Tuberville Throws Support Behind Electoral College Challenge

The PA issue is an interesting one. The general consensus I've heard suggests it is not unconstitutional but if things happened as they've been presented, I think it should definitely be looked at. But the Brann case is another matter - he responded to the evidence presented in the filing which he found so unconvincing that he gave a strong rebuke. Why should there be an evidentiary hearing when initial filing is so weak?

 

That is all fine and dandy.

BUT, the (essential) point remains the same:

NOTHING Will Change the 2020 Result. Period.

 

It's more basic than that, and is especially relevant with regard to Giuliani and others' affidavits.

Whether sworn in a courtroom or signed and notarized, testimony is someone's opinion of what they saw and heard. Legally, yes, testimony is entered as evidence, but that it has been entered does not make it evidence in the logical sense of the word. In an early case in AZ, affidavits that were gathered online, filled with lies and spam, were (foolishly) entered as evidence. Doesn't make it so. Not weak evidence. No evidence.

 

I don't agree with the bolded bit (though I agree about the quality of the affidavits); there I'd say bad evidence. I'm not sure this is a fruitful discussion to continue. I've put in my tuppence worth regarding the semantics but I can't stop people banging their head against the wall if they want to do that.

 

Sorry you proved it correct.

 

Heres the fun part, its OK to disagree!

 

Indeed, but maybe not so fun to say someone agrees with you when they clearly don’t.

 

I agree it's not worth going into at length, but I'll end with this.

Statements don't even have to make sense, and they aren't always truthful. In my opinion, at the very minimum, a statement must satisfy both to be considered evidence.

 

Yes, I was getting that impression. Maybe the whole disagreement comes from one person using evidence in the legal sense and the person countering using it more in this sense. To me, since we're talking about legal processes, it makes sense to make allowance for the legal usage. But fine.

 

A judge determines whether something is admissible, and in the case of illegal search, for example, actual hard evidence may be excluded, so the law isn't necessarily a good metric in this discussion.

I'm reducing the argument to its essence. Try this.

Rudy Giuliani is holding a horseshoe in one hand, and 1000 affidavits in the other. In which hand is he holding evidence of a blacksmith?

That's what it boils down to here. Just because Rudy waves around affidavits by the truckload does not mean he has evidence of voter fraud.

 

And just where are they hiding all this evidence while Dominion and Dominion employees roll out the lawsuits for defamation and slander?

 

Hearsay is all they have...

 

When filing a case in a court the judge is more demanding on a lawyers than an individual that files the case. Attorneys know that hearsay and conjecture are very weak and that substantial evidence in necessary for a case to succeed....Trump campaign lawyers failed in that aspect of the cases they filed, why, they lack sufficient evidence.. Where is all this Kraken of evidence?

 

^^^
This statement is false.

 

I was reading this article on the actual "nuts and bolts" of what might happen next Wednesday (1/6). This statement caught my eye

SNIP
After the certificate from each state or the District of Columbia is read, the presiding officer will call for objections, if there are any. An objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one member of the Senate and one member of the House.

It also must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof."

If an objection is properly made, the joint session suspends, and each chamber of Congress meets separately to consider it. Debate is limited to no more than two hours, and each member can speak only once and for a maximum of five minutes.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-congress-count-electoral-votes-162445888.html

Does that mean that if the SOP* "properly" objects to multiple states, as I understand they will, does that mean they will break for 2 hours on EACH STATE?? Or can they just get through the count once, and debate all the objected states at one time??

The former will be even more ridiculous than the plan itself...which I suppose IS the point...

* SOP = Seditious Old Party

 

https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1344307458085412867

Sen. Hawley will object.

 

Neat. Changes nothing but the length of time to finish.

 

Great.
So what?

If they contest the 6 states that they plan to, instead of 45 Minutes it will (possibly) take 12+ Hours.

In the end, Biden Still WINS.

A total waste of Time.

Although, it could be a ratings bonanza for C-Span.

 

The general consensus of those who have not read or studied the Constitution perhaps. But it is quite clear the state legislatures have plenary power. It was the basis of the Florida 2000 SCOTUS decision that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the authority to change the rules of the election as set by the state legislature.

And Judge Brann's court?

"A Pennsylvania federal court on Saturday denied President Donald Trump's request to block certification of the state's election results to give his lawyers time to find evidence to support their claims of a fraudulent election system and improper ballot counting.

In a scathing ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann criticized the Trump campaign's lack of evidence to support its argument to potentially disenfranchise every voter in the commonwealth who cast a ballot – nearly 7 million."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-election-pennsylvania-dismissed/6360749002/

The attorney's went over this in the Senate hearings, that they could not start to develop and gather evidence until the elections were certified and that was delayed and they asked for more time and the judge shut them down.

That is why there should be a full, open and transparent investigation into this and the other matters that arose taking a lead from the 2005 Jimmy Carter/James Baker commission on elections.

 

Why could they not gather evidence until the elections were certified?

 

Stop being obtuse.

 

If you walk into the pub and pull out a gun and shoot someone dead and ten people witness it and give sworn statements to that fact that is STRONG evidence and will get you convicted.

 

Freaking awesome.... cannot wait for those votes....

Hey, Joshy, I thought your colleague Johnson held a hearing about Election Fraud? Isn't that "acting"?? What happened to that output?

 

Huh?

"Obtuse"?

According to who?

Anyway, Tuberville (and now Hawley) are headed toward a time-wasting Fool's Errand.

Hawley is Proving to be an Especially Egregious MORON.

Obviously, this is his first move toward Conning Trump Voters to support him if Trump passes on 2024.

 

It's not that interesting... The guidance from the SOS was that all counties could, and should, cure their ballots.... Some did... some didn't...

You cannot punish those that cured because some weren't allowed to at the county level...

SNIP
There’s no question the policy around curing was inconsistently applied around the state. The debate is over who’s at fault for that.

The guidance from Boockvar’s office did come “quite close to the election,” Daniel Mallinson, assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State, told us via email, “but it is important to bear in mind that counties were barred by state law from starting their review of mail in ballots until 7 am on election day. So the guidance was timely from that standpoint. They had not even reviewed ballots yet.”

“Counties then made different decisions about how they would approach ballot curing,” Mallinson said. “So the long answer to who is to blame for the discrepancy is really county election officials. The guidance was uniform across the Commonwealth.”

“ALL counties could allow notice and cure,” Ray Murphy of the nonpartisan Keystone Votes coalition told us via email. “It was lawful and consistent with the PA Supreme Court’s ruling.”
ENDSNIP

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/ballot-curing-in-pennsylvania/

And for the 44th billion time, even throwing out all "cured" ballots in Penn wouldn't give Trump the win.... so there's that..

EDIT - The only interesting thing remaining in Pa is will the SCOTUS take up the 3 day extension ballots, that still haven't been counted... I suspect they will someday, but not now...