[Tom Bishop]

The cases weren't about "trivial matters." Among the few things you got right in that is that these aren't fraud cases. Few of them are. Therefore the constant claims that "Trump lost 60 cases" as the proof against voter fraud is bunk and tells us nothing about the veracity of fraud which has occurred. They weren't about fraud. Fraud tends to be much more complex, and can take years to properly litigate.

You are the one claiming there is massive fraud, and that Trump is somehow winning... but your own sources show that these cases don't have anything to do with fraud.

I said nothing about voter fraud when I posted the article. I said that Trump has won many cases which were adjucated. You are insisting that it needs to be about voter fraud, when cases about bad election mechanics and issues surrounding rule changes and technicalities regarding dates are also of consequence to a free and fair election.

You are assuming that Trump was trying to win by voluminous fraud cases, which stands apart from whether fraud has actually occurred. The advice was to focus on the improper conduction of the election, which can be litigated in a shorter amount of time. The cases were not focused on voter fraud for valid reasons, so the assertions that the cases are evidence against voter fraud are inept and debunked.

[Rama Set]

The cases weren't about "trivial matters." Among the few things you got right in that is that these aren't fraud cases. Few of them are. Therefore the constant claims that "Trump lost 60 cases" as the proof against voter fraud is bunk and tells us nothing about the veracity of fraud which has occurred. They weren't about fraud. Fraud tends to be much more complex, and can take years to properly litigate.

You are the one claiming there is massive fraud, and that Trump is somehow winning... but your own sources show that these cases don't have anything to do with fraud.

I said nothing about voter fraud when I posted the article. I said that Trump was winning many cases which were adjucated. You are insisting that it needs to be about voter fraud, when cases about bad election mechanics and issues surrounding rule changes and technicalities regarding dates could also be of consequence.

You are assuming that Trump was trying to win by voluminous fraud cases, which stands apart from whether fraud has actually occurred. The advice was to focus on the improper conduction of the election, which can be litigated in a shorter amount of time. The cases were not focused on voter fraud for valid reasons, so the assertions that the cases are evidence against voter fraud are inept.

Why should we trust the group of scientists and engineers commentating on legal manners?  They aren't legal experts and neither is Steven Mosher.  You constantly challenge the expertise of others then post garbage like this.  Your hypocrisy is truly striking in it's shamelessness.

[Tom Bishop]

I actually have a source for the analysis of these cases. You have not provided an analysis source at all, and just have just keep bringing up the "60 cases" and saying that trump's voter fraud cases were dismissed and say that it's evidence that no fraud has occurred.

Engineers > Internet Rando

[Rama Set]

I actually have a source for the analysis of these cases. You have not provided a source at all, and just have just keep bringing up the "60 cases" and saying that trump's voter fraud cases were dismissed and that it's evidence that no fraud has occurred.

Engineers > Internet Rando

What makes an engineer more qualified about legal matters than me?

[JSS]

The cases weren't about "trivial matters." Among the few things you got right in that is that these aren't fraud cases. Few of them are. Therefore the constant claims that "Trump lost 60 cases" as the proof against voter fraud is bunk and tells us nothing about the veracity of fraud which has occurred. They weren't about fraud. Fraud tends to be much more complex, and can take years to properly litigate.

You are the one claiming there is massive fraud, and that Trump is somehow winning... but your own sources show that these cases don't have anything to do with fraud.

I said nothing about voter fraud when I posted the article. I said that Trump has won many cases which were adjucated. You are insisting that it needs to be about voter fraud, when cases about bad election mechanics and issues surrounding rule changes and technicalities regarding dates are also of consequence to a free and fair election.

You are assuming that Trump was trying to win by voluminous fraud cases, which stands apart from whether fraud has actually occurred. The advice was to focus on the improper conduction of the election, which can be litigated in a shorter amount of time. The cases were not focused on voter fraud for valid reasons, so the assertions that the cases are evidence against voter fraud are inept and debunked.

What exactly were you saying 'wrong' to? 

So lets get this straight, you are not talking about fraud anymore after months of talking about fraud, you are now talking about 'improper conduction of the election' instead which has nothing at all to do with fraud?  Sure.  Nice attempt to pivot there.

Weak.

Also, is adjudicated your new word for today?  You do understand that it just means the case was decided by a judge, right?  It's not anything special, and it sounds silly to keep using it like that.

None of the cases that were 'adjudicated' had any effect on the election.  Biden still won, he's still sitting in the White House.  Are any of these lawsuits going to change that?  No.  Any pending ones going to change it? No.

He lost, and combing through lawsuits that won't change anything looking for any minor 'win' is just desperate.

I actually have a source for the analysis of these cases. You have not provided an analysis source at all, and just have just keep bringing up the "60 cases" and saying that trump's voter fraud cases were dismissed and say that it's evidence that no fraud has occurred.

Engineers > Internet Rando

No lawsuit that MATTERS has been won by Trump.  All these other unrelated cases are pointless when it comes to putting his fat ass in the White House again.

Show me ONE case that's going to change the outcome if he wins it?

[Roundy]

I actually have a source for the analysis of these cases. You have not provided an analysis source at all, and just have just keep bringing up the "60 cases" and saying that trump's voter fraud cases were dismissed and say that it's evidence that no fraud has occurred.

Engineers > Internet Rando

Good point, Tom. I'm sure the election will be overturned any day now.

[Tom Bishop]

So lets get this straight, you are not talking about fraud anymore after months of talking about fraud

Nope. I was talking about the particular cases that are being referenced, that Trump brought after the election. You are just mistaken that the focus was on fraud in those cases.

There is plenty of evidence for fraud.

Any pending ones going to change it? No.

The case from the court ordered Antrim County machine forensic audit that found evidence that the machines were built for fraud is still in motion and a trial date is set. Further investigation just needs to verify that forensic audit on other machines and you are up the creek. This could easily blow up.

The court ordered and vetted the antrim machine audit, the only machine audit to occur, and found damning results.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772/antrim-county-forensics-report.pdf

"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified."

The audit also found that the logs were missing:

"Likewise, all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are
missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on
election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important
to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and
outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs
would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users
logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses,
internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before
November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for
the security logs to be missing."

The auditors also said that there was evidence showing that the counts were flipped -
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/redacted-information-in-dominion-audit-report-shows-races-were-flipped-analyst_3625228.html

[Rama Set]

The case that generated that shitty report didnt relate to the presidential election and a recount of hand marked ballots upheld the certified result.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. The recount that occurred in Antrim didn't show no discrepancies from the original voting machine reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared from the voting machines that Biden won in Antrim county on election night, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a recount showed the original election claim, which came from the voting machines on election night, to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."


Another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

[Rama Set]

I said certified result, not originally reported result. You would do well to respond to what I say, especially considering how brief my response was.

[Tom Bishop]

I said certified result, not originally reported result. You would do well to respond to what I say, especially considering how brief my response was.

If you are acknowledging that the certified number is different than the number produced by the machines, how is it evidence that the machines are legitimate?

[Rama Set]

I said certified result, not originally reported result. You would do well to respond to what I say, especially considering how brief my response was.

If you are acknowledging that the certified number is different than the number produced by the machines, how is it evidence that the machines are legitimate?

The certified election result was correct, that’s what I am saying. They could find Hugo Chavez himself inside a machine producing photocopied ballots and it wouldn’t matter. Biden won Antrim County.

[JSS]

So lets get this straight, you are not talking about fraud anymore after months of talking about fraud

Nope. I was talking about the particular cases that are being referenced, that Trump brought after the election. You are just mistaken that the focus was on fraud in those cases.

There is plenty of evidence for fraud.

So none of the cases the GOP won were about fraud, got it. No fraud there, glad we can agree.

But you claim there is plenty of evidence, it's just not being used in court.  Sure.  And what about the OTHER cases that you were avoiding about talking about that WERE about fraud. He lost all of those. Oops.

So where is your evidence?  Press conferences full of lies isn't evidence.  If it existed, it would have been presented in court.  You can post all the YouTube videos you want. They are still all lies.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make with all of this?  Do you still think Biden is going to be removed and Trump put in?  When? 

[Roundy]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make with all of this?  Do you still think Biden is going to be removed and Trump put in?  When?

Any day now.

[JSS]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make with all of this?  Do you still think Biden is going to be removed and Trump put in?  When?

Any day now.

How many times does someone have to be wrong before they stop believing every meme and badly written blog post that they see?

"This time Rudy is going to come through, I just KNOW it... the massive string of failures are all part of the Master plan."

[Tom Bishop]

How many times does someone have to be wrong

Good question. You guys were wrong here. You have been citing the 60 cases as proof of no voter fraud a million times here. So now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and mindlessly repeat things you hear. The cases were not about fraud.

[Rama Set]

How many times does someone have to be wrong

Good question. You guys were wrong here. You have been citing the 60 cases as proof of no voter fraud a million times here. So now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and mindlessly repeat things you hear. The cases were not about fraud.

Wrong. The cases were cited in the context of Trump standing before the press, screaming about fraud and then showing up in court with little or no evidence of it. Trump clearly didn’t have the mountain of evidence he claimed. It was obvious. Much of the evidence of fraud that was submitted was laughed out of court. All the recounts affirmed the results certified by the States. This is why we’ve said there is no evidence of fraud. Now media outlets you relied on in the past are recanting their previous statements of fraud to avoid consequences for defamation suits. You’re now left with doing this bizarre logical tap dance where suits that had no effect on the election are super important. You’re tap dancing entertains us. Keep dancing.

[stack]

How many times does someone have to be wrong

Good question. You guys were wrong here. You have been citing the 60 cases as proof of no voter fraud a million times here. So now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and mindlessly repeat things you hear. The cases were not about fraud.

Wrong. Some cases were about Fraud. Specifically Fraud and Vote Dilution, according to the ABA (I'd say the ABA is more authoritative than some rando on the web such as yourself...):

Fraud and Vote Dilution

Ward v. Jackson, No. CV2020-015285 (Maricopa Cty. Sup. Ct.)
The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that there were issues with verifying voters’ signatures on mail-in ballots, illegal votes, and that the ballot-tabulation machines had duplicated some votes in favor of Biden.

Constantino v. City of Detroit, Nos. 20-014780-AW (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct.), 355443 (Mich. Ct. App.)
Individual voters and poll challengers sued the City of Detroit, the Detroit Election Commission, and other state elections officials, alleging voter fraud throughout Wayne County as a result of violations of Michigan law.

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of Detroit, No. 20-014604-CZ (3rd Judicial Cir. Ct. Mich.)
The plaintiffs claimed that an injunction was necessary because party inspectors were not present at each table inside the absentee vote counting board location.

Law v. Whitmer, No. 20 OC 00163 1B (Carson City Dist. Ct.)
The Republican contestants alleged various election administration irregularities and voter fraud, from problems with the provisional ballot-casting process to mismatched signatures being accepted by the ballot machines.

Kraus v. Cegavske, No. 82018 (Nev. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Registrar of Voters for Clark County to prevent the registrar from using artificial intelligence to authenticate ballots, which the plaintiffs claimed deprived them of the right to observe the ballot-counting process.

Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada, Nos. A-20-820510-C (Clark Cty. Dist. Ct.), 81847 (Nev. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs asked the Clark County District Court to enjoin the Secretary from certifying Nevada’s election results due to alleged widespread voter fraud enabled by purported unconstitutionally enacted mail-in ballot legislation.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (U.S. 3d Cir. App.)
Specifically, plaintiffs took issue with the state’s mail-in ballot procedures, and claimed that the regulations for observing and monitoring the counting of ballots in Pennsylvania had been invalidly enacted, presenting opportunities for widespread voter fraud, and thus denied voters due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In re Hotze, No. 20-0671 (Tex. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs alleged that these practices violated the Texas Constitution and the Texas Election Code, would lead to voter fraud, and that the governor’s order suspending parts of the Election Code was constitutionally invalid because it violated the separation of powers.

Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2:20-cv-01785 (E.D. Wis.)
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the state elections officials had violated his rights under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution by issuing guidance on state election law during the coronavirus pandemic that illegally deviated from state statutes.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/litigation/

[AATW]

I was talking about the particular cases that are being referenced, that Trump brought after the election. You are just mistaken that the focus was on fraud in those cases.

There were some cases which cited fraud. How many of those did Trump win?
None, that’s how many.
Weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence...

There is plenty of evidence for fraud.

How many times?
Not all evidence is created equal.
You can cite as many conspiracy theory videos, right wing blogs and all caps Tweets as you like. In public Trump was shouting “fraud, fraud, fraud”. In court they had nothing.

This could easily blow up.

How many times are you going to be Charlie Brown kicking the ball while Lucy snatches it away as you kick the air and fall on your arse?
You’ve been pinning your hopes on one false hope after another for months while we’ve all been patiently telling you that Biden won and was going to be inaugurated on the 20th, which is exactly what happened.

[JSS]

How many times does someone have to be wrong

Good question. You guys were wrong here. You have been citing the 60 cases as proof of no voter fraud a million times here. So now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and mindlessly repeat things you hear. The cases were not about fraud.

Tom, were there cases about fraud?  YES.

Did Trump lose them?  YES.

Did trump files 60+ lawsuits and lose nearly all of them?  YES.

What does all this tell you?

It tells me the election wasn't rigged/stolen/fraudulent/cheated or whatever you want to call it today. Playing word games is all you seem to have left to defend your claims now. It's not very effective.

All the screaming yelling on TV in front of the Four Seasons, all the talk about kraken lawsuits, all the endless tweets about WE WILL WIN... it's all lies and bullshit.  He didn't win.  He lost.

The only one mindlessly repeating things here is you, with the constant claims that evidence is right around the corner... any day now.  Rudy just has to find where he left it.  Q's secret messages says so.  Maybe Trump is playing 76 dimensional chess.

Again... HOW many times have you been wrong about everything?  Always evidence is about to be revealed, it never is.  Always Trump is going to pull a win in the last second, he never did.  Courts are going to save him!  Pence will save him!  The Storm will happen and he will arrest everyone!  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Nothing happened.

It's always SOMETHING with you, and it never turns out to be true.  Now it's going to be years before any lawsuits with real evidence happen?  It would be hilarious if not so sad.

What's going to save him now? Mysterious lawsuits set years in the future? Sure.