EmilyD

We all can find articles that support our beliefs. Nothing I say or post will convince you to change your opinion and vice versa. It is what it is.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Better Well, as always, that's a matter of opinion.

But, even as he spoke to congressman v****g to support the stimulus bill in order to obtain Pelosi's support in their congressional races, the gentleman failed to point out that Trump survived both impeachments simply due to the fact that US Senators v**ed against impeachment to secure Trump's support in their future races.

Also, again, I'll ask you: Why do you often address me as 'Dr. Slatten'? Though my step-mom is a retired psychologist and my Dad was an attorney, my career was as that of a food sales distributor.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Eureka, Emily We agree

But, "it is what is" in that the courts agreed with the failure of the Trump administration's providing evidence to support his/their claims of v***r f***d.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I did, but in this case, there was no quote with which to respond...just a meme from Wolf Counselor.

Wolf's meme did not appear in my 'quote reply'.

ChJoe

"my posts simply constitute responses to right-wing TDS on OPP."

I was referring to this quote of you. If your posts are responses to right wing TDS, use the quote reply button and respond to the specific TDS you are referring to, else you are just being a never Trumper.

EmilyD

They wouldn't hear the evidence!!! The evidence is there with signed, sworn affidavits from at least eighteen people who were eyewitnesses of multiple instances of fraud! There is video evidence of poll watchers not being allowed to watch counting the b****ts. There is video evidence of people writing on b****ts. Why would a b****t counter need to write on a b****t??? There is video evidence of suitcases full of b****ts being pulled out from under tables at 3:00 AM. There are videos of people clearing out counting rooms and turning off the lights to go home for the night....and then coming back at 2 AM to continue counting b****ts that were brought in from outside by the truckloads. All of that and much, much more was rejected by the courts.

I'm sure, as I've said, you can come up with a counterargument. Like I said....it is what it is - for both of us.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Simply put, Wolf is an OPP right-winger & my response was to his meme. However, this will be my last reply to you until you answer the simple question I've put to you three times: Why address me as 'Dr. Slatten'

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Apparently, you didn't read the links I gave previously.

EmilyD

Wow! I didn't think you were the type to assume things like that! I did read those two opinion pieces....thus my comment about each of us finding articles to support our beliefs. Just because they are opinions given by legal counselors doesn't make them anything more than just opinions.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

My bad. I just wrongly assumed that by reading them, you would see them as brief summaries (rather than opinions) of the courts' rulings. The below quotes are from the links I provided....

"The most striking reason is that they lack any real evidence in support of their claims, claims which range between discrimination and minor procedural infractions."

"The issue is that the Trump campaign are not even arguing fraud in court, let alone presenting valid evidence of fraud".

"Judges could not rule that there was v***r f***d in the 2020 P**********l e******ns because the Trump campaign failed to argue there was fraud at all."

Have a good day, Emily. I shall continue to prepare and then have lunch.

EmilyD

On November 19, Giuliani presented evidence of v***r f***d, but Dems and media simply didn’t want to hear it. So they chose to ignore it and gloss over it, hoping it would go away. Giuliani cited multiple Americans, one by name, who have signed sworn affidavits stating that they witness some type of fraud, whether it was pro-Trump b****ts being thrown out without cause, b****ts being backdated to before the e******n, poll workers being told not to ask v**ers for identification, and more. As Giuliani pointed out, affidavits are considered ‘evidence’ in a court case. Whether you agree or disagree with them is a different question. The fact that the Obama-appointed judge refused to hear the evidence does not mean that there was no evidence! For the plaintiff to claim that ..."the Trump campaign are not even arguing fraud in court, let alone presenting valid evidence of fraud" is an empty claim, since Trump's lawyers were not allowed to present or argue that they did have provable evidence!

link for the above: https://spectator.us/topic/evidence-actually-rudy-giuliani-v**er-fraud/

The burden of proof should have favored Trump. Trump tweeted that Biden must prove that his v**es did not result from fraud. People scoffed, but as a practical matter, Trump was correct. Trump's lawyers should have been able to present the facts rebutting the plaintiff's allegation that Trump's did not have evidence. But as we know when the plaintiff presented their case, the judge did not allow Trump to rebut and show his evidence.

There's an evidentiary wrinkle that applies here with "spoliation." Spoliation occurs when a party intentionally destroys material that might be evidence in a case (even if the case hasn't yet been filed) or must be retained as a matter of law (as is true with e******n materials). If you recall, Sidney Powell has stated that D******n was destroying evidence.

If someone deliberately destroys documents, there is a legal presumption that the documents' contents support the opposing party's contentions.

In Trump's and Powell's lawsuits, there were roughly three types of evidence:

1. Eyewitness evidence that (1) people v**ed illegally; (2) b****ts were counted in secret; (3) b****ts were forged, backdated, altered, or repeatedly run through counting machines; (4) there was no signature verification or the machines were altered to fail; and (5) campaign-watchers were blocked.

2. Expert witness data analysis showing that the pattern of v**es (when and how mail-in b****ts arrived, the number of v**es relative to registered v**ers, etc.) are so anomalous that they could not happen naturally but had to have been altered by the fraud described in item 1, above, or by computer data manipulation.

3. Expert witness information about problems with v****g machines (their origin, manufacture, vulnerabilities, etc.).

The extra wrinkle in this case is incontestable evidence that paper trails and electronic trails were deliberately destroyed. And Trump was not allowed to present this very serious and real evidence!!!

Link for the above: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/the_burden_of_proof_should_favor_trump_in_e******n_fraud_litigation.html

So no matter how many quotes you want to post from your articles, the fact remains that Trump was not allowed to present his case.

(See, Slatten? I can do it too.)

ChJoe

Covered in the other thread. I'll stop if it bothers you.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Thank you, Sir. I responded on the other thread. More than anything, I had been curious. Now that I know, I'll leave it up to you as to whether you stop or not. But then, how you address anyone is always up to you

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

And yet, Emily, 60-80 e******n f***d cases filed by Trump's lawyers, and all were rejected...'cept for one which allowed three more days for review, unless I'm mistaken on that one. Cases included those handled by Trump-appointed federal justices as well as cases before the SCOTUS, which had a majority of 6-3 in favor of conservative justices...which included 3 Trump appointees.

However, an admirable effort (to no avail) on your part, as it is built on false premises or alternative facts--- according to all those courts spanning many states, districts and to include SCOTUS.

EmilyD

What remains, after all is said and done, is that no matter who it is that rejected Trump's lawyers, they were not allowed to present their evidence - which was considered to be substantial by a lot of people - some of them Democrats! If they had been allowed to do so, things might have turned out differently. We will never know that, now, will we?