Trump Lawyer to PA Judge: Nope, I’ve Got No Evidence of Voter Fraud

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/11/11/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-lawsuits/

Does anybody actually believe that all these lawsuits that Trump is pursuing have anything to do with "guarding election integrity" Or even about Trump having any chance whatsoever of overturning the results?

No! It's not about any of that. The real motive for all this is simple:

This is nothing more than a temper tantrum by a President who has the mental maturity of a 5 year old.

 

I'm just gonna go with the flow here, Golem. Not sure if you want to discuss this case or just blow the lid off Trump's delusions with reality checks. I'll contribute with the latter.

Trump Campaign’s Arizona Lawyer Once Had to Pay Town of Snowflake After Filing ‘Frivolous’ Lawsuit

The Trump campaign's effort to ride the "Sharpiegate" conspiracy to judicial victory from the jaws of electoral defeat quickly crumbled. First, their stacks of hundreds of sketchy affidavits was rejected, and a brutal daylong hearing on Thursday led the legal team to abandon the case on Friday.

It's a Trump Tantrum, surely. Sadly, many seem to believe he will win the election somehow.

I fully support exposing the national sham for what it is. Trump is still submitting bogus affidavits as evidence. They get rejected for the jokes that they are, yet Trump continues this strategy. Seems mindless.

Anyway, don't mean to derail. Just piling it on.

 

Reminds me of what democrats did to palin

 

Care to provide a link to the entire transcript? Or do we just rely on a snippet provided independent of the context of the discussion.

 

Why? You saw the transcript of his phone call to the Ukraine and couldn't grasp the context. Doubt it would happen here either.

 

“I understand,” he told Goldstein. “I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”

That was the second time the judge had to ask him. There's your context. The only thing fraudulent are Trump's claims.

 

You have a link to the article. Further down there is a longer transcript of the conversation. But what context could possibly change the fact that, when asked by the judge, they admitted that they had nothing?

 

The Judge is asking about 592 specific ballots. Somehow I doubt this lawsuit is only about 592 ballots. And if there is no fraud, is the lawsuit alleging other issues with the ballots other than fraud? I like to read source data if possible and form my own conclusions rather that have liberal media tell me what to think.

 

I bet. That's why you have such a good track record in reaching the correct conclusion, right?
Let's put it to test:
Do you think that Trump has lost the election?

 

Lol. Get real, bro. Seriously.

Oh...here ya go. Courtroom video.

 

This particular lawsuit was about 592 ballots. There were several lawsuits. But this particular one, as you can see, was as frivolous as they come.

In the end, win or lose, they are all frivolous because they won't change the result of the elections. And they know it.

 

The "affidavits" submitted by Trump's team were generated by an internet form, and some were bot-generated spam. And the lawyers submitted them anyway. This is really, really sad. The attempt. Defending the attempt. Just sad.

 

Was it only about 592 ballots and if so how do you know this from the information provided?

 

What difference does it make? The allegation was about 592 ballots being fraudulent. If it included something about anything other than voter fraud... who cares? My point is that there was no voter fraud in this case, that the attorneys had no evidence of voter fraud, and that so far no evidence of voter fraud has been presented anywhere. Which you could easily rebut by showing evidence somewhere else. This case gives us a clear indication about what is happening elsewhere in other similar lawsuits.

If you know of anything different, i.e., that there was evidence of voter fraud in this or any other lawsuit; that would be your burden to prove.

 

His whole history has been to use the courts to his advantage by bringing “nuisance Suits” and either tying the issue up in convoluted litigation until the other party gave up or, dragging the issue out ad infinitum. This is something a bit new though. Here it is not some poor schmuck trying to get paid but a government defending the process it employed to ensure a fair election

 

The lawsuit was dismissed for lack of evidence. What more do you need to know? All the cases are being tossed for the same reason. It's obvious what's going on here.

 

It were about more than that then they should have brought that to court

see you have to bring your evidence to court - that is how the system works

 

No, it does not remind you of what Palin did to herself, you are just making that one up to have something to say and attempt to fog the issue and distract from the topic at hand.

In so many lawsuits the many news sources cannot keep track of them the outcome has been the same. A big fat nothing, judges being pissed off at lawyers for bringing rumor and empty theories into their courtrooms. Law firms in some cases have quit representing Trump as they see themselves at risk of being called to explain themselves and defend their law licenses for bringing nonsense into the courtroom.

 

I think the narrative he's preparing is: "See? They stole the election I won. And now they want to put me in prison!" He thinks that will enrage his supporters and bring them out to.... somehow... help him avoid serving time for his crimes.

That's my theory, anyway...

 

What do I need. A source of complete information. I can make my own judgement about what is obvious.

 

Your judgement is flawed and I can prove it as another poster in this thread tried to do as well.

Easy judgement question, do you believe Biden won the election and is the President elect?

 

What ever happened to Palin she mostly did to herself. The day McCain announced her as his running mate, I told my wife that he just lost the election. She was a flake, always had been. Look up her record in life.

 

I agree, except his foremost strategy is to save face and/or cling to his position as president. His secondary strategy is exactly as you said, he wants to keep his base of hardcore 30-40 million engaged and give them an excuse to keep believing he actually should have won so that he can make money off of them, and possibly as some kind of "protection" in case of legal trouble, which I think is very likely.
People are forgetting or didn't catch it at the time, but a whole lot of uncovered legal issues were found by Mueller, but since they didn't fall in the scope of his investigation and he didn't feel that the DOJ would support the indictment of a sitting president, he turned the information over to the Southern District of New York, who has been waiting for Trump to go from sitting to former, losing the protection he's had.
IMO, Trump is in a lot of trouble after he loses the protection of the office.

 

From 0:45
"All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. Now there are only two ways to answer, guilty or not guilty."
--My Cousin Vinny

From courtroom
“I understand,” he told Goldstein. “I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
--Trump

You really can't make this stuff up. Trump is Vinny. Highly embarrassing.