The reality of the Recounts

How do you think the cross plays on the first guy, THE VERY FIRST ONE, that Rudy trotted out? Originally Posted by tannana

Not sure. If they get to a point where there is cross-examination of witnesses, they are probably going to be past the Dec 12th deadline, and the PA House and Senate will have to decide whether to certify the count, or elect to select the electors themselves.

They are going to lose spectacularly. Philly streamed the whole operation in high def video. The world could watch it. Allegheny county had people 6-8 people from the festivities.

The matching "supreme court case" for the post-election day ballots won't matter, because there are 7800 of them. Biden is going to be certified, let's call it, a 60-100k vote lead. That is, I believe, what they refer to in the first year of law school as "moot." Originally Posted by tannana

There is also plenty of video of the election officials not following the court order and turning away and ejecting GOP reps...and when some of them were allowed in, they were nowhere near close enough to observe anything meaningful. Who is giving you the 7800 number? The election officials being charged in the suit? The ones who didn't abide by Justice Alito's order twice (and still aren't according to the suit).

Get over it, dude. Trump is gone. You may care about his departure, but most people don't which is why he is gone.

I'll let you in on a secret, most people just do not like that orange clown and what he stands for.

If and when the current POTUS concedes, I'll call Mr. Biden our next POTUS. Until then, let us have our fun.

Affidavits are not proof of anything. An affidavit is a sworn statement that is subject to all the evidentiary rules such as hearsay sndfoundation. I can sign an affidavit that says I think SecretE sucks dick. That doesn’t prove that secretE does so. Just as I could testify to same, but that doesn’t prove it’s truthfulness.

Hence, you need additional proof to corroborate what’s testified to. You mean like Bobulinski testifying to the FBI that everything on Hunter's laptop is real and truthful? That kind of corroborating evidence? Physical evidence backed up by personal testimony, the very definition of corroborating evidence.Affidavits in and of themselves are not evidence of anything. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Affidavits, documents, testimony can all be "considered" evidence, not proof. Any of these things introduced in a court of law, is considered evidence, not proof, that is for a judge and jury to decide. You seem to want to confuse the two whether on purpose or you just don't understand the difference. And yes, evidentiary rules apply to everything.


Biden is now considered the winner. Trump must provide proof whether from documents or testimony. So why all the whining, let him either prove it or fall flat on his face and then you can call him all the name you want.

Evidence of fraud has not been presented. The lawyers haven’t even alleged fraud because they have no evidence of same. Biden has won. There is no fraud (which can’t be accidental to be fraud - requires intent) that will make any difference in the result.



True, none of it "might" make any difference in the result but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated so that we know what to look for for in future elections. It makes a difference if Biden won by less than half of what is being reported he won by because we would then know we had a big problem with the election. Whether Biden won or not is not the only thing to be considered.


A dead person voting would be fraud and it could conceivably be by accident though I'm not quite sure how or it could be intent to defraud. It should be assumed that everything I say is based on things I have heard. I myself have no proof of anything. I heard that dead people voted, "IF" that is true, there was fraud.


If you want the legal process to play out won’t you quit alleging fraud.


No, because "alleging fraud" is part of the process.



Is there a need to make sure all votes are counted, sure.


And there is a need to make sure that the vote that was counted was a legal vote. Surely you agree with that?


But you keep alleging yes, alleging that fraud occurred, without evidence evidence is being presented as we speak. Is it proof? We do not know and won't know until a court says it is or isn't that proves the fraud you’re alleging. Stop making the allegation and we’ll stop saying there’s no proof. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Stop saying there is no evidence when there is. We just don't know if the evidence is real or not. None of it may be real, I'll give you that.


Good grief man, evidence of fraud is what is being presented in court right now? Will it turn out to be true? I have no freaking idea but I will accept what a court of law says. I will not accept what you say any more than you will accept what I say.

BILL OF RIGHT EXCESSIVE FINES (PROOF STATE RECORD - NEW LAW THEN LAW REMOVE) , CAUSE RIG ZERO (60 MINUTE) ILLEGAL PULL OVER - DON'T HIRE BLACK OR MEXI WAR MACHINE 21 FROM IRONMAN(MOM IS BORN TRASH PERSON)

BILL OF RIGHT EXCESSIVE FINES (PROOF STATE RECORD - NEW LAW THEN LAW REMOVE) , CAUSE RIG ZERO (60 MINUTE) ILLEGAL PULL OVER - DON'T HIRE BLACK OR MEXI WAR MACHINE 21 FROM IRONMAN(MOM IS BORN TRASH PERSON) Originally Posted by UHB

You know, I was going to say that but you beat me to it!!

A simple question for 1blackman1.


Who decides proof, the lawyer or the judge? Nobody needs to prove anything to you just like you don't have to prove that you are a lawyer to me.


A judge, court will decide what is evidence, what is proof and until a court decides these issues, you should, as a lawyer, be telling me this rather than me telling you this.

There is also plenty of video of the election officials not following the court order and turning away and ejecting GOP reps...and when some of them were allowed in, they were nowhere near close enough to observe anything meaningful. Who is giving you the 7800 number? The election officials being charged in the suit? The ones who didn't abide by Justice Alito's order twice (and still aren't according to the suit). Originally Posted by SecretE

No. There isn't any of that evidence. Even if there was, the remedy isn't going to involve the vote totals. On the 7800 number--the PA AG's spokeswoman provided it this morning. That's it. MOOT.


The suit is wrong. The PA Secretary of State ordered the counties to segregate those ballots BEFORE Alito's order. Either of them.


If this thread isn't locked, I'll be back to dunk on inauguration day. The stuff in PA is going nowhere.

Wahhh wahhhh wahhhh

That’s where this is going

A simple question for 1blackman1.


Who decides proof, the lawyer or the judge? Nobody needs to prove anything to you just like you don't have to prove that you are a lawyer to me.


A judge, court will decide what is evidence, what is proof and until a court decides these issues, you should, as a lawyer, be telling me this rather than me telling you this
. . .

Stop saying there is no evidence when there is. We just don't know if the evidence is real or not. None of it may be real, I'll give you that.


. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If it’s not real, guess what, it’s not evidence.

The court (whether it be the judge or jury) weighs evidence. The rules of evidence determine what’s admissible as evidence. I don’t really have time to teach a course of evidentiary standards but the general answer is above.

Lawyers don’t determine what’s evidence. We provide to the court things (items, documents, testimony) which we believe has evidentiary value that’s relevant in establishing facts. The court will determine whether it meets the appropriate standards for admissibility. Then those items are weighed against other “evidence” which has been admitted.

For instance, we want to establish that HF and SE like sucking each other off. Neither HF or SE provide their own personal knowledge but WD proclaims from the rafters that it’s true. WD statements are not admissible because unless he has personal knowledge. He he claims that DF told him over a beer. That’s hearsay so again it’s not admissible. DF claims to have seen it in a picture on ECCIE, that’s not admissible because there’s a lack of foundation.

As you can see, there are rules in determining what can even get to the “finder of fact - jury/judge” to even weigh.

Giuliani and all these other people can make all the claims they want of fraud but since they can’t provide “competent evidence” they cannot prove its existence.

RACE CALLED! All the early numbers polling data and mail in ballots make it clear! yssup is AGAIN Our DOTY winner in another landslide! Originally Posted by winn dixie

That was never in doubt.

Get over it, dude. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Is that what they teach you in your racial sensitivity training? Or was that learned in your Ivy league Rhetoric 101 class?

This is all to do about nothing. . Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

If it’s not real, guess what, it’s not evidence.



When information is "presented" before it is adjudicated, what is it called?


The court (whether it be the judge or jury) weighs evidence. And not you so I guess we cleared that up.



The rules of evidence determine what’s admissible as evidence. And what is it called before a determination is made? After it is made, it may well be determined as inadmissible.


I don’t really have time to teach a course of evidentiary standards or the experience and credentials I'm guessing but the general answer is above.

Lawyers don’t determine what’s evidence. We provide to the court things (items, documents, testimony) which we believe has evidentiary value and you present it as evidence, later to be determined if it is admissible that’s relevant in establishing facts. The court will determine whether it meets the appropriate standards for admissibility. And not you. That's twice now we have cleared that up. Then those items are weighed against other “evidence” which has been admitted. Like corroborating evidence in the Bobulinski matter for example?

For instance, we want to establish that HF and SE like sucking each other off. Neither HF or SE provide their own personal knowledge but WD proclaims from the rafters that it’s true. WD statements are not admissible because unless he has personal knowledge. He he claims that DF told him over a beer. That’s hearsay so again it’s not admissible. DF claims to have seen it in a picture on ECCIE, that’s not admissible because there’s a lack of foundation.

As you can see, there are rules in determining what can even get to the “finder of fact - jury/judge” to even weigh.

Giuliani and all these other people can make all the claims they want of fraud but since they can’t provide “competent evidence” they cannot prove its existence. If you have a court ruling on each and every matter, please post them for us. No? you don't have any court rulings but you know the results already? You must be a prophet rather than a lawyer. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

And yet you, who claims to be a lawyer, is here telling us there is no evidence. Got ya!


Another lefty who just can't stop thinking about other men's dicks. What is it with you guys?

And yet you, who claims to be a lawyer, is here telling us there is no evidence. Got ya!


Another lefty who just can't stop thinking about other men's dicks. What is it with you guys? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

dbl zero jammies and pflunck are antheifa ! So yeah thats what they think about