Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

johnny99 wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

47 USB sticks missing in PA.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BvM9e_5WYNkhttps://thebl.com/politics/pennsylvania-fraud-47-usb-cards-with-thousands-of-bits-of-election-data-missing.html

Why is Trump's lawyer lying to you?

Jenna Ellis, commenting on the Trump campaign's PA litigation: "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud."

Rudy Giuliani, admitting that the Trump campaign isn't even claiming fraud in PA:

But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is

not a fraud case.”

They both can't be true. Why does Jenna Ellis want you to believe that there are allegations of massive fraud (her words) when Rudy not only has no evidence fraud but isn't even claiming it?

Here's the answer: they are liars, and if you really believe them then you're getting seriously played.

Trump paid $3,000,000 to force a partial recount in Wisconsin which resulted in Biden gaining 132 votes. Doing business the Trump Way.

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the 3-0 decision.

Unanimous decision from Republican judges.

Trump appointed judged trashing Trump’s team, you gotta love it.

another quote from that brief: "Voters, not lawyers, choose the president':"

Trump paid $3,000,000 to force a partial recount in Wisconsin which resulted in Biden gaining 132 votes. Doing business the Trump Way.

https://twitter.com/postroz/status/1332467663076012034

If one were to apply the logic of Trump's lawyers, that is evidence that the Trump campaign engaged in fraud.

The new gold standard of evidence seems to be "some guy on the internet says blah and it must be true because I don't have the imagination to make up stuff like that."

Sadly for Trumpists this does not work in a court of law.

Rojo should block “Trump” and “Covid” from the boards like he did for “Gaylen “ and “Rupp”

doogiski wrote:

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the 3-0 decision.

Unanimous decision from Republican judges.

Trump appointed judged trashing Trump’s team, you gotta love it.

On to the SCOTUS, where Trump will undoubtedly win. Those judges at SCOTUS are the true legal eagles, the creme de la creme of legalism, and they will blast the liberal "arguments" out of the building. Probably impose severe sanctions too. They don't mess around at the SCOTUS. They apply the Constitution like a pneumatic jack hammer.

Flybang mash wrote:

doogiski wrote:

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the 3-0 decision.

Unanimous decision from Republican judges.

Trump appointed judged trashing Trump’s team, you gotta love it.

On to the SCOTUS, where Trump will undoubtedly win. Those judges at SCOTUS are the true legal eagles, the creme de la creme of legalism, and they will blast the liberal "arguments" out of the building. Probably impose severe sanctions too. They don't mess around at the SCOTUS. They apply the Constitution like a pneumatic jack hammer.

The “libs” don’t need to make any arguments. It’s Trump’s team that are the plaintiffs and are the one’s who have to prove their case. Up to this point they’ve failed to provide a shred of evidence which is why they keep, and will continue to, lose.

It takes 4 justices to decide to take a case at SCOTUS and Trump as only appointed 3. Even that is no guarantee seeing as how one of the 3 who shut down Trump in PA today was appointed by him.

Also as far as true “legal eagles” go. The Trump appointed judge who ruled against him today is a former legal professor with years more experience than Barrett or Cavanagh.

That's not how it works, Raguman. Unless they are insane, Defendants will provide arguments against the relief sought by Trump. They don't sit there mute, unless they want to lose. And then the lily-livered liberal lawyers will be bludgeoned by Alito and Gorsuch into abject submission. They will be throwing cases at the liberals left and right, and the liberals will be seeking safe space in the antechambers.

That’s exactly how it works when the plaintiffs have no case and no evidence. The only argument they need to make is that the plaintiff has no case, and in such a case the judge already knows this from the filings.

There’s no there, there. This goes nowhere even if SCOTUS decides to hear it.

Wow! And to think it all started in the parking lot of the Four Seasons Landscaping company.

Who would have known?

Flybang mash wrote:

On to the SCOTUS, where Trump will undoubtedly win.

Very real possibility that SCOTUS would decline to hear the case. Trump campaign simply presented nothing at the lower court, and I don't see any particular Question of Law that the Supremes would need to resolve.

OTOH they might accept the case, just to quash any conspiracy rumors, and then kick it out 9-0 or 8-1. (Should be 9-0--there's no "there" there.)

Flybang mash wrote:

On to the SCOTUS, where Trump will undoubtedly win. Those judges at SCOTUS are the true legal eagles, the creme de la creme of legalism, and they will blast the liberal "arguments" out of the building. Probably impose severe sanctions too. They don't mess around at the SCOTUS. They apply the Constitution like a pneumatic jack hammer.

1/10

One point because you did receive some responses which seemed to suggest that not everyone on here realizes you are trolling.

But still, rather pathetic. Please try not to be so obvious.

You don't know what you are talking about. This case is being appealed on a procedural issue: The denial of yet another attempt of Trump's team to amend their pleadings to make them read less like gibberish. So there is no evidence presented at the Third Circuit level or the SCOTUS. Even if the SCOTUS accepts the case, the arguments will be regarding the law applicable to the procedural issue. There will be no substantive evidence offered or considered. Evidence is for the trial courts to determine.

SeattleSilver wrote:

Flybang mash wrote:

That's not how it works, Raguman. Unless they are insane, Defendants will provide arguments against the relief sought by Trump. They don't sit there mute, unless they want to lose. And then the lily-livered liberal lawyers will be bludgeoned by Alito and Gorsuch into abject submission. They will be throwing cases at the liberals left and right, and the liberals will be seeking safe space in the antechambers.

You don't know what you are talking about.

What was your first clue?

If you go back and actually read the post you think you are replying to, you will see that not once did I ever suggest that the SCOTUS or appeals courts hears offered evidence. Your reply is what is called a "strawman" argument. You set up a false premise, attacked it, and then claimed victory on a non-existent issue of your own invention.

Furthermore, you are WRONG, that the SCOTUS or appeals courts don't consider evidence. They can and do review the factual record developed at the trial level ("the record on appeal") to determine if it meets, among other things, evidentiary standards.

So, it is YOU that doesn't know what they are talking about, face o' fish. Why do so many idiots on this board need basic civics lessons?

#StopTheSteal

KAG2020

If PA ends up not certifying, then I can see more states to follow: AZ, GA, WI, MI & NV.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En4zcZrXcAENmT7?format=jpg&name=small

KAG2020