US Election 2020

[Joe]

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

A few, but nothing you would find convincing.

Of course, I've kept his words a secret, so you would risk a shitty sales pitch for cigars, gold or insurance if you went to hear him out.

The videos are video. That is a kind of convincing.

If you want to verify some, I might find your results interesting.

If you all keep vigorously ignoring his side of things, that's also a kind of interesting, to me.

Even more interesting if you keep asking me about him, when I'm not as close to the source as...well...the source.

I didn't ask you about Rudy. I asked you about you.

So, how about you just tell me what you verified and I'll be the judge of what I find convincing?

[pErvinalia]

The courts are far more qualified to verify Rudy's bullshit than we are. And the courts have overwhelmingly found that Rudy was full of shit. That's good enough for me.

[Brian Peacock]

Fair enough, but the censorship there might filter different sets of messages through different countries' users.

There are dozens of search engines to pick from. If you suspect that Google applies a filter that is not to your liking try some of the others. https://yandex.com/images/ is a particularly useful one for reverse picture searches. It's actually better than Google's. I don't know if it applies a censorship filter.

Thanks, I use others.

I was pointing out that internally, Parler might also dial in by country.

That is easily tested with a VPN.

If I cared, I might, but I don't.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn either.

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things, but obviously doesn't know as much about the matter as you guys...must be the endless evidence he shows, that some paid actors pretend doesn't exist.

So one 'side' says there is evidence for voter fraud -- and lots of it -- and the 'other side' says there isn't, and so it might seem reasonable to guess that the actual truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two. That doesn't sound unreasonable does it? However, haven't you noticed how people who talk about this like it's a "Who's got the best opinion?" contest always seem to put the courts and anyone else who doesn't agree with them on the 'other side' before encouraging us to wonder about how things are so unfairly stacked up against the first side, the 'little guy side' - you know, the side we'd normally call the 'losing side'.

I mean, it's not like 'our side' lost on merit (or lack of it). Our opinion didn't even get a fair hearing because the 'other side' holds all the cards, has all the power, and they're evil and malicious with it. The real victims here aren't the volunteers and election officials, state legislatures, state governors, college electors, news outlets we've impugned as incompetent and corrupt, nor the hundreds of thousands of voters who's votes we wanted wiped off the slate simply because a guy on a past-it's-best industrial park feigned incredulity at election votes never adding up the way he wanted them to. No, the real victims are us - the little guys who've been stiffed once again by a system rigged against us from the top down! Well isn't it time the little guy got some of his own for a change, eh? Isn't it time we took control, eh? And... from there it's only a short hop to believing that the courts, Republican appointed judges, and even dissenting Republican politicians are all in it together with the Democrats, corporate elites, pink-haired gender studies lecturers, Soros, BLM, Antifa, radical trans ideology, and reptilian ETs.

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

The evidence Hermit has or hasn't seen is neither here-nor-there. It's the evidence supporting allegations of massive voter fraud presented in court that counts - and despite the weighty thickness of the legal binders, and the huge amount of time, money, and hot air thrown into keeping this meme alive, there's been so little actual evidence that the courts have had virtually no option but to say, "On your bike sunshine."

[Joe]

Thanks, I use others.

I was pointing out that internally, Parler might also dial in by country.

That is easily tested with a VPN.

If I cared, I might, but I don't.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn either.

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things, but obviously doesn't know as much about the matter as you guys...must be the endless evidence he shows, that some paid actors pretend doesn't exist.

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

More importantly, did the courts verify them?

Probably not. As Rudy has said, the courts didn't hear the evidence he's presenting in his podcast.

This will initially seem like a non sequitur, but attorneys are officers of the court and are required to follow the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.3

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

• (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
• (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
• (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

(a)(3) seems particularly relevant here, but I suspect it doesn't cover podcasts.

[Cunt]

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

A few, but nothing you would find convincing.

Of course, I've kept his words a secret, so you would risk a shitty sales pitch for cigars, gold or insurance if you went to hear him out.

The videos are video. That is a kind of convincing.

If you want to verify some, I might find your results interesting.

If you all keep vigorously ignoring his side of things, that's also a kind of interesting, to me.

Even more interesting if you keep asking me about him, when I'm not as close to the source as...well...the source.

I didn't ask you about Rudy. I asked you about you.

So, how about you just tell me what you verified and I'll be the judge of what I find convincing?

I verified what I told you. The videos are videos.

What exactly is it you disagree with? I've stated again and again, the most interesting part of this is that none of you want to hear his side.

It's almost comic.

[pErvinalia]

Why should we listen to his side? The more qualified courts have, and they found him totally wanting.

[Joe]

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

A few, but nothing you would find convincing.

Of course, I've kept his words a secret, so you would risk a shitty sales pitch for cigars, gold or insurance if you went to hear him out.

The videos are video. That is a kind of convincing.

If you want to verify some, I might find your results interesting.

If you all keep vigorously ignoring his side of things, that's also a kind of interesting, to me.

Even more interesting if you keep asking me about him, when I'm not as close to the source as...well...the source.

I didn't ask you about Rudy. I asked you about you.

So, how about you just tell me what you verified and I'll be the judge of what I find convincing?

I verified what I told you. The videos are videos.

What exactly is it you disagree with? I've stated again and again, the most interesting part of this is that none of you want to hear his side.

It's almost comic.

They're videos? That's good to know, since I just get the audio on my ancient iPod. Now, I can check out that chart he was talking about in the last episode I listened to.

It is interesting that you've stated over and over that none of us want to hear his side. After all, I don't need video to do that.

[Cunt]

Why should we listen to his side? The more qualified courts have, and they found him totally wanting.

That doesn't sound like you heard his side.

But maybe you did.

Joe might have, so maybe he can tell you what Rudy said about it. I certainly don't want to be steered into defending the position. I just happen to be willing to listen to those who the media has smeared. I'm not particularly knowledgable about the cases, or why the courts keep refusing to hear the evidence, while rubes insist that there isn't any evidence because the courts saw it and rejected it.

which of his evidence did you find 'wanting'? Or are you just going to listen to the reports of what he failed at?

[pErvinalia]

My trust is in the courts. They are qualified to hear his arguments (unless you believe in conspiracy theories, which you do). You and I aren't qualified.

[Brian Peacock]

All this fits perfectly with the Trump campaign's narrative that the only fair election possible is the election he won, and that he could only lose by the other side cheating. That's the position that Cunt thinks people aren't paying enough attention to because of their biases.

[Tero]

I asked about Cruze's planned "10 days" and election commission, on another forum.

They are talking about a different type of election commission. The type that existed briefly in 1877 before Congress passed the current law intended to stop what Cruz and his co-conspirators are trying to do.

I'll have to re-post from another thread:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
There isn't a legal way to do a 10 day audit. By law the counting begins January 6. No recess may be taken after the 5th calendar day.

There are only two ways to maybe do that. Unanimous consent by the joint session, which isn't going to happen. Or by not incorporating federal law when the joint resolution is passed providing for the joint session.

They say "In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission -- consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices -- to consider and resolve the disputed returns. We should follow that precedent."

But that isn't a precedent. That nonsense is exactly why Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1877.

Lincoln elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Unit ... l_election
Close states
States where the margin of victory was under 1%:

Virginia 0.1%
Missouri 0.2%
California 0.6%
Maryland 0.8%
States where the margin of victory was under 5%:

Oregon 1.83%
Tennessee 3.1%
Illinois 3.5%
North Carolina 3.8%
New Jersey 3.8%
Louisiana 4.9%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_Unit ... l_election

10 senators never accepted Lincoln
In the Fourth of July 1861, with open warfare in progress, President Abraham Lincoln convened Congress to deal with the emergency. With all hope of reconciliation gone, the Senate took up a resolution of expulsion against its 10 missing members. The resolution's supporters argued that the 10 were guilty, like Blount years before, of conspiracy against the government. In futile opposition, several senators contended that the departed southerners were merely following the dictates of their states and were not guilty of personal misconduct.

On July 11, 1861, the Senate quickly passed Senate Daniel Clark's resolution, expelling all 10 southern senators by a vote of 32 to 10. By the following February, the Senate expelled another four senators for offering aid to the Confederacy. Since 1862, despite considering expulsion in an additional 16 instances, the Senate has removed no member under this provision.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi ... pelled.htm

[Tero]

In their statement, the senators claim to be trying to restore faith in the democratic process, due to claims of voter fraud. Mr. Trump's legal team was repeatedly unable to provide evidence of voter fraud in several lawsuits challenging the election results.

The statement cites the election of 1876, when Congress appointed an Electoral Commission in early 1877 to consider and resolve disputed election returns.

"Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed," the statement said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-r ... on-formed/

The commission is actually the one for the 1876 election. Those do not exist past 1877

Enactment
The act was first proposed soon after the extremely contentious 1876 presidential election and the Hayes-Tilden crisis, primarily in order to guide electoral disputes in a divided congress, which before the act may have resulted in the disenfranchisement of the state in question or alternatively a unilateral decision by the President of the Senate, the Vice President.[22]:20–1

The Republican Senate passed four versions of the act, in 1878, 1882, 1884, and 1886, before its enactment. The earlier versions all failed in the House of Representatives, which was mainly controlled by Democrats who reflected a greater sensitivity toward states' rights. States' rights was a primary focus of the legislation, as there was significant debate over the powers of Congress to determine the validity of electoral votes and set rules for the states

The debate and vote to approve or discard election will be, normally, 2 hours...but

Section 7 (now 3 U.S.C. § 16) states that the joint session cannot be dissolved "until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared."[41] No recess can be taken "unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under [Title 3, Chapter 1]," in which case either House, acting separately, can recess itself until 10:00 am the next day (Sunday excepted).[41] But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result have not been completed before the fifth calendar day after the joint session began, "no further or other recess shall be taken by either House."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral ... f_electors

[Tero]

Rep. Dean Phillips
@RepDeanPhillips
16h
Members of Congress elected on the very same ballots to which they plan to object on Jan 6 should refuse to be sworn-in tomorrow, for if Trump’s defeat isn’t legitimate, how can their victories be legitimate?

[Tero]

Romney

“The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our Democratic Republic. The congressional power to reject electors is reserved for the most extreme and unusual circumstances. These are far from it. More Americans participated in this election than ever before, and they made their choice. President Trump’s lawyers made their case before scores of courts; in every instance, they failed. The Justice Department found no evidence of irregularity sufficient to overturn the election. The Presidential Voter Fraud Commission disbanded without finding such evidence.

“My fellow Senator Ted Cruz and the co-signers of his statement argue that rejection of electors or an election audit directed by Congress would restore trust in the election. Nonsense. This argument ignores the widely perceived reality that Congress is an overwhelmingly partisan body; the American people wisely place greater trust in the federal courts where judges serve for life. Members of Congress who would substitute their own partisan judgement for that of the courts do not enhance public trust, they imperil it.

“Were Congress to actually reject state electors, partisans would inevitably demand the same any time their candidate had lost. Congress, not voters in the respective states, would choose our presidents.

“Adding to this ill-conceived endeavor by some in Congress is the President’s call for his supporters to come to the Capitol on the day when this matter is to be debated and decided. This has the predictable potential to lead to disruption, and worse.

“I could never have imagined seeing these things in the greatest democracy in the world. Has ambition so eclipsed principle?”

[Joe]

Romney

“The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our Democratic Republic. The congressional power to reject electors is reserved for the most extreme and unusual circumstances. These are far from it. More Americans participated in this election than ever before, and they made their choice. President Trump’s lawyers made their case before scores of courts; in every instance, they failed. The Justice Department found no evidence of irregularity sufficient to overturn the election. The Presidential Voter Fraud Commission disbanded without finding such evidence.

“My fellow Senator Ted Cruz and the co-signers of his statement argue that rejection of electors or an election audit directed by Congress would restore trust in the election. Nonsense. This argument ignores the widely perceived reality that Congress is an overwhelmingly partisan body; the American people wisely place greater trust in the federal courts where judges serve for life. Members of Congress who would substitute their own partisan judgement for that of the courts do not enhance public trust, they imperil it.

“Were Congress to actually reject state electors, partisans would inevitably demand the same any time their candidate had lost. Congress, not voters in the respective states, would choose our presidents.

“Adding to this ill-conceived endeavor by some in Congress is the President’s call for his supporters to come to the Capitol on the day when this matter is to be debated and decided. This has the predictable potential to lead to disruption, and worse.

“I could never have imagined seeing these things in the greatest democracy in the world. Has ambition so eclipsed principle?”

Romney can't imagine seeing these things? He might want to crack a history book. These types of shenanigans are a feature of the Electoral College system.