean to tell me if they raised their hand and swore they were telling the truth on a Bible, leftists heads wouldn’t explode and they would all look at each other, sigh, and say “Yep, they’re definitely telling the truth now!” lol That wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

There was no authority given to investigate by the judge and any case required access. That’s an inconvenient truth. Without it, all you might have are affidavits. Nothing more. Thus, you’re dependent on, hopefully, an objective judge... which is doubtful in this political environment.

Exactly how many cases again? Who brought them? What districts were they in? Who were the judges? What did the judge say specifically? Seems many attorneys conclude they need the case to present the evidence and do fact finding... which didn’t happen.

For each case, where was the accusation made and please feel free to scour the Internet to show us what allegation was investigated, what discrepancies were resolved and the details for each. Seems you have an answer for anything so you might have a go at answering that as well.

I have “information “? The problem is I do not. Neither do you.

And you expect these states to objectively “investigate” themselves? To critique themselves especially with death threats, their families in fear? Same goes for judges. That’s what you get when the freedom of speech without fear of financial or physical harm is a POTENTIAL factor.

Evidence of irregularities...you think I can recall all of them? I doubt you can. Dozens at minimum if not many more things that made me want to know more the past couple of months. It’s not hidden. Plenty of statistical, historical, and counting anomalies that are atypical. There’s people paid to do that, collate, not me. You might not want to look into it as it may be a rabbit hole for you to go into. How about you show there were no dead voting, underage voters, illegal voters, or people voting out of state, district, and voting twice? See how that works? Apparently there’s nowhere to go now to have one’s grievances objectively considered after hearing both sides and it’s ok that 75 million people, about 20% of the population, think their vote was possibly cancelled out. How long before that’s a real problem? Again, if you have this information, as to the summation of the courts that heard however many cases from many citizens...share it. Set my mind at ease.

An affidavit made from second hand knowledge is not and never will be anything even remotely considered as factual unless there is anything that corroborates it. Guess what happened in every single case that was thrown out due to lack of any evidence where an affidavit was submitted?

Furthermore, you, not me, made the claim that there were voting irregulates and the results are questionable when again, +40 court case thrown out is proving you dead wrong, so the onus is on you to produce literarily any evidence that counters those +40 court cases. Just one piece of actual evidence of voting irregularity yet you've totally failed to produced even one. Not a single link showing actual evidence of fraud.

Not. A. Single. Link. To. Any. Actual. Evidence. Of. Fraud.

But wait, a second, are you now claiming that there was a conspiracy by over 40 judges, appointed by both republicans and democrats, all somehow agreeing to not have a hearing or even grant discovery because out of all of them not one was objective? And that both republican and democrat controlled states didn't investigate claims of voting fraud because or covered up fraud when they found it? Because that is an extraordinary claim and I really don't want to assume you're actually doing that.

As to 75 million people (it was 74.2m) being canceled out, well guess what, facts don't care about their feelings and it's not my job to educate every one of them when they're lied to. And yes, they were absolutely lied to about voting irregularities, voter fraud, and any other number of things that were said yet were totally and completely retracted once things went before a judge.

As to credibility, the left isn’t concerned about repairing theirs when they continue to know so much that just isn’t so. Are you old enough to remember journalism? Where you investigate both sides and insert no opinion of your own, and you let the reader decide? Nowadays, people are so distracted...lazy? They just want it summarized and to give them the jist. Maybe even tell them what to think by citing “anonymous” sources and then giving their opinion. Yeah.... it’s not better in many ways today. Society is certainly not in a renaissance.

Oh, were you serious? Then let me laugh even harder.

Gasp! I take offense nobody gives a damn about my need to verify. lol Hurts my heart. You do you. I’ll do what’s worked for me and journalism in the past by the way. Now, there’s no “whoops, sorry about that...we totally got that wrong”...no integrity. And it’s obvious the left has no ideas left that haven’t already been tried and repeatedly, historically failed.

You know you can easily look at every correction that the NYT has made right?

Sean Smith of Benghazi didn’t need hearings. They are always for show and a waste of time. I personally think dereliction of duty should be an offense a Secretary of State should be accountable for. I say action, not words and that’s all both sides give. They distract from their failures by sloughing responsibility and using the art of distraction, pitting people against each other in their theatrics of pretending to give a damn. There might be the occasional exception for a politician but it’s becoming exceedingly rare.

You might not believe this, but I'm 100% on board with you that both sides pit one side against each other to district us from the fact that the rich are robbing everyone in this nation blind while we sit here and tear each other apart over dumb shit.

Also, thanks for not pissing on the memory of my friend the way the vast majority on the right wing have, especially the ghouls that trod out his mother to speak on his behalf. Fun fact, Sean and his mother never spoke since he had his second kid since she's legitimately conspiracy theory believing crazy. Wait, that's not fun. That's actually really messed up that she's been exploited so much by people pushing an agenda. Ok so here's an actual fun fact, Sean would have laughed himself hoarse if he knew Hillary would have spoken at his funeral since he wasn't a fan of hers. To be fair he hated republicans more, but he sure as hell never liked her.

 

[landshark99]

The affidavit itself was under penalty of perjury and legally binding. S

There was no authority given to investigate by the judge and any case required access. That’s an inconvenient truth. Without it, all you might have are affidavits. Nothing more. Thus, you’re dependent on, hopefully, an objective judge... which is doubtful in this political environment.

Exactly how many cases again? Who brought them? What districts were they in? Who were the judges? What did the judge say specifically? Seems many attorneys conclude they need the case to present the evidence and do fact finding... which didn’t happen.

For each case, where was the accusation made and please feel free to scour the Internet to show us what allegation was investigated, what discrepancies were resolved and the details for each. Seems you have an answer for anything so you might have a go at answering that as well.

Sorry but your bias is in the way of your vision, there were 62 cases filed, 61 were dismissed or ruled agaisnt due to lack of evidence presented, A case cannot go forward without evidence, it is not up to the Judge to investigate, the burden is with the plaintiff. Most of the "irregularities" were procedural which should have been litigated pre the election, not after losing. They could not claim fraud because they could not prove it, no evidence means no proof. The more interesting case is the law suit filed by Dominion for 1.3 billion against Sidney Powell and may soon to be add Fox News, News Max and Oann and list of others, and guess what they have enough evidence to go to trial.

Since you asked earlier here is a list, you can also look at
https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-5419-493b-9923-a918a2527931 or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-..._the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Here's a list of the lawsuits and where they stand
Direct appeals to the Supreme Court — 2 losses, one pending

• Several Republican politicians, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, asked the US Supreme Court to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. The court turned down the case.
• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn their election results. The Supreme Court rejected the case.
• The Trump campaign asked the US Supreme Court to overturn three decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over various technical rules regarding absentee and mail-in ballots. The court hasn't yet decided whether to hear the case.

Pennsylvania — 13 losses

• The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit asking a state appeals court to reject the Pennsylvania secretary of state's announcement that registered voters had until November 12 to provide proof of identity for mail-in ballots. Republicans believe the deadline should be November 9. This is the one case that Trump won, before the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision.
• In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.
• Another federal lawsuit brought by Republicans sought to delay the deadline for ballot requests. The judge rejected it.
• A third federal lawsuit sought to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections from allowing voters to "cure" their ballots — a process that allows people to fix clerical errors on their ballots to make sure their votes count. Republicans abandoned the lawsuit and withdrew from the case.
• The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.
• In another Montgomery County case, this one filed in a local court, Trump's lawyers sought to stop the county from counting mail-in ballots. The lawsuit is still pending, but the lawyers withdrew from the case.
• A lawsuit in Bucks County filed by Republican congressional candidate Kathy Barnette on Election Day made a technical challenge on the county's method of organizing ballots before counting them. She withdrew the case two days later and lost the election.
• The Trump campaign appealed that Bucks County case soon afterward, but a judge rejected it and pointed out in his ruling that fraud wasn't an issue.
• In a state court, Republicans challenged an instruction from the Secretary of State's office regarding provisional ballots. A state appellate court judge dismissed the request but ordered the secretary of state to segregate provisional ballots in case their validity becomes contested.
• Local Republicans sought to stop Northampton County from revealing the identities of people whose ballots were canceled and lost the case.
• A group of Pennsylvania Republicans lost at the state Supreme Court with a lawsuit trying to invalidate absentee voting after the voting period already ended, and trying to block the certification of election results.
• Another group of Republicans filed a similar lawsuit and lost.
• The Trump campaign filed a motion to intervene in a Supreme Court case brought by Republicans that centers on the deadline by which Pennsylvania officials are allowed to receive ballots. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that officials could receive ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans appealed the decision to the high court, which was deadlocked at 4-4 because Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. The Supreme Court signaled it could hear the case again but has not yet granted the request to intervene.

Nevada — 4 losses

• The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit requesting that ballots stop being counted in the state over concerns about signature-matching technology and election observers' claims that they weren't being allowed to watch ballots being processed closely enough. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the request.
• The Trump campaign and the RNC filed a lawsuit in state court asking to stop ballot counting in Clark County — a heavily Democratic area — until GOP officials could observe the process. A district judge rejected the request on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have evidence to back up their allegations. Republicans appealed the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which said on November 5 that the campaign and Republican officials had reached a settlement that allowed expanded ballot observation. They later withdrew the case.
• A group of Republicans dropped a lawsuit in Clark County challenging mail-in ballots, including those sent by members of the military.
• The Trump campaign filed a different lawsuit in Carson City District Court alleging multiple irregularities that the campaign claimed, without providing specific evidence, would be enough to overturn the election results in Nevada and flip the state to Trump. It failed.

Georgia — 4 losses, one pending

• A judge in Chatham County denied the Trump campaign's request to toss out 53 ballots that a GOP poll watcher said arrived after polls closed at 7 p.m. on November 3. The Washington Post reported that the poll watcher presented no evidence in court that the ballots came in late and that county officials testified that they were received in time.
• Republican elector Lin Wood, whose attorney also represents the Trump campaign, sued to stop vote certification because. He argued that because the Georgia Secretary of State agreed to allow signature matching on ballots — a measure designed to prevent voter fraud — eight months before the election, his rights as an individual voter had been infringed upon. A state judge dismissed the case, saying the arguments have "no basis in fact and law."
• Wood filed another lawsuit in federal court and lost that one as well, losing again upon appeal.
• Sidney Powell, who was kicked off of Trump's legal team after spreading numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud, filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia alleging widespread election fraud. A federal judge quickly dismissed the case, calling it "extraordinary" that the lawsuit sought to disqualify the votes of millions of voters.
• Nearly two months after he lost the election, Trump sued Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brian Raffensperger seeking to "de-certify" the election, arguing that it wasn't carried out in accordance with Georgia law.

Michigan — 5 losses

• In a federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign alleged a number of irregularities — such as that GOP election observers were told to stand six feet away from ballot counters because of the coronavirus — meant that Michigan should not certify its votes. The Trump campaign withdrew the lawsuit, with Rudy Giuliani falsely declaring it achieved the result the campaign wanted.
• A judge on the Michigan Court of Claims denied the Trump campaign's request to stop counting ballots in the state. Judge Cynthia Stephens said litigating the issue didn't make sense given that ballots in Michigan had more or less been fully counted.
• A poll challenger named Sarah Stoddard and a group called the Election Integrity Fund filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of election results in Detroit, claiming that absentee ballots were improperly reviewed. Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion on the grounds that there was no proof that election oversight protocol hadn't been followed. Kenny issued another ruling later denying other motions, including a request for an additional audit of the election.
• A Republican-aligned law firm called the Great Lakes Justice Center filed a lawsuit in Wayne County's Circuit Court against Detroit and Wayne County alleging "massive fraud in the election vote-counting procedures" and calling for an entirely new election. A judge denied the case.
• Trump ally Sidney Powell also has a federal lawsuit pending in Michigan. It asks the judge to "de-certify" the state's electoral votes, which have already gone to Biden. The lawsuit has numerous typos and cites voting statistics from a county that does not exist. A judge ruled against her and issued a scathing 35-page opinion tearing it down on multiple fronts. She has appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to take the case.

Arizona — 4 losses

• The Trump campaign joined a lawsuit brought by two Republicans in Maricopa County claiming that a substantial number of GOP ballots were invalidated because voters used Sharpies to fill in their choices. There is no evidence that using Sharpies leads to issues with scanning ballots, and, in fact, officials have said using Sharpies is preferred. The Post also reported that the Maricopa County attorney's office said no ballots were rejected and that if they are, voters have an opportunity to cast another one. A Republican-aligned group abandoned the legal fight after Maricopa County officials challenged the factual basis for the lawsuit, and the Trump campaign lost the fight soon afterward.
• The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that Maricopa County was improperly rejecting ballots cast by some voters. The lawsuit was dismissed after an audit found no problems with the votes.
• Arizona's Supreme Court unanimously rejected a case from the state GOP chair Kelli Ward, saying the facts she presented were incorrect and that she "fails to present any evidence of misconduct."
• Powell filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn election results as well, based on a conspiracy theory about voting machines used in the state. A judge dismissed the case.

Wisconsin — 6 losses, one pending

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a case from the Trump campaign seeking to overturn election results.
• Trump personally filed a similar lawsuit in a federal court in Wisconsin. A Trump-appointed federal judge said he had standing to bring the case — a rare departure from other judges — and then ruled against him. An appeal failed as well, with the author of the appellate opinion also a Trump appointee.
• Wisconsin Voters Alliance, a right-wing group, sued the state elections commission and asked the state Supreme Court to throw out votes and have the Republican-controlled state legislature select the electoral college winner themselves. The state Supreme Court rejected it, saying it had little basis in fact.
• Wisconsin Voter Alliance also sued a number of defendants in Washington, DC, including Vice President Mike Pence, both houses of Congress, and the Electoral College, trying to block the certification of Wisconsin's votes as well as those of other states. A federal judge threw out the case, blasted it as an attempted "undermining of a democratic election" full of falsehoods, and said he would refer the attorneys for sanctions.
• Another lawsuit backed by the Republican-aligned Amos Center for Justice and Liberty argued that the use of ballot drop-boxes was illegal. It also asked that the state Supreme Court should throw out every vote cast and have the GOP legislature select the state's electoral votes.
• A lawsuit from Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, another Trump ally, makes numerous conspiratorial claims about the election. A federal judge criticized it for containing errors and typos, and one person listed as plaintiff said they never signed up to be a part of the lawsuit, later dismissing the case.
• Trump and Pence personally sued Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in a state court seeking to overturn votes in two Wisconsin counties with large Black populations, both of which sided with Democrats. A judge threw out the case. When Trump appealed the case, another judge rejected it and said it "smacks of racism." An appeal to the Supreme Court also failed.

New Mexico — one pending

• The Trump campaign sued the state over what it claims was the illegal use of ballot drop boxes after the state had already certified its results and sent them to the Electoral College.

Key cases and Supreme Court rulings before Election Day
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled that election officials could receive mail-in ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans requested an immediate stay from the US Supreme Court that would have blocked the state Supreme Court's ruling.




But the US Supreme Court was deadlocked at 4-4, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito voted to grant Republicans' request, while Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to participate in the case "because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties' filings," the court said in a statement. However, Barrett has not recused herself, meaning she could cast a decisive fifth vote when the Supreme Court takes up the case again.

North Carolina
In a similar case brought by Republicans in North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that ballots received up to nine days after November 3 could be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

The decision came after the Trump campaign and Republicans asked in two separate cases for the high court to put back in place a June statute from the state's Republican-controlled Legislature that would have allowed ballots to be counted only if they were received up to three days — not nine — after Election Day.
Five justices — Roberts, Kavanaugh, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor — ruled against reinstating the statute. Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented, while Barrett did not participate in the North Carolina case.

Wisconsin
Republicans notched a victory in a case involving the deadline to receive ballots in Wisconsin. The US Supreme Court ruled against reviving an appeals court decision that would have allowed election officials to receive absentee ballots up to six days after Election Day.

The court's five conservative justices — Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito — ruled against reviving the lower court's ruling, while the three liberals — Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor — dissented.

Texas
A federal court in Texas and the state's Supreme Court denied two Republican requests to throw out nearly 130,000 ballots that were cast via drive-thru polling sites in Harris County, one of Texas' most heavily Democratic areas.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected a request from Republican candidates and activists to toss the ballots. US District Judge Andrew Hanen, appointed by President George W. Bush, reached the same conclusion and denied the second request from GOP candidates and a right-wing radio host.

Hanen ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to sue and ask that ballots that were legally cast be discounted. However, he ordered the county to set aside the 127,000 ballots in case an appeals court disagreed with him and ultimately threw those votes out.

 

[DadJokes]

An affidavit made from second hand knowledge is not and never will be anything even remotely considered as factual unless there is anything that corroborates it. Guess what happened in every single case that was thrown out due to lack of any evidence where an affidavit was submitted?

Furthermore, you, not me, made the claim that there were voting irregulates and the results are questionable when again, +40 court case thrown out is proving you dead wrong, so the onus is on you to produce literarily any evidence that counters those +40 court cases. Just one piece of actual evidence of voting irregularity yet you've totally failed to produced even one. Not a single link showing actual evidence of fraud.

Not. A. Single. Link. To. Any. Actual. Evidence. Of. Fraud.



Oh, were you serious? Then let me laugh even harder.



You know you can easily look at every correction that the NYT has made right?



You might not believe this, but I'm 100% on board with you that both sides pit one side against each other to district us from the fact that the rich are robbing everyone in this nation blind while we sit here and tear each other apart over dumb shit.

Also, thanks for not pissing on the memory of my friend the way the vast majority on the right wing have, especially the ghouls that trod out his mother to speak on his behalf. Fun fact, Sean and his mother never spoke since he had his second kid since she's legitimately conspiracy theory believing crazy. Wait, that's not fun. That's actually really messed up that she's been exploited so much by people pushing an agenda. Ok so here's an actual fun fact, Sean would have laughed himself hoarse if he knew Hillary would have spoken at his funeral since he wasn't a fan of hers. To be fair he hated republicans more, but he sure as hell never liked her.

I’m not trying to prove anything. That’s not my job. What is obvious is there was no investigation, fact finding. Second hand knowledge? Oh, more info. Why hold back. Please divulge the source. They were all or any of them were second hand information?

I made no claim of firsthand knowledge of irregularities. In your desperation to win some debate, you’re reading things the way you wish to. There are reports of irregularities AND I think they should be heard, given thought, and investigated. You can do some link war if you like or you can actually educate yourself on what the irregularities and affidavits claimed if you really want to prepare for a nominal defense of... what’s your stance anyway? Truth seeker or do you just believe without a doubt what you’ve heard or have been told?

It seems there’s an inside joke there you’re laughing about. So a correction is an apology? And then NBC, CBS, CNN, all get on the conference call and coordinate the story for the day is “We’re all apologizing to the President and that we were wrong?” That’s not owning anything. Have you read every correction they’ve made? lol

I have no problem with being rich. It also doesn’t mean you came by your wealth by I’ll gotten means. I have a problem with the lack of integrity in society. The apathy is dangerous.

A more interesting topic for me would be policy debate. You’re making a mountain out of a simple belief I had and trying to fact check my opinion. You can’t fact check my opinion and you do not have the access to the information required to make a judgment...in my opinion. It’s been fun though.

 

[Gringostarr]

I’m not trying to prove anything. That’s not my job. What is obvious is there was no investigation, fact finding. Second hand knowledge? Oh, more info. Why hold back. Please divulge the source. They were all or any of them were second hand information?

This is a lie.

There was absolutely an investigation. There were multiple investigations. Not a single one of them uncovered anything but voter fraud that we know already know about. We know about it because there were investigations. What there wasn't was any proof of fraud for any accusation made by the Trump campaign or republicans that a judge ever looked at and thought a hearing or even discovery was warranted.

I made no claim of firsthand knowledge of irregularities. In your desperation to win some debate, you’re reading things the way you wish to. There are reports of irregularities AND I think they should be heard, given thought, and investigated. You can do some link war if you like or you can actually educate yourself on what the irregularities and affidavits claimed if you really want to prepare for a nominal defense of... what’s your stance anyway? Truth seeker or do you just believe without a doubt what you’ve heard or have been told?

What irregularities then? I keep asking for any link at all to any of these claims yet you continue to not post one. Not one. Should be easy if there were so many right?

It seems there’s an inside joke there you’re laughing about. So a correction is an apology? And then NBC, CBS, CNN, all get on the conference call and coordinate the story for the day is “We’re all apologizing to the President and that we were wrong?” That’s not owning anything. Have you read every correction they’ve made? lol

The joke is you thinking that there is somehow a coordinated effort by news agencies other than they all just decided to report on the same things because, and this might shock you, that thing happened and should be reported on.

Also, and this is a serious question. Simple yes or no. If there was evidence of actual voter fraud on the scale that republican's have been claiming for the past +2 months would NBC, CBS, CNN cover it up because they're out to destroy Trump? Everyone working there that knew about that fraud would be totally fine with that coverup. Not one person would have morals or want to report on what would be the biggest story of their lifetime.

Again, simple yes or no.

I have no problem with being rich. It also doesn’t mean you came by your wealth by I’ll gotten means. I have a problem with the lack of integrity in society. The apathy is dangerous.

A more interesting topic for me would be policy debate. You’re making a mountain out of a simple belief I had and trying to fact check my opinion. You can’t fact check my opinion and you do not have the access to the information required to make a judgment...in my opinion. It’s been fun though.

Integrity is a hell of a thing. It's why I don't lie and have fired anyone I've worked with that I catch lying to me. It's also why I don't watch Tucker Carlson. Not because I don't agree with what he says, but because his lawyers have not only argued in court that everything he says on his show should not be taken as factual, but they won arguing that. That's pretty much the exact opposite of integrity in my book.

As for your opinion, you're not a judge. But then again neither am I. What I do know is that while all judges are biased one way or another a cross section of +40 judges all coming to the same conclusion that there was no reason for a hearing let alone discovery for any of those cases means that there was zero evidence of those voting irregularities, and facts don't care about your opinions.

 

[DadJokes]

Sorry but your bias is in the way of your vision, there were 62 cases filed, 61 were dismissed or ruled agaisnt due to lack of evidence presented, A case cannot go forward without evidence, it is not up to the Judge to investigate, the burden is with the plaintiff. Most of the "irregularities" were procedural which should have been litigated pre the election, not after losing. They could not claim fraud because they could not prove it, no evidence means no proof. The more interesting case is the law suit filed by Dominion for 1.3 billion against Sidney Powell and may soon to be add Fox News, News Max and Oann and list of others, and guess what they have enough evidence to go to trial.

Since you asked earlier here is a list, you can also look at
https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-5419-493b-9923-a918a2527931 or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-..._the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Here's a list of the lawsuits and where they stand
Direct appeals to the Supreme Court — 2 losses, one pending

• Several Republican politicians, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, asked the US Supreme Court to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. The court turned down the case.
• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn their election results. The Supreme Court rejected the case.
• The Trump campaign asked the US Supreme Court to overturn three decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over various technical rules regarding absentee and mail-in ballots. The court hasn't yet decided whether to hear the case.

Pennsylvania — 13 losses

• The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit asking a state appeals court to reject the Pennsylvania secretary of state's announcement that registered voters had until November 12 to provide proof of identity for mail-in ballots. Republicans believe the deadline should be November 9. This is the one case that Trump won, before the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision.
• In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.
• Another federal lawsuit brought by Republicans sought to delay the deadline for ballot requests. The judge rejected it.
• A third federal lawsuit sought to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections from allowing voters to "cure" their ballots — a process that allows people to fix clerical errors on their ballots to make sure their votes count. Republicans abandoned the lawsuit and withdrew from the case.
• The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.
• In another Montgomery County case, this one filed in a local court, Trump's lawyers sought to stop the county from counting mail-in ballots. The lawsuit is still pending, but the lawyers withdrew from the case.
• A lawsuit in Bucks County filed by Republican congressional candidate Kathy Barnette on Election Day made a technical challenge on the county's method of organizing ballots before counting them. She withdrew the case two days later and lost the election.
• The Trump campaign appealed that Bucks County case soon afterward, but a judge rejected it and pointed out in his ruling that fraud wasn't an issue.
• In a state court, Republicans challenged an instruction from the Secretary of State's office regarding provisional ballots. A state appellate court judge dismissed the request but ordered the secretary of state to segregate provisional ballots in case their validity becomes contested.
• Local Republicans sought to stop Northampton County from revealing the identities of people whose ballots were canceled and lost the case.
• A group of Pennsylvania Republicans lost at the state Supreme Court with a lawsuit trying to invalidate absentee voting after the voting period already ended, and trying to block the certification of election results.
• Another group of Republicans filed a similar lawsuit and lost.
• The Trump campaign filed a motion to intervene in a Supreme Court case brought by Republicans that centers on the deadline by which Pennsylvania officials are allowed to receive ballots. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that officials could receive ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans appealed the decision to the high court, which was deadlocked at 4-4 because Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. The Supreme Court signaled it could hear the case again but has not yet granted the request to intervene.

Nevada — 4 losses

• The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit requesting that ballots stop being counted in the state over concerns about signature-matching technology and election observers' claims that they weren't being allowed to watch ballots being processed closely enough. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the request.
• The Trump campaign and the RNC filed a lawsuit in state court asking to stop ballot counting in Clark County — a heavily Democratic area — until GOP officials could observe the process. A district judge rejected the request on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have evidence to back up their allegations. Republicans appealed the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which said on November 5 that the campaign and Republican officials had reached a settlement that allowed expanded ballot observation. They later withdrew the case.
• A group of Republicans dropped a lawsuit in Clark County challenging mail-in ballots, including those sent by members of the military.
• The Trump campaign filed a different lawsuit in Carson City District Court alleging multiple irregularities that the campaign claimed, without providing specific evidence, would be enough to overturn the election results in Nevada and flip the state to Trump. It failed.

Georgia — 4 losses, one pending

• A judge in Chatham County denied the Trump campaign's request to toss out 53 ballots that a GOP poll watcher said arrived after polls closed at 7 p.m. on November 3. The Washington Post reported that the poll watcher presented no evidence in court that the ballots came in late and that county officials testified that they were received in time.
• Republican elector Lin Wood, whose attorney also represents the Trump campaign, sued to stop vote certification because. He argued that because the Georgia Secretary of State agreed to allow signature matching on ballots — a measure designed to prevent voter fraud — eight months before the election, his rights as an individual voter had been infringed upon. A state judge dismissed the case, saying the arguments have "no basis in fact and law."
• Wood filed another lawsuit in federal court and lost that one as well, losing again upon appeal.
• Sidney Powell, who was kicked off of Trump's legal team after spreading numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud, filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia alleging widespread election fraud. A federal judge quickly dismissed the case, calling it "extraordinary" that the lawsuit sought to disqualify the votes of millions of voters.
• Nearly two months after he lost the election, Trump sued Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brian Raffensperger seeking to "de-certify" the election, arguing that it wasn't carried out in accordance with Georgia law.

Michigan — 5 losses

• In a federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign alleged a number of irregularities — such as that GOP election observers were told to stand six feet away from ballot counters because of the coronavirus — meant that Michigan should not certify its votes. The Trump campaign withdrew the lawsuit, with Rudy Giuliani falsely declaring it achieved the result the campaign wanted.
• A judge on the Michigan Court of Claims denied the Trump campaign's request to stop counting ballots in the state. Judge Cynthia Stephens said litigating the issue didn't make sense given that ballots in Michigan had more or less been fully counted.
• A poll challenger named Sarah Stoddard and a group called the Election Integrity Fund filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the certification of election results in Detroit, claiming that absentee ballots were improperly reviewed. Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion on the grounds that there was no proof that election oversight protocol hadn't been followed. Kenny issued another ruling later denying other motions, including a request for an additional audit of the election.
• A Republican-aligned law firm called the Great Lakes Justice Center filed a lawsuit in Wayne County's Circuit Court against Detroit and Wayne County alleging "massive fraud in the election vote-counting procedures" and calling for an entirely new election. A judge denied the case.
• Trump ally Sidney Powell also has a federal lawsuit pending in Michigan. It asks the judge to "de-certify" the state's electoral votes, which have already gone to Biden. The lawsuit has numerous typos and cites voting statistics from a county that does not exist. A judge ruled against her and issued a scathing 35-page opinion tearing it down on multiple fronts. She has appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to take the case.

Arizona — 4 losses

• The Trump campaign joined a lawsuit brought by two Republicans in Maricopa County claiming that a substantial number of GOP ballots were invalidated because voters used Sharpies to fill in their choices. There is no evidence that using Sharpies leads to issues with scanning ballots, and, in fact, officials have said using Sharpies is preferred. The Post also reported that the Maricopa County attorney's office said no ballots were rejected and that if they are, voters have an opportunity to cast another one. A Republican-aligned group abandoned the legal fight after Maricopa County officials challenged the factual basis for the lawsuit, and the Trump campaign lost the fight soon afterward.
• The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that Maricopa County was improperly rejecting ballots cast by some voters. The lawsuit was dismissed after an audit found no problems with the votes.
• Arizona's Supreme Court unanimously rejected a case from the state GOP chair Kelli Ward, saying the facts she presented were incorrect and that she "fails to present any evidence of misconduct."
• Powell filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn election results as well, based on a conspiracy theory about voting machines used in the state. A judge dismissed the case.

Wisconsin — 6 losses, one pending

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a case from the Trump campaign seeking to overturn election results.
• Trump personally filed a similar lawsuit in a federal court in Wisconsin. A Trump-appointed federal judge said he had standing to bring the case — a rare departure from other judges — and then ruled against him. An appeal failed as well, with the author of the appellate opinion also a Trump appointee.
• Wisconsin Voters Alliance, a right-wing group, sued the state elections commission and asked the state Supreme Court to throw out votes and have the Republican-controlled state legislature select the electoral college winner themselves. The state Supreme Court rejected it, saying it had little basis in fact.
• Wisconsin Voter Alliance also sued a number of defendants in Washington, DC, including Vice President Mike Pence, both houses of Congress, and the Electoral College, trying to block the certification of Wisconsin's votes as well as those of other states. A federal judge threw out the case, blasted it as an attempted "undermining of a democratic election" full of falsehoods, and said he would refer the attorneys for sanctions.
• Another lawsuit backed by the Republican-aligned Amos Center for Justice and Liberty argued that the use of ballot drop-boxes was illegal. It also asked that the state Supreme Court should throw out every vote cast and have the GOP legislature select the state's electoral votes.
• A lawsuit from Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, another Trump ally, makes numerous conspiratorial claims about the election. A federal judge criticized it for containing errors and typos, and one person listed as plaintiff said they never signed up to be a part of the lawsuit, later dismissing the case.
• Trump and Pence personally sued Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in a state court seeking to overturn votes in two Wisconsin counties with large Black populations, both of which sided with Democrats. A judge threw out the case. When Trump appealed the case, another judge rejected it and said it "smacks of racism." An appeal to the Supreme Court also failed.

New Mexico — one pending

• The Trump campaign sued the state over what it claims was the illegal use of ballot drop boxes after the state had already certified its results and sent them to the Electoral College.

Key cases and Supreme Court rulings before Election Day
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled that election officials could receive mail-in ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans requested an immediate stay from the US Supreme Court that would have blocked the state Supreme Court's ruling.




But the US Supreme Court was deadlocked at 4-4, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito voted to grant Republicans' request, while Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to participate in the case "because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties' filings," the court said in a statement. However, Barrett has not recused herself, meaning she could cast a decisive fifth vote when the Supreme Court takes up the case again.

North Carolina
In a similar case brought by Republicans in North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that ballots received up to nine days after November 3 could be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

The decision came after the Trump campaign and Republicans asked in two separate cases for the high court to put back in place a June statute from the state's Republican-controlled Legislature that would have allowed ballots to be counted only if they were received up to three days — not nine — after Election Day.
Five justices — Roberts, Kavanaugh, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor — ruled against reinstating the statute. Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented, while Barrett did not participate in the North Carolina case.

Wisconsin
Republicans notched a victory in a case involving the deadline to receive ballots in Wisconsin. The US Supreme Court ruled against reviving an appeals court decision that would have allowed election officials to receive absentee ballots up to six days after Election Day.

The court's five conservative justices — Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito — ruled against reviving the lower court's ruling, while the three liberals — Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor — dissented.

Texas
A federal court in Texas and the state's Supreme Court denied two Republican requests to throw out nearly 130,000 ballots that were cast via drive-thru polling sites in Harris County, one of Texas' most heavily Democratic areas.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected a request from Republican candidates and activists to toss the ballots. US District Judge Andrew Hanen, appointed by President George W. Bush, reached the same conclusion and denied the second request from GOP candidates and a right-wing radio host.

Hanen ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to sue and ask that ballots that were legally cast be discounted. However, he ordered the county to set aside the 127,000 ballots in case an appeals court disagreed with him and ultimately threw those votes out.

Actually, if the judge doesn’t allow access to state information, there’s no case to be had without it.

You’re extensive copy and paste appears to be a timeline. It’s not what I am looking for....and... there’s no source. And I don’t mean a website...I might look at a state website but even that is suspect (Georgia).

Standing to sue means that you are not the party injured. That’s nothing new and it was used many times as a generic response to a case brought forward. This is unprecedented ground at this scale.

When they’ve been saying irregularities, from what I’ve seen, it’s not just in voting but historical indicators/predictors. Statisticians finding anomalies in what is possible with the math including the changes in totals election night and iirc a day or so after. Thus the analogy of Biden winning the lotto. One little one that stands out is he won the least amount of counties ever by a “winner”. Wayyy less. I think it was a third of what Obama got in ‘12? Been some weeks since hearing that. Is that disputed too? So if so, kinda like the Hunger Games where the city controls the countryside. lol Another work of fiction becoming reality? Haha

Remember, the best lies have some truth to them. They aren’t all the best. Point being, out of all of those affidavits... there was no honest individual who, despite the danger, came forward and when they saw something wrong, they said something. That in itself would be difficult to believe and it wasn’t just in contested states.

Personally, if a ballot is late and you give time for bad people to succumb to irresistible temptation, you’re asking for problems. The longer those ballots sit or those machines sit, or those thumb drives etc move around...undocumented at times.... you are at fault for creating the opportunity of there being suspicion... especially after years and years of the left having a credibility and policy problem in addition to convictions of voter fraud over the years.

I see little the left won’t do to win including attempts at intimidation by proxy, if not directly. Policy debate is dead. They lost that debate long ago and world history along with simple math shows it doesn’t work without dishonesty and irresponsibility. The only way Communism works is if the whole world is communist. There’s nowhere to run then. The connected are the wealthy (at least relative to the general population) even in milder socialism and everyone else are have nots. At least here, for now, there’s still opportunity to change you stars and be whatever you want to be. Not what they need you to be.

Policy now?

 

[DadJokes]

This is a lie.

There was absolutely an investigation. There were multiple investigations. Not a single one of them uncovered anything but voter fraud that we know already know about. We know about it because there were investigations. What there wasn't was any proof of fraud for any accusation made by the Trump campaign or republicans that a judge ever looked at and thought a hearing or even discovery was warranted.



What irregularities then? I keep asking for any link at all to any of these claims yet you continue to not post one. Not one. Should be easy if there were so many right?




The joke is you thinking that there is somehow a coordinated effort by news agencies other than they all just decided to report on the same things because, and this might shock you, that thing happened and should be reported on.

Also, and this is a serious question. Simple yes or no. If there was evidence of actual voter fraud on the scale that republican's have been claiming for the past +2 months would NBC, CBS, CNN cover it up because they're out to destroy Trump? Everyone working there that knew about that fraud would be totally fine with that coverup. Not one person would have morals or want to report on what would be the biggest story of their lifetime.

Again, simple yes or no.



Integrity is a hell of a thing. It's why I don't lie and have fired anyone I've worked with that I catch lying to me. It's also why I don't watch Tucker Carlson. Not because I don't agree with what he says, but because his lawyers have not only argued in court that everything he says on his show should not be taken as factual, but they won arguing that. That's pretty much the exact opposite of integrity in my book.

As for your opinion, you're not a judge. But then again neither am I. What I do know is that while all judges are biased one way or another a cross section of +40 judges all coming to the same conclusion that there was no reason for a hearing let alone discovery for any of those cases means that there was zero evidence of those voting irregularities, and facts don't care about your opinions.

So how do you know they investigated each and every accusation?

I’m not posting months of information that is available at your finger tips. Don’t be lazy. Look into it. I’m not lying that there are accusations and I’ve seen no evidence that there was an objective investigation, especially one WHERE the plaintiff got access to what they wanted to see. So is YOUR CLAIM that they got access to what they needed to extract evidence to Sport their claim...unfettered?

So you now you want to go down another lane and visit the topic of coordination amongst media on a narrative...ok lol. It’s that or they’re pitifully inept in creativity.

Yes or no? Yes I think it’s feasible for leftists to provide cover for those who KNOW anything. Plausible deniability as well. Do you think opposing points of view are not vetted? Hollywood is good at it. The media and Colleges would be much better through decades of practice and weeding out dissent as evidenced by statistics and current events. Who wants a wacko in your face.

I have nothing to do with Carlson. I’d wager the left has had to use the same defense.

As your friend linked, the injured party was not bringing the case thus some were thrown out. So you cannot make an absolute statement and as you admit, there are biases and realities. There was immediate political pushback before anything was attemped to be discovered. Judges saw this...kinda like 3rd world countries. The same fear that representatives had on the 6th I’d imagine. They’ve seen what’s been going on for months!

Prior to the elections...there were cases... that were still thrown out having nothing to do with Trump’s legal team though there was some legal effort mounted prior to the election. Nobody wants to admit that Pennsylvania’s Constitution was violated and the changes are to be approved by the people/legislators.

I think that’s the only facts you’ve given, we are not judges and judges have thrown out cases. You should find their statements outside of “standing” decisions if they exist.

Facts don’t care about opinions, but all cases start as opinions. Fact.