[Rama Set]

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Here is a lawyer to tell you that you are wrong:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1336451735150350336

Many other lawyers point out that injunctive relief was the only request made. There is also no assurance the Texas case will be heard. The SCOTUS docket software lists all applications that are competently filed.

[Snupes]

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

[Tumeni]

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Here is a lawyer to tell you that you are wrong:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1336451735150350336

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

[Tom Bishop]

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

It's all probably going to drag on until sometime shortly before Jan 20, when some decisions will be forced. There are multiple efforts going on.

- In the courts there are the constitutional cases, and the fraud cases, which either argue that rules of the constitution were broken or that the election is nullified by fraud.

- There are efforts for state legislators to take control and assign their own electors, which can be done outside of court.

- Then there is the upcoming national security issue, which would be invoked after the government makes its December 18 report as directed by Trump's Elections Executive Order, and may argue that foreign countries attempted to manipulate the US election. This EO was signed in 2018 and declared a national emergency.

[AATW]

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

[Tom Bishop]

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually. Judges are agreeing with the concerns and are granting expedited requests and audits of the machines. You might not know this if your source is liberal media.

Dec 3 - Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Gets Expedited Appeal - https://m.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

Dec 5 - Federal Court Grants Sidney Powell’s Request For A Forensic Exam On Dominion Voting Machines - https://lutchman.report/federal-court-grants-sidney-powells-request-for-a-forensic-exam-on-dominion-voting-machines-asap/

Dec 8 - Trump Lawyer Jenna Ellis: ‘Independent Team’ Involved in Forensic Audit of 22 Dominion Machines in Michigan -  https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-independent-team-involved-in-forensic-audit-of-22-dominion-machines-in-michigan_3606722.html

[Lord Dave]

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

And neither are you and yet... Here we are.

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

It's all probably going to drag on until sometime shortly before Jan 20, when some decisions will be forced. There are multiple efforts going on.

- In the courts there are the constitutional cases, and the fraud cases, which either argue that rules of the constitution were broken or that the election is nullified by fraud.

- There are efforts for state legislators to take control and assign their own electors, which can be done outside of court.

- Then there is the upcoming national security issue, which would be invoked after the government makes its December 18 report as directed by Trump's Elections Executive Order, and may argue that foreign countries attempted to manipulate the US election. This EO was signed in 2018 and declared a national emergency.

Didn't they already state this was the most secure election in history and no wide spread fraud has been found?  I think someome got fired for saying that...  Oh right, US cybersecurity director.  The agency that would know if electronic voting machines were hacked.

[Tom Bishop]

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

And neither are you and yet... Here we are.

Jenna is though. So we defer to a lawyer.

Didn't they already state this was the most secure election in history and no wide spread fraud has been found?  I think someome got fired for saying that...  Oh right, US cybersecurity director.  The agency that would know if electronic voting machines were hacked.

Are you talking about this guy?

https://djhjmedia.com/kari/conflict-of-interest-chris-krebs-fired-over-statement-that-hid-alleged-relationship-between-feds-and-dominion-voting-system/

"Krebs was head of CISA – the Agency that issued Nov. 12 statement declaring election the 'most secure in American history.' CISA failed to disclose that Dominion Voting System, which is the center of the Trump campaign’s focus for voter fraud and foreign interference, was a member of one of the two issuing CISA committees."

"The Epoch Times reported on the Dominion Voting System alleged connection to the CISA and said, 'Dominion is a Member of the Council That Disputed Election Integrity Concerns in DHS Statement Dominion Voting Systems which obscured company’s council membership, to dispute concerns over voting systems'

On Nov 12 CISA issued a statement disputing voting irregularities saying 'the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.' The statement noted “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'

What the agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems, along with Smartmatic, is a member of CISA’s Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council – one of the two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA."

...

Krebs was literally partying with Dominion guys on Election night: https://nypost.com/2020/11/13/dhs-boss-chad-wolf-defies-trump-order-to-fire-cyber-chief-chris-krebs/

"Among Krebs’ sins, according to sources, is his decision to host an election night gathering at a northern Virginia office building — described by a detractor as a watch party. A document reviewed by The Post indicates it was attended by two staffers of Dominion Voting Systems"
...

Also: Eric Coomer - Dominions Vice President of U.S. Engineering —  “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”

[Tumeni]

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

[Tom Bishop]

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

[AATW]

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually.

Quite amusing that you say that when your first link is about an expedited appeal - which surely means that the case failed.
The mental backflips you do in order to continue to pretend that this is all going well for Trump are impressive, if a little deranged.

[Tom Bishop]

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually.

Quite amusing that you say that when your first link is about an expedited appeal - which surely means that the case failed.
The mental backflips you do in order to continue to pretend that this is all going well for Trump are impressive, if a little deranged.

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article. You didn't bother to see what she was appealing. She was appealing a previous ruling that was made in favor of her, but only addressed three counties. Powell wanted the entire state blocked from wiping the machines, and so she appealed, and her appeal was granted.

So, again, we see that you continue to be incorrect in your assessments.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

[AATW]

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article.

It was asking me to register, I wasn't going to do that.

You have a history of looking for sources which simply confirm your world view and cherry picking from sources to fit your narrative.
What's telling about the last month is you're having to cite increasingly extreme sources, it used to be people like Fox but even they aren't buying in to Trump's bullshit. So now you're forced to scurry to places like Epoch Times

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

I wonder at what point you will give this up? After the electoral college? After the inauguration? Obviously you'll keep believing there was widespread fraud, you'll just have to change the narrative to how the courts were compromised or whatever, but at some point you'll have to give up the notion that this is all going well for Trump in the courts.

[Pete Svarrior]

I can go back through my history and find their twitter handle for you, but do you really need to know?

Nah, I just wanted to know if someone of any credibility said that, or if it was you or Karen from Facebook. An important distinction, given your history in this thread.

[Tom Bishop]

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article.

It was asking me to register, I wasn't going to do that.

You have a history of looking for sources which simply confirm your world view and cherry picking from sources to fit your narrative.
What's telling about the last month is you're having to cite increasingly extreme sources, it used to be people like Fox but even they aren't buying in to Trump's bullshit. So now you're forced to scurry to places like Epoch Times

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

I wonder at what point you will give this up? After the electoral college? After the inauguration? Obviously you'll keep believing there was widespread fraud, you'll just have to change the narrative to how the courts were compromised or whatever, but at some point you'll have to give up the notion that this is all going well for Trump in the courts.

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming?

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to. Why should anyone give a flip about what you think if you have admitted that you are a low information news consumer?

[AATW]

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming?

I am claiming that the Epoch Times is an extreme right wing source with a history of prmoting propaganda, conspiracy theories and failing fact checks. I'm also suggesting that you might want to consider why it is that you're having to resort to increasingly extreme sources to get your "fix" which backs up your world view.

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to.

No, I've just said that I'm not going to subscribe to a site in order to read the article. If you want to copy the content then I'll read it.

[Tumeni]

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

Jenna said (excerpted) "SC only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did not deny cert"

Steve replied (paraphrased) "there was no petition filed for cert, so there was nothing for SC to deny"

Jenna is claiming SC did not deny something which was never applied for.

[Tom Bishop]

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming?

I am claiming that the Epoch Times is an extreme right wing source with a history of prmoting propaganda, conspiracy theories and failing fact checks. I'm also suggesting that you might want to consider why it is that you're having to resort to increasingly extreme sources to get your "fix" which backs up your world view.

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to.

No, I've just said that I'm not going to subscribe to a site in order to read the article. If you want to copy the content then I'll read it.

So if it's not fake what are you calling it then? An opinion you don't like? Maybe you should have some thought about that, as well as who is running those bias check websites.

Also, registration is free on that site, at least for US viewers.

Jenna said (excerpted) "SC only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did not deny cert"

Steve replied (paraphrased) "there was no petition filed for cert, so there was nothing for SC to deny"

Jenna is claiming SC did not deny something which was never applied for.

You said that the case was rejected. It was not. The source you are quoting is alleging that the plaintiff didn't request enough from the US Supreme Court to reject the case. Which means that the case was not rejected by the US Supreme Court.

[Tumeni]

I can go back through my history and find their twitter handle for you, but do you really need to know?

Nah, I just wanted to know if someone of any credibility said that, or if it was you or Karen from Facebook. An important distinction, given your history in this thread.

It's a mocking paraphrase on the famous Marie Antoinette semi-quote "Let them eat cake".

I thought that much, at least, was obvious. Not a verbatim quote.

[Rama Set]

Code: [Select]

j

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually. Judges are agreeing with the concerns and are granting expedited requests and audits of the machines. You might not know this if your source is liberal media.

Dec 3 - Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Gets Expedited Appeal - https://m.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

This appeal was dismissed for lack of standing two days later.

Dec 5 - Federal Court Grants Sidney Powell’s Request For A Forensic Exam On Dominion Voting Machines - https://lutchman.report/federal-court-grants-sidney-powells-request-for-a-forensic-exam-on-dominion-voting-machines-asap/

This is the same case mentioned in the earlier link. It was dismissed for lack of standing.

Dec 8 - Trump Lawyer Jenna Ellis: ‘Independent Team’ Involved in Forensic Audit of 22 Dominion Machines in Michigan -  https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-independent-team-involved-in-forensic-audit-of-22-dominion-machines-in-michigan_3606722.html

This is true. They had 48 hours to investigate machines, which should be complete by now.