Democrats Telling 60 Millions Americans Their Concerns Are Meaningless

[2012Bearcat]

75 million Americans had their vote counted for President Trump. Around 60 million of those people have serious question with reports of massive voter irregularity in key areas of the country. What is the Democrat response, you are a traitor for asking questions, wanting investigations and filing suits to do so. In other word Democrats are telling these Americans STFU your opinions and concerns are of no concern to them. Great message for a party that is saying they want unity. Of course that message really means bow to our demands or you will be punished.

Just to put the number of people concerned into perspective, the black population in the US is around 44 million. The country is rightfully bending over backwards to address their concerns.

 

[launch]

In before dismissive comments from people that jerked off to Chris Hayes talking about Russia for 3 years and state that Stacey Abrams is the Governor of Georgia.

 

[sbaPoke]

I wish/hope that was not how it felt to you and people of like mind.

1. I don’t think any reasonable people are actually calling you traitors, and I know they are not saying “bow down to our demands or you will be punished”. With all due respect, that’s simply melodrama with a bit of paranoia. Don’t lump all the people who believe the election was fair with crazies on the left (just like I don’t lump you with white supremacists on the right).

2. I promise you it’s not just Democrats, or liberals or never Trumpers. Plenty of very reasonable people, including conservatives, Republicans and Trump voters (like some of my relatives) know that there is simply no credible evidence behind all the tweets of election conspiracy theories.

3. Anyone who thinks there were material election irregularities putting the results in question absolutely has the right to pursue relief in the courts in accordance with the constitution and our system of law.

4. Pursuing their claims in court is exactly what they did. DOZENS of times. Effectively ALL of them were thrown out and dismissed for lack of evidence among other reasons, including by conservative courts in conservative states and judges appointed by Trump himself.

5. Tweets and news articles can be interesting and even informative at times, but they are no where near as thorough or meaningful (not even close) as actual legal briefs and court cases.

6. At what point will Trump conspiracy theorists acknowledge the findings of DOZENS OF COURTS OF LAW and realize that they are being manipulated and sold a bill of goods and holding on to what they want to be true instead of what the evidence says is actually true.

 

[22LR]

I wish/hope that was not how it felt to you and people of like mind.

1. I don’t think any reasonable people....

.
.
I'll stick with this guy's opinion. Thanks.


.
And Biden's own confession...

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I wish/hope that was not how it felt to you and people of like mind.

1. I don’t think any reasonable people are actually calling you traitors, and I know they are not saying “bow down to our demands or you will be punished”. With all due respect, that’s simply melodrama with a bit of paranoia. Don’t lump all the people who believe the election was fair with crazies on the left (just like I don’t lump you with white supremacists on the right).

2. I promise you it’s not just Democrats, or liberals or never Trumpers. Plenty of very reasonable people, including conservatives, Republicans and Trump voters (like some of my relatives) know that there is simply no credible evidence behind all the tweets of election conspiracy theories.

3. Anyone who thinks there were material election irregularities putting the results in question absolutely has the right to pursue relief in the courts in accordance with the constitution and our system of law.

4. Pursuing their claims in court is exactly what they did. DOZENS of times. Effectively ALL of them were thrown out and dismissed for lack of evidence among other reasons, including by conservative courts in conservative states and judges appointed by Trump himself.

5. Tweets and news articles can be interesting and even informative at times, but they are no where near as thorough or meaningful (not even close) as actual legal briefs and court cases.

6. At what point will Trump conspiracy theorists acknowledge the findings of DOZENS OF COURTS OF LAW and realize that they are being manipulated and sold a bill of goods and holding on to what they want to be true instead of what the evidence says is actually true.

Just going to remind you that you keep asking for people to comply with your vision all while insulting them at the same time. Not an effective strategy.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Correct me if I am wrong here but sworn affidavits are evidence and admissible as evidence in a court of law. If I am correct there is evidence of wide spread voter fraud based on the number of affidavits from several different states. Furthermore when the process is specifically set up to make proving voter fraud almost impossible it's damn hard to prove. It's also pretty strange that the only areas that had problems and took days to count the ballots were in Democrat controlled cities, well known for voter fraud and corruption.
No doubt in my mind their was massive voter fraud in the election. Democrats get away with stealing an election and now have the opportunity to weaken this country further. Only bright spot is we get to sit back and laugh at the dumbasses that voted for Biden and will suffer the most from his policies.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

75 million Americans had their vote counted for President Trump. Around 60 million of those people have serious question with reports of massive voter irregularity in key areas of the country. What is the Democrat response, you are a traitor for asking questions, wanting investigations and filing suits to do so. In other word Democrats are telling these Americans STFU your opinions and concerns are of no concern to them. Great message for a party that is saying they want unity. Of course that message really means bow to our demands or you will be punished.

Just to put the number of people concerned into perspective, the black population in the US is around 44 million. The country is rightfully bending over backwards to address their concerns.

Welcome to New Venezuela.

 

[CowboyJD]

Correct me if I am wrong here but sworn affidavits are evidence and admissible as evidence in a court of law. If I am correct there is evidence of wide spread voter fraud based on the number of affidavits from several different states. Furthermore when the process is specifically set up to make proving voter fraud almost impossible it's damn hard to prove. It's also pretty strange that the only areas that had problems and took days to count the ballots were in Democrat controlled cities, well known for voter fraud and corruption.
No doubt in my mind their was massive voter fraud in the election. Democrats get away with stealing an election and now have the opportunity to weaken this country further. Only bright spot is we get to sit back and laugh at the dumbasses that voted for Biden and will suffer the most from his policies.

You’re wrong.

Sworn affidavits typically aren’t admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Inadmissible hearsay.

Particularly in a trial on the merits.

In some limited circumstances they are admissible, but not if they are testimonial in nature and go to the merits of the claims.

Right to confront your accusers under our Constitutiin and all that.

So, there’s that.

 

[2012Bearcat]

You’re wrong.

Sworn affidavits typically aren’t admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Inadmissible hearsay.

Particularly in a trial on the merits.

In some limited circumstances they are admissible, but not if they are testimonial in nature and go to the merits of the claims.

Right to confront your accusers under our Constitutiin and all that.

So, there’s that.

Isn't a sworn affidavit a statement by an eye witness?

 

[CowboyJD]

Isn't a sworn affidavit a statement by an eye witness?

It’s hearsay, and hearsay is typically inadmissible without a specific statutory exception.

Hearsay = statement made out of court intended and submitted to prove the truth of the statement made.

Look.......I’m not here to convince you or to give you lessons in the law of evidence.

You asked to be corrected if you were incorrect.

So, I did.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

It’s hearsay, and hearsay is typically inadmissible without a specific statutory exception.

Hearsay = statement made out of court intended and submitted to prove the truth of the statement made.

Look.......I’m not here to convince you or to give you lessons in the law of evidence.

You asked to be corrected if you were incorrect.

So, I did.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[2012Bearcat]

It’s hearsay, and hearsay is typically inadmissible without a specific statutory exception.

Hearsay = statement made out of court intended and submitted to prove the truth of the statement made.

Look.......I’m not here to convince you or to give you lessons in the law of evidence.

You asked to be corrected if you were incorrect.

So, I did.

I was asking a question. Still doesn't make sense to me. In a court of law is a eye witness considered hearsay? I'm no legal scholar but I thought eye witness testimony was allowed in a court of law. In my way of thinking a sworn affidavit would be an eye witness statement before court and the actual testimony would be in court. Is my thinking wrong?

 

[CowboyJD]

I was asking a question. Still doesn't make sense to me. In a court of law is a eye witness considered hearsay? I'm no legal scholar but I thought eye witness testimony was allowed in a court of law. In my way of thinking a sworn affidavit would be an eye witness statement before court and the actual testimony would be in court. Is my thinking wrong?

Yes.

Your thinking is wrong.

I gave you the definition of hearsay.

A statement made outside of court intended and submitted to prove the truth of the statement made.

If an eye witness is sworn and testifies in court and by doing so is subject to cross examination by the parties, it is NOT hearsay because the statement is not made “outside of court”.

If an eye witness signs an affidavit outside of court, and a party attempts to introduce it as proof of the truth of the statement in court, that is inadmissible hearsay.

There are statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule that sometimes allows hearsay to be admitted. They would almost never apply to a sworn affidavit of a claimed eyewitness that does actually testify.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Yes.

Your thinking is wrong.

I gave you the definition of hearsay.

A statement made outside of court intended and submitted to prove the truth of the statement made.

If an eye witness is sworn and testifies in court and by doing so is subject to cross examination by the parties, it is NOT hearsay because the statement is not made “outside of court”.

If an eye witness signs an affidavit outside of court, and a party attempts to introduce it as proof of the truth of the statement in court, that is inadmissible hearsay.

There are statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule that sometimes allows hearsay to be admitted. They would almost never apply to a sworn affidavit of a claimed eyewitness that does actually testify.

So a person witnesses voter fraud taking place and there is no way that testimony can get into court without some other hard evidence?

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

So a person witnesses voter fraud taking place and there is no way that testimony can get into court without some other hard evidence?

Police use sworn affidavits all the time. They give this to the prosecuting attorney's office so they can determine if enough evidence is available to proceed to trial. Anyone swearing on an affidavit should expect to take the stand and be cross examined for the trial, but when trying to determine if a trial is to take place sworn affidavits are typically used to see if they want to proceed. They are not used as evidence during the trial phase, but there are multiple phases to a court case.

 

[CowboyJD]

So a person witnesses voter fraud taking place and there is no way that testimony can get into court without some other hard evidence?

No.

That isn’t what I said.

At all.

If a person witnesses voter fraud taking place, the way that testimony gets into consideration court is they are subpoenaed or voluntarily come to court, are sworn to tell the truth, and testify before the court under oath subject to cross examination by other parties and evaluation of their credibility by the trier of fact.

I can’t tell you how many felony domestic assault and battery cases I have had to dismiss because the victim refuses to testify (unlike other witnesses, I cannot make a victim testify), and I can’t make the case without it.....and a good chunk of those cases I have a written, signed, and witnessed, affidavit in the form of a written statement by the victim made at the time. I can’t use it because it is hearsay.

 

[CowboyJD]

Police use sworn affidavits all the time. They give this to the prosecuting attorney's office so they can determine if enough evidence is available to proceed to trial. Anyone swearing on an affidavit should expect to take the stand and be cross examined for the trial, but when trying to determine if a trial is to take place sworn affidavits are typically used to see if they want to proceed. They are not used as evidence during the trial phase, but there are multiple phases to a court case.

Largely accurate.

Not entirely, but for the most part.

 

[2012Bearcat]

No.

That isn’t what I said.

At all.

If a person witnesses voter fraud taking place, the way that testimony gets into court is they are subpoenaed or voluntarily come to court, are sworn to tell the truth, and testify before the court under oath subject to cross examination by other parties and evaluation of their credibility by the trier of fact.

I can’t tell you how many felony domestic assault and battery ages I have had to dismiss because the victim refuses to testify (unlike other witnesses, I cannot make a victim testify), and I can’t make the case without it.....and a good chunk of those cases I have a written, signed, and witnessed, affidavit in the form of a written statement made at the time. I can’t use it because it is hearsay.

OK I understand that but from what I understand there are hundreds of witnesses that are more than willing to testify. From what I've seen reported the judges will not take up the case to allow for the testimony.

 

[CowboyJD]

OK I understand that but from what I understand there are hundreds of witnesses that are more than willing to testify. From what I've seen reported the judges will not take up the case to allow for the testimony.

Now we’re moving on to an entirely different issue and question than admissibility of evidence.

This one could have a whole lot of legal issues and basis that could differ from case to case.

I haven’t read all the transcripts of all the cases, but I’ve read some of them.

In some of them, people actually did testify.

In some of them, the court held that even if the affidavits were true, they didn’t prove fraud (losing on summary judgment as a matter of law) or didn’t prove fraud justifying the requested relief.

Some of them found the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file the suit.

In several of them, the court straight up asked the plaintiff’s attorneys “Is this a fraud case?” Or “How many ballots do you alleged were fraudulently entered”. Attorneys said “no, this is not a fraud case..”, or “we don’t know....”. Then the court essentially decided “we’re done here”.

Proving voting irregularities (which is what most of the affidavits I’ve heard of speak to) isn’t the same thing as proving fraud.

The courts aren’t going to make the legal leap of “where there are irregularities, we should assume there is fraud.” Particularly when the requested relief has typically been “throw out ALL the ballots”....whether or not there is any evidence that a particular ballot is fraudulent.

I have clearly said I have no problem with Trump and Trumpets filing these lawsuits. I’ve also said I believe they have essentially zero chance of changing anything.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Thanks for the info.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thanks for the info.

You are welcome.

Thanks for your consideration of the info.

 

[sbaPoke]

Just going to remind you that you keep asking for people to comply with your vision all while insulting them at the same time. Not an effective strategy.

I’m certainly a shitty messenger, but people should make their evaluation based on the facts decided in court.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I’m certainly a shitty messenger, but people should make their evaluation based on the facts decided in court.

Because we know the courts get it right every time?

 

[sbaPoke]

Because we know the courts get it right every time?

You think dozens of them in in various states with different judges, conservative and democrat, some literally picked by Trump, ALL got it wrong? Come on. What better arbiter of the facts is there...?..

It’s more than obvious that no matter who or what it is, if they say something that goes against what Trump says, his loyalists won’t buy it and will sign on for whatever crazy explanation they can find to justify Trump’s view. Not trying to be a dick, but it’s obvious.

 

[davidallen]

Welcome to New Venezuela.

You need to show your moxie and vow to never again participate in the corrupt election process.

 

[davidallen]

Police use sworn affidavits all the time. They give this to the prosecuting attorney's office so they can determine if enough evidence is available to proceed to trial. Anyone swearing on an affidavit should expect to take the stand and be cross examined for the trial, but when trying to determine if a trial is to take place sworn affidavits are typically used to see if they want to proceed. They are not used as evidence during the trial phase, but there are multiple phases to a court case.

And as has happened if those statements aren’t credible, aren’t indicative of a crime, or are countered by credible evidence to the contrary a court may dismiss the claims they support. How many times has this occurred now? I lost count at 50 or so...

 

[davidallen]

Because we know the courts get it right every time?

It’s what the founders provided. You got something better in mind? (Other than one dudes Twitter account)

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I’m certainly a shitty messenger, but people should make their evaluation based on the facts decided in court.

I think you are overestimating peoples faith in our judiciary. The better assessment is what are they realy making thier evaluation on? (Both sides)

 

[CDSToon]

Because we know the courts get it right every time?

Given a plethora of defeats thus far, what legal argument do you suggest for trump legal inc. to present to get it right?

What’s the gamechanger???

 

[2012Bearcat]

Given a plethora of defeats thus far, what legal argument do you suggest for trump legal inc. to present to get it right?

What’s the gamechanger???

There is no game changer in your mind or any of the other leftist.

 

[2012Bearcat]

It’s what the founders provided. You got something better in mind? (Other than one dudes Twitter account)

It's a simple question, do our courts get it right every time? Yes or no.

 

[davidallen]

It's a simple question, do our courts get it right every time? Yes or no.

Only a damn fool would expect perfection. You got a better system in mind?

 

[CDSToon]

There is no game changer in your mind or any of the other leftist.

Or maybe it just doesn’t exist and trump just (gasp) lost fair and square because he’s a dipshit who completely fumbled a pandemic.

10 months ago, the guy was a lock for re-election lol.



Don’t be an idiot.

 

[OUSOONER67]

Or maybe it just doesn’t exist and trump just (gasp) lost fair and square because he’s a dipshit who completely fumbled a pandemic.

10 months ago, the guy was a lock for re-election lol.



Don’t be an idiot.

 

[CDSToon]

Prove me wrong lol

 

[CoastGuardCowboy]

Prove me wrong lol

Keep an eye on thumb, AKA flash drives, and the Dominion systems, which were used in 28 states. Why did these 6 contested states wait until the very end to count the mail in ballots? For the slow....so they could add as many Biden votes as they needed to overcome the massive Deficit.

 

[davidallen]

Why did these 6 contested states wait until the very end to count the mail in ballots? assive Deficit.

I will take following the law for $1000...