Comment by prucomaclu3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prucomaclu3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Just as an correction, this is the link I intended to post as the judgement: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...

My position, is that Trump has indeed failed to prove fraud.

But I do think that Trump has collected a preponderance of evidence that election laws were broken. Many affidavits have been provided that substantiate this.

Below is one such piece of evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25393225

> Hearsay has no bearing on a case requesting this outcome. The judge was even very, very lenient on asking over and over why this was not simply hearsay, and the lawyers kept trying to avoid answering, and they wobbled all over the place.

I can't speak to why Trump's legal team hasn't deposed more witnesses and gotten more sworn testimony. On this I am in complete agreement, it seems negligent. I can only speak to the evidence I have heard, and my reaction to it as a person, and not as a lawyer.

From a legal perspective, Trump's case may indeed have no basis. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know.

But I do know that there are hundreds of affidavits alleging that elections laws were broken, and very few people seem to be taking that seriously. Whether Trump wins or loses, I honestly & genuinely do not care (he lost; that horse has left the barn long ago). But I am disturbed by the ease to which people dismiss these claims, given that there is a substantial number of people providing the testimony, they seem to be genuine of character, and for most of them - their claims do seem to have merit (ethical merit, if not legal).

Even if their claims don't have legal merit, they should at least have ethical merit. Regardless of what a person thinks about Trump, there are honest people who are providing honest testimony about wrongdoing - and their claims and the people who give them voice, are dismissed with outright hostility & vitriol.

>I do think that Trump has collected a preponderance of evidence that election laws were broken

If so, but he has demonstrated zero fraud, then there is no reason to change a single vote. In each case he is asking for votes to be changed, so such cases are not granted.

The majority of places his team has claimed laws were broken have been shown to be false. There's ample places judges have called his team out on this.

That is the point.

>Below is one such piece of evidence:

That claim was pretty thoroughly demolished in the case and in the replies to that comment. This is not evidence. Again you mistake hearsay for evidence.

It's easy to find people willing to claim all sorts of nonsense. Courts demand evidence to prove a fact, and the standard is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt".

> their claims and the people who give them voice, are dismissed with outright hostility & vitriol

No, in every case I followed, the people with these "voices" were shills brought up to sow confusion. Case after case the voices were shown to not have standing, to not be reliable, several recanted before going to trial, and on and on. This is not an honest enterprise of honest people with legit concerns.

The evidence to this is the sheer brutality of the case outcomes - last I looked it was around 58-1 against Trump and co.

This is why there is hostility and vitriol. It's not an honest set of lawsuits being brought (again, just look how idiotic the cases are being run, and how much money has been raised on these cases, and that the money is going to Trump's pockets, not to cases, and you'll see how this machine works).

If I'm understanding your position correctly, its basically that the people providing testimony are all liars?

I haven't seen evidence of that, and cases being dismissed is likewise not evidence of that.

> That claim was pretty thoroughly demolished in the case and in the replies to that comment.

Source?

> again, just look how idiotic the cases are being run

I agree completely with this. The legal teams have not done a good job.

> hearsay

This word just means it can't be provided as evidence. It does not mean that the person is lying.

Stop creating alternative accounts. It's against the rules, and there's a very good reason you're being downvoted.

> If I'm understanding your position correctly, its basically that the people providing testimony are all liars?

Yes? You seem to be pushing the line that this is all sincere and done in good faith, and ignoring the easily noticeable conclusion that it is a performance from bad actors for obvious selfish ends. So much so that your own good faith is questionable. Creating alt accounts to continue the spam doesn't help.

> cases being dismissed is likewise not evidence of that.

I disagree. I put it to you that it is closely related.

Did you just create the new accounts "prucomaclu2" and "prucomaclu3" because your original account "prucomaclu" had too much negative karma?

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=prucomaclu

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=prucomaclu2

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=prucomaclu3

Are you trying to fraudulently overturn the results of the free and fair election that your comments should be downvoted because they don't contribute to the discussion and violate the guidelines?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.

Are you going to keep creating new accounts every time you get so much negative karma you can't post any more, as many times as Trump and the GOP have lost lawsuits trying to overturn the election, until you're at "prucomaclu50"?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/08/trump-a...

>Trump And The GOP Have Now Lost More Than 50 Post-Election Lawsuits

>The Trump campaign and its Republican allies have officially lost or withdrawn more 50 post-election lawsuits, and emerged victorious in only one, according to a tally kept by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias, underscoring the extent to which President Donald Trump and the GOP’s efforts to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s win in the courts has overwhelmingly failed to affect the election results.

>The 50-case milestone was reached Tuesday as a state court in Georgia dismissed a Republican-led lawsuit, and the count includes both cases that courts have struck down and that the GOP plaintiffs have chosen to withdraw, such as an Arizona lawsuit that the Trump campaign backed down from because it would not affect enough ballots to change the election outcome.

>The Trump campaign and GOP’s only win struck down an extended deadline the Pennsylvania secretary of state set for voters to cure mail-in ballots that were missing proof of identification, and likely only affected a small number of mail-in ballots.

>Among the Trump campaign’s more notable losses in court thus far are the campaign’s failed lawsuit attempting to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results, which a Trump-appointed appeals court judge said was “light on facts” and “[had] no merit,” and a Nevada court that found the campaign had “no credible or reliable evidence” proving voter fraud.

>Courts have also repeatedly struck down the campaign’s allegations claiming their election observers were not able to properly observe the vote counting process, and while one Pennsylvania court did grant the campaign a win by ordering that poll watchers can move closer to election workers, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later overturned the ruling.

>In addition to the Trump campaign, GOP allies including state lawmakers, Republican Party officials and former Trump legal advisor Sidney Powell have also brought dozens of entirely unsuccessful lawsuits, and a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers was rejected Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

>The legal campaign is expected to continue until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14—or potentially until January—but a “safe harbor” deadline midnight Tuesday, which ensures certified results submitted by that date can’t be challenged by Congress, will make it harder for outstanding cases to succeed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com