2020 Election Commentary

[Shasarak]

Anyone who needs a laugh, check out the oblivious Trump supporting losers on social media who are wondering why they lost money they bet on Trump winning the election. Betfair has settled the bets. Trump didn't win. These poeple's denial is both sad and hilarious. I feel for the family members, especially kids, that will be affected by such fiscal irresponsibility. But not for the people who lost everything betting on a race they had limited information on. The funniest part? Betfair took over 600 million dollars worth of bets for Trump AFTER Nov. 3rd. Yeah, you read that right. These people are morons.

How much did you win?

I am guessing ONE BILLION DOLLARS?

[moonsweeper]

Be that as it may, it still takes more than suspicion to get that ball rolling, in any US court. Quite simply, Team Trump has repeatedly failed to meet even the minimal evidentiary standard to successfully BEGIN a case, let alone successfully argue one. This is not the fault of some vast, bipartisan conspiracy. This is because Team Trump has repeatedly admitted in court that they have no direct evidence of fraud to present to the court. Sure, they crow about it in the media. But before a judge, not so much. To believe the Trump Camp's empty bluster at this point is to be the most laughable kind of rube.

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum evidentiary standard to get the ball rolling for, say, a search warrant...or does it depend on the politics of the situation?

...asking for a friend...

[jhkim]

It would be very hard for say, financial fraud, to be asserted in court if no one but the suspect had access to the books.

But the parallel to what's being alleged here would be if the police have access to the books and check them, but the suspect's rival claims that the police are corrupt and failing to do their job.

The two main options are: (1) the rival calls on another agency to investigate the local police - like the Federal DOJ or FBI; or (2) the rival hires their own private investigators, and petitions the court to grant access. Both of these have been pursued, but none of them so far have resulted in any successful court decisions.

What legal route remains for Trump to be sworn in as President at this point?

Trump doesn't have the votes, but there can be objections in Congress to accepting the Electoral College votes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/congress-election-role.html

Be that as it may, it still takes more than suspicion to get that ball rolling, in any US court. Quite simply, Team Trump has repeatedly failed to meet even the minimal evidentiary standard to successfully BEGIN a case, let alone successfully argue one. This is not the fault of some vast, bipartisan conspiracy. This is because Team Trump has repeatedly admitted in court that they have no direct evidence of fraud to present to the court. Sure, they crow about it in the media. But before a judge, not so much. To believe the Trump Camp's empty bluster at this point is to be the most laughable kind of rube.

To be clear - there *has* been investigation by official investigators. That's not generally motivated by Trump - that's just the regular election police whose job it is to look into problems. And they have not found widespread problems, though they have successfully arrested some people, like Robert Lynn in Forty Fort PA, who tried to register and vote as his dead mother.

Trump has brought forwards evidence in the form of eyewitnesses, and they have had hearings both in court, and in some special sessions from election boards and legislators. Eyewitnesses *are* direct evidence, but in this case, they have not been deemed as credible by the courts after the hearings.

[Tubesock Army]

Anyone who needs a laugh, check out the oblivious Trump supporting losers on social media who are wondering why they lost money they bet on Trump winning the election. Betfair has settled the bets. Trump didn't win. These poeple's denial is both sad and hilarious. I feel for the family members, especially kids, that will be affected by such fiscal irresponsibility. But not for the people who lost everything betting on a race they had limited information on. The funniest part? Betfair took over 600 million dollars worth of bets for Trump AFTER Nov. 3rd. Yeah, you read that right. These people are morons.

How much did you win?

I am guessing ONE BILLION DOLLARS?

I don't bet. Ever. But if I did, and lost my money on some stupid bullshit, I'd expect to be laughed at.

[Tubesock Army]

Be that as it may, it still takes more than suspicion to get that ball rolling, in any US court. Quite simply, Team Trump has repeatedly failed to meet even the minimal evidentiary standard to successfully BEGIN a case, let alone successfully argue one. This is not the fault of some vast, bipartisan conspiracy. This is because Team Trump has repeatedly admitted in court that they have no direct evidence of fraud to present to the court. Sure, they crow about it in the media. But before a judge, not so much. To believe the Trump Camp's empty bluster at this point is to be the most laughable kind of rube.

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum evidentiary standard to get the ball rolling for, say, a search warrant...or does it depend on the politics of the situation?

...asking for a friend...

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

[Mistwell]

Anyone who needs a laugh, check out the oblivious Trump supporting losers on social media who are wondering why they lost money they bet on Trump winning the election. Betfair has settled the bets. Trump didn't win. These poeple's denial is both sad and hilarious. I feel for the family members, especially kids, that will be affected by such fiscal irresponsibility. But not for the people who lost everything betting on a race they had limited information on. The funniest part? Betfair took over 600 million dollars worth of bets for Trump AFTER Nov. 3rd. Yeah, you read that right. These people are morons.

Naw I don't think it's funny. Much like I didn't think it was funny when betters were in disbelief when their bets on Hillary Clinton were loser bets 4 years ago. People losing money betting just isn't my type of humor.

In fact none of this is funny. Some people believed in Trump with all their hearts, and him losing isn't a funny thing. I voted Biden and support him, but it's still not pleasant when people are deeply disappointed, particularly in such a close election. In fact for a good chunk of people this was their very first presidential election vote. Them losing, and in this way, can't be fun and isn't funny. I just hope it doesn't deter them from voting in the future.

But then, this is the Internet, and showing compassion is considered a weakness. Which is stupid, but it's also reality.

[jeff37923]

Anyone who needs a laugh, check out the oblivious Trump supporting losers on social media who are wondering why they lost money they bet on Trump winning the election. Betfair has settled the bets. Trump didn't win. These poeple's denial is both sad and hilarious. I feel for the family members, especially kids, that will be affected by such fiscal irresponsibility. But not for the people who lost everything betting on a race they had limited information on. The funniest part? Betfair took over 600 million dollars worth of bets for Trump AFTER Nov. 3rd. Yeah, you read that right. These people are morons.

[Shasarak]

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

As you do not have a law degree you can easily explain how the judge can find nothing of substance to Trumps claim if they refuse to hear the substance of the claim?

[HappyDaze]

Poor jeffy hasn't realized that more and more people are seeing that he's the monkey. What a sad little inbred bastard.

[Tubesock Army]

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

As you do not have a law degree you can easily explain how the judge can find nothing of substance to Trumps claim if they refuse to hear the substance of the claim?

Pretty simple, there's not even enough to convince the judge that there's a "there" there. It's really not hard to understand. And if you believe that there's a vast bipartisan conspiracy to perpetrate or at least cover up the greatest election fraud ever perpetrated in our nation's history, it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else, say, you simply won't be convinced.

I'm not here to reach people or change minds, I'm here to point and laugh.

[Tubesock Army]

Anyone who needs a laugh, check out the oblivious Trump supporting losers on social media who are wondering why they lost money they bet on Trump winning the election. Betfair has settled the bets. Trump didn't win. These poeple's denial is both sad and hilarious. I feel for the family members, especially kids, that will be affected by such fiscal irresponsibility. But not for the people who lost everything betting on a race they had limited information on. The funniest part? Betfair took over 600 million dollars worth of bets for Trump AFTER Nov. 3rd. Yeah, you read that right. These people are morons.

The "Puppet Master" backpedal is really just this:

[EOTB]

It would be very hard for say, financial fraud, to be asserted in court if no one but the suspect had access to the books.

What legal route remains for Trump to be sworn in as President at this point?

The western democracies have established through precedent that any government overthrown outside of written election law by popular protest is legitimate and legal.

Would that happen?  I have no idea.  I am but a simple internet rube. 

[jhkim]

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

As you do not have a law degree you can easily explain how the judge can find nothing of substance to Trumps claim if they refuse to hear the substance of the claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not heard the substance of the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit. But there are a number of state courts which have heard and ruled on the substance of other lawsuits - from Trump's legal team as well as from Sidney Powell.

[Shasarak]

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

As you do not have a law degree you can easily explain how the judge can find nothing of substance to Trumps claim if they refuse to hear the substance of the claim?

Pretty simple, there's not even enough to convince the judge that there's a "there" there. It's really not hard to understand. And if you believe that there's a vast bipartisan conspiracy to perpetrate or at least cover up the greatest election fraud ever perpetrated in our nation's history, it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else, say, you simply won't be convinced.

I'm not here to reach people or change minds, I'm here to point and laugh.

So you cant explain, you can just point and laugh.

Sounds about right.

[EOTB]

Evidently higher than Team Trump can reach. Beyond that, you'd have to ask a lawyer. You don't need a law degree to see that a bipartisan judicial system has found nothing of substance in Trump's claims.

As you do not have a law degree you can easily explain how the judge can find nothing of substance to Trumps claim if they refuse to hear the substance of the claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not heard the substance of the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit. But there are a number of state courts which have heard and ruled on the substance of other lawsuits - from Trump's legal team as well as from Sidney Powell.

Yes, but none of those contained forensics from the voting machines, which weren't made available until it was ordered in the Antrim case.  To this point they were essentially trying to prove it indirectly because that's all they were allowed to do. 

My understanding from nothing more than internet commentary (so could be wrong) is that the judge in the Antrim audit case has allowed further discovery and trial based off the support provided from the limited audit.  We will see.

It will be curious what the DNI says.  It may be more of the same; it may be different.  We'll see.