The Trump Pandemic

[JimC]

If a court declines to hear a case, then there are really two possibilities.

1. That the initial evidence presented by lawyers wanting a matter heard was so flimsy that there is no point in a full court case.

2. That the decision was made corruptly, by a judge that did not want such a case heard because, for political or personal reasons, he or she wanted to quash the whole thing.

Now, as you have been told (and is a clearly available fact), multiple state and federal US judges have declined to hear cases based on dismissing the election results, brought by a variety of Trump lawyers (not just Rudy). Many of those judges were Republican appointees. So, for Rudy's cause to have any basis in fact, one would have to assume that my reason number 2 was operating, not just in one court, but in multiple courts. Even a significant number of Republican politicians have realised the absurdity of that position...

[Hermit]

It is a pretty clear example of you not wanting to look at that side of things though.

I know Rudy's side of things. He made his position perfectly clear. He alleged widespread voter fraud. He also said: "Of course courts set aside elections when they’re illegal. In this particular case, I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. Certainly not around the country, maybe in Pennsylvania." So, Giuliani doesn't know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. And he wants the courts to decide the matter.

And again: "It’s not my job to determine if the ballots are right or not, it’s their job"

At the same press conference the Sky News correspondent Mark Stone mentioned that all of the major news networks were now joining in projecting Biden's victory. Giuliani asked "Which networks!?" Stone replied: "All of them". Giuliani looked heavenward, struck a pose of mock crucifixion, and bellowed sarcastically: "Woooooow! All the networks? We have to forget the law! Judges don't count!"

What is to be argued in court? Giuliani again: "President Trump’s campaign was denied its right to a fair count"
The transcript of the presser is here. You can easily find these quotes by hitting <Ctrl-f> and pasting a relevant search term into the search box. Or you can watch a video of it here.


So what happened? Two possibilities, I suppose. Either what the plaintiffs presented was not convincing, or the judges, including those appointed by Republicans up to the level of the President himself, presiding over 61 cases unanimously conspired against Trump. If the latter, I would like you to provide a link with a verbatim quote if it is in written form, or a time stamp if it is a video to what Giuliani has to say about that.

You say you know his side, so no biggie. To me, it is important to distinguish whether a court has declined to review evidence, or reviewed and rejected evidence. But someone said all 61 courts saw the evidence and rejected it. That's got a number in it, so MUST be the sciency answer.

At least one court has outright declined to even look at the case. That was the Supreme Court of the United States. It told the plaintiffs the matter to be dealt with being a states issue, the case is out of its jurisdiction. Another case brought by Texas was rejected from the outset because the state lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. You might recall that the majority of the nine judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and three of those by Trump himself.

The Wikipedia lists 51 post-election lawsuits. It needs updating, but at the time of listing 10 of them have been dropped by the plaintiffs, 26 have been dismissed for lack of evidence, 6 have been ruled on, 2 are ongoing and 7 were being appealed.

But I'm not convinced you are correct in your assessment.

I have provided 5 quotes in which Giuliani said that
a) he does not know if there is enough evidence to set aside the entire election. Certainly not around the country
b) It’s not his job to determine if the ballots are right or not. it’s the courts' job
and I have provided you with two links to the source in case you want to check their accuracy and/or context.

Which bit(s) of my assessment do you regard as unconvincing?

[Tero]

All the Rudy you will ever need to (try to) hear

[Tero]

Rudy does "strict scrutiny"
https://twitter.com/alfranken/status/13 ... 1318061057

[Cunt]

Which bit(s) of my assessment do you regard as unconvincing?

Everything you say about Trump supporters.

Based wholly on your own words about Trump supporters.

[Brian Peacock]

You mean you not convinced that Trump's legal eagles have actually failed to provide enough evidence to convince the courts?

[Cunt]

You mean you not convinced that Trump's legal eagles have actually failed to provide enough evidence to convince the courts?

I'm convinced that most people don't even know fully what Rudy is claiming.

I'm convinced that Ted Cruz understands this much more fully than you do.

I'm convinced that many media outlets push an agenda that doesn't include providing unbiased information, rather they ALL answer to dollars.

If you seemed to understand what was being claimed by Rudy, or Cruz, then your opinion would be much more interesting, even if opposing.

Did you know, the best satirists, know VERY well the people and ideas that they satirize? Carlin didn't just mock the armed forces - he WAS the armed forces, then made the jokes.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

[Cunt]

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

You may have misread. I'm not sure they are right.

[JimC]

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

You may have misread. I'm not sure they are right.

We've explained this to you before, but you don't seem to get it. The test is not whether you, or I, or Uncle Tom Cobley and all believe Rudy, but whether the courts do.

Simples...

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

You may have misread. I'm not sure they are right.

But something convinced you of something - you said so in that other post. Who's convinced you of what, and how?

[Cunt]

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

You may have misread. I'm not sure they are right.

We've explained this to you before, but you don't seem to get it. The test is not whether you, or I, or Uncle Tom Cobley and all believe Rudy, but whether the courts do.

Simples...

Ted thinks there is still something to be decided.

Simples...

I'm not mocking anyone. What convinced you that Rudy and Ted are right?

You may have misread. I'm not sure they are right.

But something convinced you of something - you said so in that other post. Who's convinced you of what, and how?

I'm convinced that Hermit, no matter how convincing, can not be trusted to be objective about Trump supporters. It's a very clear example, but another is how JimC is trying to insist that it's over, when Cruz, who is possibly even more of a legal scholar than JimC, thinks there is something yet to be done.

This doesn't mean he's wrong, (or right). Just that I had better not trust him on issues around Trump or Trump supporters.

Once you have insisted that someone is racist, it is really hard to backpedal, one might say no redemption can be allowed.

[JimC]

You still have not commented on the fact that dozens of US courts, many with conservative judges, have all dismissed attempts to overturn the election result. Whatever Rudy or Ted may think, courts have decided there simply is no case to answer, so the election result will stand. End of story.

[Cunt]

End of story.

I know you think so, but it seems some of the grown-ups, like Cruz, still think there is more story to be examined.

As to commenting on the multiple court cases, what is there to say? I remember an old saying. Went something like 'if a hundred men believe something, and I believe otherwise, then its a hundred to one that they are wrong.'

Maybe some chicanery is going on. If you would deny Cruz his lawful objection, I wouldn't.

Frankly, I don't know why you would worry about it. It's not like it makes a difference. Remember the old lyric '...meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

[Brian Peacock]

How did we go from thinking Ted's case is pure politics and PR, and his realistic chances of success are slim-to-none, to suddenly denying him his fundamental legal right to be laughed out of court if that's what he wants?