Fact Checkers Fact.....

[Spicerack]

What will the Left fall back on now their go to liars have been exposed?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13328184/candace-owens-wins-challenge-against-facebook-fact-checker-politifact/

[Spicerack]

It's the same Dem Courts that defied the constitution to set up the fraud in the first place. Scotus might have a different take.
Like I say, I hope you Biden fans get what you want.
Lol, I'll give you covfefe in spades for 4 years.

[tomus42]

//SPICERACK, if the evidence is so strong, why have so many court cases gone against the Trump campaign?//

Because they've never presented any evidence of fraud in court - or even alleged it.

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/11/why-did-the-trump-campaign-not-allege-fraud-in-their-post-election-court-cases/

From the above
// In the United States – as in England – it is a strict rule of court that a lawyer cannot allege fraud in a civil matter without particular evidence. ......Even Rudolph Giuliani – the former New York mayor who reportedly told Trump that the legal cases would succeed – would not break this rule.

Breaking such a rule would have severe if not career-ending consequences for any attorney, and although attorneys may do anything for Trump, they would not do this. //

So the lawyers aren't as stupid as their client. Happy to take his money up to a point though, or rather money raised from his gullible cult following.

[Peter Pedant]

// Scotus might have a different take.//
it is a court for chrissakes
not a ra-ra-ra cheering organisation for Trump because he appointed half of them

it is NOT
dring dring - is that scardus?
Barrett: yes it is your honour, I am the youngest so I am on phone dooty.
Trump for it is he: I gart something for you yo losers and timeservers
Barret: what is your bidding O Great One who apptd us ?
Pres - - I gardda bind....
etc

they hear appeals on federal matters - you will note that election and selection of members of the electoral college ( 1790) is a STATE matter and not federal

when Trump on the night said - he was gonna apply to the supreme ct - I did wonder - christ " how he gonna do dat den?"

[Peter Pedant]

// In the United States – as in England – it is a strict rule of court that a lawyer cannot allege fraud in a civil matter without particular evidence. ..//

as a witness I have seen that done....
Lawyer who disgraced his profession - "and so it wasnt mistake and it wasnt an error and it wasnt this and it wasnt that - - - so it must have been fraud"
Judgie baby - are you pleading fraud?
"Lawyer" - yes
Judge well you can't - you have to plead it direct

and I did wonder - not being legal - why the "lawyer" ( aged 55) was trying it on ..... didnt he know ? or he DID know and just thought he wd try it on.

and then he perjured himself by pleading something he knew was untrue - ho ho ho what fun we had then ( twenty y ago) - anonymised not surprisingly

[Spicerack]

Same way they gave it to Bush in 2000, I guess, pp.

[gulliver1]

All that matters is TRUMP LOST........ GOOD.

[ichkeria]

“It's the same Dem Courts that defied the constitution to set up the fraud in the first place”

Utter nonsense. Judge Matthew Brann, a Pennsylvania judge, called an early Trump lawsuit presented before the court “stitched together like Frankenstein’s monster”.
Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s Republican A-G, yesterday defended the integrity of his state’s election against his own party’s allegations.

[ichkeria]

“ Judge Matthew Brann, a Pennsylvania judge”
I left out “Republican” from that :-)

[jim360]

To say nothing of the fact that when the case went to appeal, a 3-0 verdict utterly rejecting any grounds for appeal was written by a Trump-appointed judge, Stephanos Bibas, and backed by two Bush-appointed judges.

This is not a grand Democrat conspiracy. This is Trump losing, and acting like the sore loser he has always been, and dragging the reputation of US democracy through the dirt in a vain and petty attempt to avoid being known as a loser.

[Untitled]

Spicerack

If you think that there is evidence of fraud on a significant enough scale to affect the result of the election, why don't you post it so the rest of us can have a look?

[Untitled]

And it is quite normal to refer to the obvious winner as the president-elect before it's official. Technically incorrect probably but nobody has complained before the Trump cult.

[ichkeria]

The NY Times reports that Giuliani may have discussed the possibility of a pardon with Donald Trump.
For unspecified “crimes”.
Which presumably don’t include making a mockery of the US judicial process.
If true it would explain a lot ..

[Spicerack]

Put this up just for you, entitled. It's a constant refrain on here that there's no evidence. There are hours and hours of evidence but it won't jump into your feed, you have to actually look for it. After all, the aBBC ain't going to broadcast an expose any time soon.

[tomus42]

// It's a constant refrain on here that there's no evidence. //

Not just on here. It's a constant refrain in the American courts as well, hence why the cases keep getting thrown out. If there was evidence they'd present it. They haven't.

[Spicerack]

//And it is quite normal to refer to the obvious winner as the president-elect before it's official.//

Doubt so. The Left still don't accept Trump won 4 years ago.

//Technically incorrect probably but nobody has complained before the Trump cult.//

2 separate Fact, lol, Checkers accused Miss Owens of lying. This gave Facebook the chance to Demonetise all of her videos. And as I've already pointed out, Demonetisation is just a prelude to an outright ban. Why should anyone just roll over and be silenced?
Biden has stuffed his Cabinet with Silicon Valley bigwigs. There's going to be a purge on free speech. (and not just for right wing people)

[Atheist]

Spice, I think you should give serious thought to thinking about your inner thoughts. Why do you think that you are right and the rest of the world thinks you are not? Do you feel lonely? Is that what brought on your mistrust of reality?

[Spicerack]

If you had bothered reading the thread, you'd know that 71% of Republicans think the election was stolen and 30% of Democrats think likewise.
So not quite alone.
I do feel like a lone voice on here. I'm just trying to educate, obviously ignorant, people.

[ichkeria]

Trump’s attorney general has deserted him now ...

[tomus42]

//I do feel like a lone voice on here.//

You are. There were quite a few Trump supporters on here before the election, and they're no doubt disappointed that he lost, but at least they recognise the reality of the situation.

As far as I know you are the only one actually buying into the idiotic conspiracy theories.

[jim360]

"The Left still don't accept Trump won 4 years ago."

They can't *believe* Trump won, in the sense that it was an unwelcome shock that somebody so devoid of basic human decency could have ever won. That's different from saying that they don't accept that, in the rules of the system, Trump won legitimately. (And, in turn, that's different from saying that maybe the rules of the electoral college that allowed Trump to overcome a 3-million vote deficit ought to be revisited, as Trump himself suggested in 2012.)

You'll get used to the fact that Trump lost eventually, Spicey -- might take a while to get through the five stages of grief, but you'll get there in the end.

It is, perhaps, also worth mentioning that Trump outperformed his polling expectations by quite some margin, winning two states he was expected to lose and coming much closer than expected in several others.