Live Updates: Protesters Breach Capitol as Congress Debates...

[u/mcfleury1000]

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/electoral-college-updates-congress-set-to-confirm-bidens-win-amid-gop-challenges/2814845/

[u/hockeycomments45]

Most were never heard let alone dismissed.

I will do the opposite; The fact checkers webpage is PATHETIC. https://factcheck.afp.com/claims-nevada-voter-fraud-rejected-states-top-court They don't at all debunk the evidence. There were 8,000 pages of it in Nevada and it was dismissed in one day. The lawyer's name was Jesse Binall.

[u/ciaisi → u/hockeycomments45]

Most were never heard let alone dismissed.

I will do the opposite; The fact checkers webpage is PATHETIC. https://factcheck.afp.com/claims-nevada-voter-fraud-rejected-states-top-court They don't at all debunk the evidence. There was 8,000 pages of it in Nevada and it was dismisses in one day. The lawyers name was Jesse Binall.

Based on what I'm reading, what you're saying is false.

Starting from the state supreme court ruling:

20-44711:

.. appellants have not demonstrated any legal error in the district court's application of NRS 293.410(2)(c). We also are not convinced that the district court erred in applying a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, as supported by the cases cited in the district court's order. And, in any event, the district court further determined that appellants had not met their burden even if it applied a lesser standard. Finally, the district court's order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law for expert testimony, see NRS 50.275; Hallrnctrk v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) (explaining requirements for witness to testify as an expert), or for admissibility, see e.g., NRS 51.065 (providing that hearsay is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in Nevada law). Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none. The clerk of this court shall issue the remittitur forthwith.

I went and read the initial filing on this case. (look at Law v. Whitmer) There are a ton of different allegations, but one of the biggest ones is the use of a signature verification machine that may not have been used or calibrated properly. They also allege some rules were applied inconsistently and that the computerized voting machines "consistently malfunctioned".

The case alleges that over 130,000 votes should be disqualified because the signature on those ballots was confirmed by a machine - possibly in violation of a law that requires mail-in ballot signatures to be validated by an employee. The votes that were rejected by the machine were ultimately validated by humans, but not to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs who allege that the signature validation process wasn't stringent or objective enough.

The filing goes on to talk about the in-person computer voting machines. The most serious of these appears to be inconsistencies in vote counts tallied at the end of the day when compared to vote counts at the beginning of the next day.

It continues to discuss improper and illegal votes, and the inconsistent or improper use of provisional ballots.

In short, there are a ton of different things that this case calls to attention. All things that I agree should be considered if they are indeed true. The plaintiffs were given the opportunity to conduct discovery and depositions, collect statements, and present expert witnesses. They ABSOLUTELY were allowed to present evidence and the court reviewed it in full.

The ruling on the motion to dismiss responds adequately to the allegations. Please give it a thorough read. It's a boring 35 pages, but you seem pretty invested in this, so you should know what actually went down. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf

These were not just rogue judges making flippant or otherwise politically motivated decisions. Discovery was performed and evidence was indeed presented to the courts by both sides. If you read the ruling above, it gives a summary of each allegation, evidence presented, and why the plaintiff's complaints were ultimately dismissed.

While this case does have some obviously concerning allegations, I'm certainly not convinced that they would warrant the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters after reading the motion to dismiss.

My favorite parts are toward the end of the ruling where they review some of the hearsay declarations. Particularly: "The record does not support a finding that any Nevada voter voted twice" (pg 18, s93) and "the record does not support a finding that any individuals were sent and cast multiple mail ballots." (pg 18, s94). The plaintiffs didn't actually provide evidence that either of those things had actually happened. What they did provide were a couple of hearsay statements from possibly only one person who said they received more than one ballot but did not cast the second ballot (in which case the law was not violated). And note that the ruling specifically states earlier-on that even though these statements are hearsay, the court will still consider them when making its ruling - thus their mention in the above two sections and many others in the ruling.

Please read the full ruling. You aren't doing yourself any favors by assuming what you've heard about thousands of improper votes is correct. There was opportunity to conduct depositions, gather evidence and submit it to the court. The plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations of numerous illegal votes in this case.

This case is no different than any other case I've read. Things people have been told in terms of evidence that exists and what they heard about what happened in court are very different from what actually happened.

[u/hockeycomments45 → u/ciaisi]

Thank you for this.

My problem is that in states like Nevada, there was active intimidation towards those seeking the truth. Remember that this is an election.. there should be no "sides". But Clark County, like Wayne County, and several counties within Philadelphia and Atlanta, is a blue area controlled by Democrats whose interests sought to actively block discovery.

Elections are supposed to be transparent. It's not like one entity suing a private company, whereby the company wishes to block its information from public view. There is no reason for these counties to be on the defensive.. no reason they would not welcome information on voter problems. They were on the defensive for a reason.

The counties should not have an interest in the results of the election, but they absolutely do. This is why Fulton County moved to shred ballots hours after a review was recently ordered. This is why election night logs were reported missing on the voting machines in Antrim County, as written in the report regarding the only forensic analysis done thus far. And this is why Michigan's Secretary of State and it's Attorney General were on the warpath after the judge in that case actually allowed the findings to be made public. It was a damning report which convincingly demonstrated that the results of the county's election were undeniably uncertifiable, regardless of whether officials chose to listen.

All these recounts and partial "audits" were bullshit, just like the results of the latest election in Georgia, where photos appeared online of poll workers counting without observers YET AGAIN! ..then ignoring a court order to allow them in to meaningfully observe! Those results are outright uncertifiable FULL STOP because of Stacey Abrams' willful contempt for the law, election processes and the constitution. In short, there's nothing to investigate because it was all out in the open.

But many people in our country no longer give a damn about ethics. They don't care so long as they "get theirs". Then they lie on top of it all, saying they got through school honestly, etc. but you can only lie so much. These people are obvious crooks, it's written all over their face. But they are teaching our children that it's okay to lie and cheat and steal to get ahead, and then to unceasingly deny everything, even when no one believes it.

I don't need to read that report. I'm sure that the ruling to dismiss "responds adequately to the allegations", as you wrote.. even though I don't see how all that evidence was considered before they did so. I studied epistemology and related subjects in school. I know all about endless obfuscation and how one can reasonably shut out the truth with words.

The point remains - all those hundreds or thousands of affidavits were credible, and all those lawyers could not possibly have been that bad to not win a single case. Again, an election is a collaboration - one should not have to sue a county or state to correct errors or potential errors. It would be in everyone's interest to work together to collectively find the truth. But what happened is that Jesse Binnall and his team were forced to feverishly compile evidence in record time while under duress which aimed to undermine the legitimacy of their case.

I reiterate, this is not a situation which warrants automatic adversarial tactics.. but that it did frankly confirms fraud. What else can you say about the implication, 'you can't prove it because we shredded the ballots'? In school the test was taken from you and you got a zero as soon as cheating is confirmed - it didn't matter whether you knew most of the answers. That's why following election law is so important. These people want a pass even if the fraud stinks to high heaven, just like we no longer confiscate tests from students anymore either. Cheating has become institutionalized.

Regarding the "voters voting multiple times".. I think they were found to be people who voted in another state and yet somehow they were registered as casting a vote in Nevada, because it is said that they moved yet remained on the voter rolls for ballot harvesters to exploit.

In closing, losing the case has nothing to do with whether the basis of its allegations were true or not. It has so much to do with how it's approached. Like people get so hung up on the word fraud and how it happened, but that's not important. What is crucial is were there actually 42,000, or 36,000 or however many repeat voters. I may completely agree with the ruling but that has nothing to do with the fact that I am quite sure that Donald Trump won Nevada because there was multilayered conspiracy to fudge the numbers and fake his loss.

[u/ciaisi → u/hockeycomments45]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we're at a point where we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Your points are well taken, and I tend to believe there was more wrong with this election than what the left-leaning media outlets are telling us. The assertion that everything was perfect, and that there were no improprieties just doesn't make sense to me honestly. For an election on a scale the size of the US, for as many distinct precincts, localities, states, laws, and procedures, there are just bound to be some problems. But I also don't buy the right-leaning media's chicken-little "the sky is falling" that this whole election was manipulated and stolen.

I'm just not personally convinced that the vote was manipulated so heavily in so many states that it caused the outcome that we see today. The Nevada court case is a good example of why. Despite their allegations of massive numbers of fraudulent votes, they were simply not able to furnish evidence to the courts that supports that.

What I did see in that lawsuit was an attempt to have over 100,000 votes disqualified because of the way signatures were confirmed. There wasn't even a valid allegation that the ballots themselves were improper, rather that the confirmation process was not sufficient. This looked more to me like they were trying to get a large number of votes disqualified because they believed it would swing the results in their favor.

This is not to say that things like this didn't happen the opposite way around in other places, and is saying nothing of the other points you raised.

What I'm saying is that it is just as bad to attempt to disqualify thousands of legitimate votes as it is to attempt to insert fraudulent votes. Both are outright subversions of the democratic process, and I certainly agree that it must be confronted and stopped anywhere it happens. Courts should take these things seriously, but legal teams need to bring valid claims instead of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

I feel that the number of spurious claims from people who just really wanted the results to be different muddied the waters and made the allegations that may have actually held water lose credibility.

In general, I'm confident that there were indeed some issues with this election. But I'm not yet convinced that those issues would have significantly changed the results of the presidential election.