Judge Dismisses Rudy's Suit

[Victoria33]

No.
They stopped the counts altogether.
And that election was decided at that point.

The counts ended and then, ballots came in the early morning. This is a whole episode in itself. I understand in GA. some polls workers went home for the night but the Democrat workers came back 3 hours later, this is hearsay. A court of law will or should determine this.

 

[vz71]

Who is the “they” you refer to? It is the Trump campaign? Did they withdraw their suits?

Sorry, I don’t think you know the topic I was discussing initially.

I was discussing the recounts that went on during the 2000 cycle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Who is the “they” you refer to? It is the Trump campaign? Did they withdraw their suits?

Sorry, I don’t think you know the topic I was discussing initially.

I was discussing the recounts that went on during the 2000 cycle.

My fault. You are right. Al Gore did just stop the recount and conceded.

 

[PickyPicky]

The counts ended and then, ballots came in the early morning. This is a whole episode in itself. I understand in GA. some polls workers went home for the night but the Democrat workers came back 3 hours later, this is hearsay. A court of law will or should determine this

So you’re saying the allegation is that Democratic Party workers came in to work early — while GOP workers were not present? — while election count officials were not present?

 

[Joy01]

Except that your SOS didn’t post that the numbers indicated anything was amiss. That was all you.

My SOS is in MA not GA. The numbers posted SHOW something is off from previous years. Not hard to see.

 

[Joy01]

In GA under the law election contest provisions DO NOT come into play until after the result is certified, prior to that there is nothing to “contest” other than an unofficial vote count. A petition to contest must be filed 5 days of certification of the results and can be filed in ANY county with jurisdiction. It seems like since this was a statewide election, the Trump campaign can file their petition and select any county in GA, and the trial on the matter will take place before a Superior Court Judge…

Georgia Code 21-2-522
Election can be contested on following grounds:
(1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result ;

(2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

(3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

(4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

(5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.

This is why the Trump campaign is looking into the legitimacy of the recent registrations by Georgia voters who then cast absentee ballots. If their registration was invalid, then they cast illegal votes. The Trump campaign would need to show that there were 12,500 such unqualified voters, but it will also actually need to show that12,500 such voters voted for Biden — that is the number necessary to place the outcome in doubt. The election contest statutes call for a trial on a schedule determined by the Judge who presides over the case. It’s like what happened in FL in 2000. If the loser of the election prevails in the election contest the remedy is to void the election results and it would put the matter in the hands of the Georgia Legislature controlled by the GOP.

PA have not doubt will end up going to the Supreme Court.

WI - recount.

If anything is to change or have even a remote change of changing the current status of PA, WI and GA must change.

 

[TMC]

If anything is to change or have even a remote change of changing the current status of PA, WI and GA must change.

But none of those have even a remote chance of changing anything.

I really doubt the Supreme Court will take either PA case. The late-received ballot case (decided by the PA SC) is a legitimate legal issue, but it doesn’t involve enough ballots to change the outcome, so the SC will probably not take it. The case currently at the 3d Circuit is a garbage case with no chance of prevailing, so the SC is not going to touch it.

Wisconsin’s recount has no chance of changing the outcome. The Trump team is trying to use the recount to change the rules on how ballots are counted in WI (which is not what recounts are for), but that is unlikely to work. Maybe they will try to sue to change the long-standing rules, but the time to do that was before the election, not now.

Georgia has been counted, and recounted. Like WI, the new recount is not really about counting - its about trying to change the rules on how ballots are processed. Again, that can’t be done now, the ballots have already been processed and counted (twice).

There is a reason why even Fox is no longer following these stories - there is nothing there. I am continuing to follow out of a combination of habit and idle amusement. But no one (including Trump and his team) really think the outcome will change. It is useful for PR and fund raising, though, so it will probably continue for a bit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Except that your SOS didn’t post that the numbers indicated anything was amiss. That was all you.

My SOS is in MA not GA. The numbers posted SHOW something is off from previous years. Not hard to see.

What you said was:

Joy01:

What I posted is not much different than what had come from the SOS own mouth as well.

But you posted that something was amiss, but the “SOS own mouth” did not say that something was amiss. So what you posted was very different from what had come from the “SOS own mouth.” You may have posted some numbers that came from the SOS site, but the interpretation of those numbers is all on you. And it should give you some pause to consider why something that is “not hard to see” is not seen by the whole SOS office, whose job it is to look for an see those very things. Hmmm…

 

[Joy01]

I really doubt the Supreme Court will take either PA case. The late-received ballot case (decided by the PA SC) is a legitimate legal issue, but it doesn’t involve enough ballots to change the outcome, so the SC will probably not take it.

I think there are other issues in PA and these states, and that’s what the hearings today are about. If election laws were violated (including late-received ballots) or evidence of voter fraud, it very well could go to the SC. Time will tell.

 

[Joy01]

But you posted that something was amiss, but the “SOS own mouth” did not say that something was amiss. So what you posted was very different from what had come from the “SOS own mouth.” You may have posted some numbers that came from the SOS site, but the interpretation of those numbers is all on you. And it should give you some pause to consider why something that is “not hard to see” is not seen by the whole SOS office, whose job it is to look for an see those very things. Hmmm…

I didn’t post only that something was amiss. You are conveniently cherry pick what I posted. I said prior to that the numbers of rejected ballots were XYZ % and it’s the same as what the SOS said. What I posted is not different than what came out the SOS own mouth. You are taking my interpretation and then saying I said the SOS has the same interpretation, which is false on your part. Hmmmmm…but cherry pick statements if which, what I said the SOS said is very clear in my posts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But you posted that something was amiss, but the “SOS own mouth” did not say that something was amiss. So what you posted was very different from what had come from the “SOS own mouth.” You may have posted some numbers that came from the SOS site, but the interpretation of those numbers is all on you. And it should give you some pause to consider why something that is “not hard to see” is not seen by the whole SOS office, whose job it is to look for an see those very things. Hmmm…

I didn’t post only that something was amiss. You are conveniently cherry pick what I posted. I said prior to that the numbers of rejected ballots were XYZ % and it’s the same as what the SOS said.

Yes, that part I did not dispute. So you can stop pretending that I did.

You are taking my interpretation and then saying I said the SOS has the same interpretation…

No, I said the opposite of that. I said the SOS did not have the same interpretation of the data that you did. You are saying something is amiss, but so far have not shown anything that is amiss.

 

[Joy01]

Yes, that part I did not dispute. So you can stop pretending that I did

"So what you posted was very different from what had come from the “SOS own mouth.”

Your post is above and you said that what I posted was very different than what had come from the SOS own mouth. AGAIN it wasn’t, and it’s clear you are cherry-picking parts of my posts to seem as if I said the SOS said something was amiss, which I never claimed just that the numbers of rejected ballots were such as I posted.

 

[TMC]

I think there are other issues in PA and these states, and that’s what the hearings today are about. If election laws were violated (including late-received ballots) or evidence of voter fraud, it very well could go to the SC. Time will tell.

There are not any hearings today…

 

[PaulinVA]

There are not any hearings today…

Just political theater in a ballroom.

 

[ChuckB]

Just political theater in a ballroom.

I guess that’s a step up from political theater in a parking lot.

 

[Joy01]

There are not any hearings today…

Actually there was…Article II is very real.

And a PA judge has also blocked the election certification in PA at this time.

 

[Joy01]

No there was not. There was a meeting of disaffected losers. That is not a “hearing.”

Again Article II is real. There were sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury.

 

[Dovekin]

There are not any hearings today…

There was a ruling in PA that stopped the certification process. It was appealed, which keeps the order from taking effect.

I think it was supposed to delay the certification of the presidential vote, but PA completed that yesterday. The order only affected down ballot races that are still being processed.

 

[TMC]

Again Article II is real. There were sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury.

No idea what you are talking about. Article II is a real part of the Constitution, yes, which is not at all involved in the press event some Trump Republicans held yesterday. The repeated failures in the courts have lead to them resorting to wild accusations in public, which are mostly being ignored by everybody, even those in their own party.

 

[Joy01]

No idea what you are talking about. Article II is a real part of the Constitution, yes, which is not at all involved in the press event some Trump Republicans held yesterday. The repeated failures in the courts have lead to them resorting to wild accusations in public, which are mostly being ignored by everybody, even those in their own party.

I’m talking about Article II, this was an official Pennsylvania State Senate Policy Hearing. PERIOD.

After yesterday’s Pennsylvania hearing, no person of good faith can claim this was a fair and free election.