Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[fredtoast]

(11-19-2020, 04:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "maybe Fox News"  lol

So few outlets willing to entertain the lies

Even Tucker Carlson and Carl Rove are demanding to see proof to back up these claims.

But I would bet that even after all this is finished half of Republicans will believe Trump was robbed.  

[GMDino]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526866-georgia-elections-chief-says-he-is-a-proud-trump-supporter-but-the-numbers

Quote:Georgia elections chief says he is a 'proud Trump supporter,' but 'the numbers don't lie' after recount
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 11/20/20 10:55 AM EST

Georgia’s top election official reaffirmed his confidence in the state’s presidential election results on Friday, saying that while he is a “proud” supporter of President Trump, “the numbers don’t lie.”

“As I’ve said before, I’m a proud Trump supporter,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said at a news conference at the state Capitol. “I was with him early in the 2016 election cycle and he’s governed the nation by the same conservative principles that I hold dear.”

“Like other Republicans, I’m disappointed our candidate didn’t win Georgia’s electoral votes,” he continued. “Working as an engineer throughout my life, I live by the motto that numbers don’t lie. As secretary of state, I believe that the numbers that we have presented today are correct. The numbers reflect the verdict of the people.”

So while I think he's crazy if he really believes Trump governed by "conservative principles" at least he had the guts to stand up to Trump and tell the truth.

If THAT kind of guy can then it should be over.

But the Trump supporters think everyone who disagrees with Trump is in on the fix.

So sad.

[*Nately120*]

(11-20-2020, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Even Tucker Carlson and Carl Rove are demanding to see proof to back up these claims.

But I would bet that even after all this is finished half of Republicans will believe Trump was robbed.  

Remember in the good ol' days when people were able to lose and not everyone had to be declared a "winner" and get a trophy?

[Au165]

(11-20-2020, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Even Tucker Carlson and Carl Rove are demanding to see proof to back up these claims.

But I would bet that even after all this is finished half of Republicans will believe Trump was robbed.  

This is starting to feel a lot like post-war Germany and trying to undo the propaganda the Nazi's brainwashed them with for years.

[*Nately120*]

(11-20-2020, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526866-georgia-elections-chief-says-he-is-a-proud-trump-supporter-but-the-numbers




So while I think he's crazy if he really believes Trump governed by "conservative principles" at least he had the guts to stand up to Trump and tell the truth.

If THAT kind of guy can then it should be over.

But the Trump supporters think everyone who disagrees with Trump is in on the fix.

So sad.

I'm not even joking when I say this guy should brace himself for death threats and possibly armed protestors outside his home.

[Au165]

(11-20-2020, 01:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not even joking when I say this guy should brace himself for death threats and possibly armed protestors outside his home.

He has already received death threats.

[*Nately120*]

(11-20-2020, 01:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: He has already received death threats.

Outstanding.  I guess this just isn't the right time to be a normal republican.

[GMDino]

She seems like a nice person.  

On Parler Sidney Powell openly states the coup: "I am actively working to... *overturn* the election." (emphasis mine.) pic.twitter.com/bKzNldObX7

— Jeff Sharlet (@JeffSharlet) November 20, 2020

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-20-2020, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: She seems like a nice person.  

On Parler Sidney Powell openly states the coup: "I am actively working to... *overturn* the election." (emphasis mine.) pic.twitter.com/bKzNldObX7

— Jeff Sharlet (@JeffSharlet) November 20, 2020

Always question a quote when there's a "..." linking two parts to make it look terrible.

The tweet is no longer available.

I don't know who this person is (neither the quoted person or the person making the tweet), what the context is, nor do I have a dog left in this race (Jo Jorgensen was never going to win, so no need for me to get invested in potential recounts) but that's just critical thinking 101. Doubly so when the tweet gets taken down.

[*Nately120*]

(11-20-2020, 09:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Always question a quote when there's a "..." linking two parts to make it look terrible.

The tweet is no longer available.

I don't know who this person is (neither the quoted person or the person making the tweet), what the context is, nor do I have a dog left in this race (Jo Jorgensen was never going to win, so no need for me to get invested in potential recounts) but that's just critical thinking 101. Doubly so when the tweet gets taken down.

I don't mind arguing that Jorgensen really won but both major parties cheated because they are scared of a 3rd party when I'm talking with "Trump won" truthers.  May as well meet them on their own planet.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-20-2020, 09:38 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't mind arguing that Jorgensen really won but both major parties cheated because they are scared of a 3rd party when I'm talking with "Trump won" truthers.  May as well meet them on their own FLAT planet.

- - - - - 
Though jokes aside, I think flat earthers are like anti-vaxxers. All political groups have them, sadly.

[*Nately120*]

(11-20-2020, 10:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:



- - - - - 
Though jokes aside, I think flat earthers are like anti-vaxxers. All political groups have them, sadly.

One of my favorite "here is how stupid your argument is" argument to make is that my cat wears a powdered wig when no one but me is looking.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2020, 09:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Always question a quote when there's a "..." linking two parts to make it look terrible.

The tweet is no longer available.

I don't know who this person is (neither the quoted person or the person making the tweet), what the context is, nor do I have a dog left in this race (Jo Jorgensen was never going to win, so no need for me to get invested in potential recounts) but that's just critical thinking 101. Doubly so when the tweet gets taken down.

Apparently THAT quote wasn't a real one. However....

Sidney Powell was one of Michael Flynn's lawyers.  Currently she on Rudy's team trying to "..." overturn the elections.

https://www.ntd.com/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-to-overturn-election-results-in-multiple-states_528748.html

Quote:Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, a Trump campaign lawyer, suggested in a Sunday interview that there is still more evidence coming out in President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and irregularities.

“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation. “I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Powell notably provided legal counsel to Gen. Michael Flynn in 2019. She was named to Trump’s legal team in the past several days.

The context was her claiming that she and the team had evidence that would...overturn the election results.  

That was five days ago and they have produced nothing.

[BmorePat87]

(11-20-2020, 09:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Always question a quote when there's a "..." linking two parts to make it look terrible.

The tweet is no longer available.

I don't know who this person is (neither the quoted person or the person making the tweet), what the context is, nor do I have a dog left in this race (Jo Jorgensen was never going to win, so no need for me to get invested in potential recounts) but that's just critical thinking 101. Doubly so when the tweet gets taken down.

Poster is a journalist speaking about one of Trump’s attorneys. I was curious so I looked at his feed. He removed the tweet because he couldn’t tell if it was a verified account that posted it.

There’s a lot of fake accounts for the lawyer and, because of Parler being this free speech paradise or what not, they don’t do anything about it. She did, however, say essentially that on Fox last night: "The entire election frankly in all the swing states should be overturned, and the legislatures should make sure that the electors are selected for Trump."

Verdict: journalist/author tweets impersonator account of Trump lawyer saying something similar to what she said in real life. Deletes it after he sees it’s a fake account.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-20-2020, 11:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Apparently THAT quote wasn't a real one.  However....

Sidney Powell was one of Michael Flynn's lawyers.  Currently she on Rudy's team trying to "..." overturn the elections.

https://www.ntd.com/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-to-overturn-election-results-in-multiple-states_528748.html


The context was her claiming that she and the team had evidence that would...overturn the election results.  

That was five days ago and they have produced nothing.

And that's the thing here.  Why would they put the evidence out to the mainstream media's hands?  Cases aren't decided in the court of public opinion, but in the courts of law.  Throwing their evidence out there now would be as stupid as giving Johnie Cochran the "glove", in the OJ Simpson murder trial..

[*Nately120*]

(11-21-2020, 12:24 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And that's the thing here.  Why would they put the evidence out to the mainstream media's hands?  Cases aren't decided in the court of public opinion, but in the courts of law.  Throwing their evidence out there now would be as stupid as giving Johnie Cochran the "glove", in the OJ Simpson murder trial..

I'm not lawyer, but I'm not sure this is the sort of thing that's going to go to a jury trial.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2020, 12:24 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And that's the thing here.  Why would they put the evidence out to the mainstream media's hands?  Cases aren't decided in the court of public opinion, but in the courts of law.  Throwing their evidence out there now would be as stupid as giving Johnie Cochran the "glove", in the OJ Simpson murder trial..

Well the other thing is they haven't presented any evidence in the 32 cases or so they lost. (Not all Rudy's team...some were brought by supporters of Trump.)

Probably why even FOX news doesn't believe it any more.

Trumps says its' about fraud...Rudy goes to court and says its not about fraud.

Bad lawyers, bad client, bad case.

But maybe case number 33 will be better?

Or maybe people will stop believing there is evidence and get on with the transition of power.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2020, 12:24 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why would they put the evidence out to the mainstream media's hands?  Cases aren't decided in the court of public opinion, but in the courts of law.  

Actually on this issue, like many others, Trump is hoping it is 100% decided in the court of public opinion.  That is the ONLY reason they had that crazy press conference.  They know they don't any evidence to win in court so they want to get the info out there so that the crowd that believes everything Trump says will fall for it.

I guarantee that after all these cases are proven to be total BS there will still be a large portion of the public that will swear that Trump was robbed by Democratic voter fraud,

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2020, 12:32 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not lawyer, but I'm not sure this is the sort of thing that's going to go to a jury trial.

Not even that, but if they don't present the evidence in the initial court cases, they can't just present it to the appellate courts. That's not how the courts work. you don't get to appeal because you withheld evidence that supports your side and that resulted in your case being dismissed.

[BmorePat87]

(11-23-2020, 11:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually on this issue, like many others, Trump is hoping it is 100% decided in the court of public opinion.  That is the ONLY reason they had that crazy press conference.  They know they don't any evidence to win in court so they want to get the info out there so that the crowd that believes everything Trump says will fall for it.

I guarantee that after all these cases are proven to be total BS there will still be a large portion of the public that will swear that Trump was robbed by Democratic voter fraud,

(11-23-2020, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not even that, but if they don't present the evidence in the initial court cases, they can't just present it to the appellate courts. That's not how the courts work. you don't get to appeal because you withheld evidence that supports your side and that resulted in your case being dismissed.

Yea, they 100% want this to play out in the court of public opinion because none of it has any merit whatsoever. The following exchange demonstrates how they hope to trick people.

I spent this weekend responding to comments on a friend's post where a former classmate of his was going on about how Trump will be the winner once this is all decided. He made references to the Constitution being violated and what not.

The first thing he did was post some screenshot from 4chan:




This is absolute nonsense. US v Throckmorton was an appeal over whether or not the presence of fraudulent land claims should overturn the decision of a lower court. The decision used the word “vitiates” to mean damage or impair “contracts, documents, and judgements” (not elections). The decision went on to say that since the fraud 1) was acknowledged by the court prior to their decision and 2) did not involve preventing one party from having a fair trial, SCOTUS could not overturn the decision solely because of the presence of a fraudulent land claim. So not only is this case not about elections, thus would not create a precedent that makes Donald Trump the winner, it’s a case where the fraud did not change the outcome.

He claimed a "law friend" sent it and had a different opinion, though no one with a law degree would actually believe that.

He then mentioned the PA case, which is why I quoted Matt since the Trump campaign included things in it they had no standing to hoping for an appeal.

I explained the PA, which I think would be beneficial to some here (though not the two I am quoting):

The Trump Campaign and two individuals claimed injury because those two individual were not allowed by their counties (York and Lancaster) to "cure" mail ballots they erroneously filled out. The defendants are not those two counties, however, but a number of counties Biden won where they did allow "curing". The other defendant is PA's Sec of State, who urged counties to allow "curing", though did not order it uniform across the state (would not necessarily be within her power to force that). This claim of injury was dismissed for a lack of standing by both parties.

For the individuals, they were injured, but not by the defendants. The court held that their home counties would have been the appropriate defendant and that the solution was to count their two votes, not invalidate the votes in unrelated counties. The aim of the legal complaint was to invalidate Biden votes, however, not get their votes counted, hence the choice not to include their home counties. The judge notes that they have a case against their counties to include their two votes, but not against the other counties to reject millions of votes. They also were not injured under the equal protection clause as everyone in their county was denied the ability to "cure" and that individual counties are allowed to expand voting access (allow curing).

The court also said that the Trump campaign lacked standing with this complaint as they were not injured and lacked both associational and competitive standing. Associational would suggest that they represent the interests of the individuals who were injured, but this is something granted to political parties where those people are members, not a campaign. The court held that the voter's goal was for their right to vote to be upheld, while the campaign's goal was for their candidate to win, two very different "injuries" even if the two voters voted for him. They also lacked competitive standing because they were not challenging the eligibility of the other candidate. This standing is used in cases where someone else on the ballot is ineligible (maybe died or lacked the requirements to legally be on the ballot) and posed a competitive disadvantage to a legally qualified candidate.

The Trump campaign claimed that the PA Sec of State violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Election and Elector Clauses of the US Constitution, pointing to the fact that not all counties allowed "curing" and that Trump poll watchers were treated differently. With regards to the Equal Protection Clause, the judge rejected the claim that Trump poll watchers were treated differently as all complaints from the Trump campaign were regarding the treatment of both Trump and Biden poll watchers, not just Trump poll watchers. The campaign admitted in their filing that they lacked standing to make a complaint about a violation of the Elections and Elector Clauses (as these clauses pertain to powers delegated to the state legislatures by Congress, hence would have to involve an injury suffered by the PA general assembly to which the Trump campaign lacks any associational standing).

The court noted that they would reject an attempt to apply precedent from Bush v Gore, which specifically was related to a state court order that did not provide guidance to assure a equal recount. The Sec of State did advise the counties to allow "curing". The campaign kept it, however, in hopes that it would be entertained in an appeal. It's not that the district court lacked the jurisdiction to hear it, which may be what you were referencing about a higher court (Bmore's note, the person tried to write off the PA decision by saying that the court claimed they didn't have the ability to decide it and a higher court would have to), but rather that the Trump campaign was already preparing themselves for a further legal fight. This confirms, as most of the cases do, that the legal strategy is everything but the kitchen sink in hopes to slow down the process to by time to obtain electors in other ways rather than outright winning. It may also just be a strategy to keep fundraising open to pay off campaign debt.