Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   Rudy Colludy and the Krazy Kompromat Krew win the chance to prove non-existent fraud in Nevada   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, State supreme court, U.S. state, Democratic Party, United States presidential election, 2008, Nevada, United States, Trump campaign, BIG news  
•       •       •

3914 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2020 at 4:11 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



119 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-26 11:40:44 AM  
What makes anyone think that they won't suddenly do the same "we don't actually have any evidence" thing that has got them ejected all those other times? This has been their constant claim, outfarkingside of the courtroom. Are they literally just wading through their own disingenuous hubris in an effort to find some judge who'll just take them for their word?
 
2020-11-26 11:53:14 AM  
Sure, let them commit malpractice in front of a judge.

He will get laughed out of court, again.

Trying the exact same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is textbook inanity.
 
2020-11-26 11:55:38 AM  
I mean EVERY judge has allowed them to present evidence.  They just never had any.
 
2020-11-26 12:34:03 PM  
What's the over/under for once they are in front of the judge, Giuliani admitting "this is not a fraud case"?

Because falsely claiming fraud in a Hilton meeting room or a landscaper's yard is one thing. Trying it in front of a judge is quite another.
 
2020-11-26 1:40:03 PM  
If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.
 
2020-11-26 1:41:20 PM  

HugeMistake: What's the over/under for once they are in front of the judge, Giuliani admitting "this is not a fraud case"?

Because falsely claiming fraud in a Hilton meeting room or a landscaper's yard is one thing. Trying it in front of a judge is quite another.


There's audio of him from a previous hearing basically being forced to admit to the judge that they weren't even alleging fraud, much less bringing proof.

He should be disbarred after being fined for filing frivolous lawsuits.
 
2020-11-26 3:02:19 PM  
"Welcome to Duke's Bar here at the Airport Mariott. How's everyone doing tonight?"

"We're Rudy Colludy and the Krazy Kompromat Krew! And were here to rock your evening with your favourite  Huey Lewis and the News tunes!"
 
2020-11-26 3:50:33 PM  
More opinion page drivel promising us the facts without revealing a one of them.
 
2020-11-26 4:14:08 PM  
Fark user image

/stopped reading there
 
2020-11-26 4:15:06 PM  
go for it
 
2020-11-26 4:15:40 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: I mean EVERY judge has allowed them to present evidence.  They just never had any.


Yeah, but this one is HUGE.
 
2020-11-26 4:16:29 PM  
It's gonna happen THIS time so send us MORE MONEY!
 
2020-11-26 4:17:17 PM  

edmo: More opinion page drivel promising us the facts without revealing a one of them.


The facts are already revealed: they have no evidence. It's lost them 40 lawsuits so far, and it will continue to lose them every single suit they bring. They're literally asking a judge to overrule the entire election based on rumors and vague accusations.
 
2020-11-26 4:18:25 PM  
"...we have over 15 individuals and tens of thousands more..."

Uh huh. Right.
 
2020-11-26 4:18:47 PM  
Nevada Allows Geriatric With Poor Judgment to Make Huge Gamble

How is this news?
 
2020-11-26 4:19:00 PM  

runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.


Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump
 
2020-11-26 4:19:35 PM  
"Oddly, there has been a virtual news blackout of the Trump court victory. However, there were major headlines on the state Supreme Court's certification of Biden's victory Tuesday."

Because the past 30 cases have been nonsensical and they have yet to offer any credible evidence. So why WOULD this garner any attention?
 
2020-11-26 4:19:40 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: DoBeDoBeDo: I mean EVERY judge has allowed them to present evidence.  They just never had any.

Yeah, but this one is HUGE.


Well to be fair, each one is huger than the last.  But this is like the manager putting in a pitcher with a record of 1 - 38 for the huger game.
 
2020-11-26 4:19:53 PM  

ValisIV: edmo: More opinion page drivel promising us the facts without revealing a one of them.

The facts are already revealed: they have no evidence. It's lost them 40 lawsuits so far, and it will continue to lose them every single suit they bring. They're literally asking a judge to overrule the entire election based on rumors and vague accusations.


At this point it's just a way to grift more money from the rubes.
 
2020-11-26 4:20:44 PM  

RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump


They would be fine with that, since it would affect mail ins which went for biden. So, they're trying to get it to in person votes only.
 
2020-11-26 4:21:17 PM  

ValisIV: edmo: More opinion page drivel promising us the facts without revealing a one of them.

The facts are already revealed: they have no evidence. It's lost them 40 lawsuits so far, and it will continue to lose them every single suit they bring. They're literally asking a judge to overrule the entire election based on rumors and vague accusations.


And alleged sworn affidavits that they'll wave around at press conferences, but won't dare enter into evidence.
 
2020-11-26 4:21:42 PM  

RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump


Yes, that's partly what they want. And they'll try it in every single state Biden won. If they can get Trump to win the state, great. If not, they'll settle for only not invalidating the states Trump won.
 
2020-11-26 4:25:45 PM  

Karate Explosion: "Oddly, there has been a virtual news blackout of the Trump court victory. However, there were major headlines on the state Supreme Court's certification of Biden's victory Tuesday."

Because the past 30 cases have been nonsensical and they have yet to offer any credible evidence. So why WOULD this garner any attention?


If there were headlines fo every miserable failure then they'd say the press was being unfair to Trump and his gang of idiots. If nothing else, this worrisome has shown everyone exactly how trump runs his business and it should come as no surprise how he could fail to make a CASINO profitable
 
2020-11-26 4:27:10 PM  
Episode not worrisome. Damn you fat thumbs!
 
2020-11-26 4:27:39 PM  

apoptotic: "...we have over 15 individuals and tens of thousands more..."

Uh huh. Right.


What does that even mean?  They have 16?  20? 1000? 13000?

Good lord
 
2020-11-26 4:27:53 PM  

ValisIV: RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump

Yes, that's partly what they want. And they'll try it in every single state Biden won. If they can get Trump to win the state, great. If not, they'll settle for only not invalidating the states Trump won.


Could they use a win here as a precedent in other states? I guess if that happened it could be a shiatshow
 
2020-11-26 4:29:08 PM  
Coming soon to a Nevada courtroom . . .

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-26 4:30:28 PM  
What the actual fark?  I've always been a political junkie, but I grow to hate it more every day.  Does he really think flipping an election will somehow make people think that NOW he is legitimate?  Here's a clue.  It WON'T!
 
2020-11-26 4:31:10 PM  
Washington Secrets Columnist

That's a hell of a job title for what amounts to a bullshiatter.
 
2020-11-26 4:31:40 PM  

Karate Explosion: "Oddly, there has been a virtual news blackout of the Trump court victory. However, there were major headlines on the state Supreme Court's certification of Biden's victory Tuesday."

Because the past 30 cases have been nonsensical and they have yet to offer any credible evidence. So why WOULD this garner any attention?


Question: how is this a huge victory for Trump? It just sounds like a judge is saying, "yeah, here is the scheduled date, let's see the evidence." Hasn't that been how it has played out in most of the courts so far, before getting thrown out?
 
2020-11-26 4:33:36 PM  

arrogantbastich: What makes anyone think that they won't suddenly do the same "we don't actually have any evidence" thing that has got them ejected all those other times? This has been their constant claim, outfarkingside of the courtroom. Are they literally just wading through their own disingenuous hubris in an effort to find some judge who'll just take them for their word?


OTOH, now we get to see the evidence!
 
2020-11-26 4:35:51 PM  

RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump


No. There is a hell of a legal jump from "election officials farked up" to "throw out all the affected votes".

Presuming the Trump team's case has some merit (I know, right? I'm just Devil's Advocating here) and the Nevada election officials should not have done things the way they did, then it's still an abomination to democracy to use that as a reason to throw out thousands of votes cast in good faith.
 
2020-11-26 4:35:56 PM  

Tor_Eckman: apoptotic: "...we have over 15 individuals and tens of thousands more..."

Uh huh. Right.

What does that even mean?  They have 16?  20? 1000? 13000?

Good lord


If I had to guess I'd say they have 16 affidavits from people who were mildly annoyed by something that wasn't even illegal, and are extrapolating that to 'prove' that ALL THE THINGS were illegal.
 
2020-11-26 4:36:15 PM  

RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump


Wouldn't that call for an audit to determine which ones get kept and which get tossed out, rather than invalidating all of them?
 
2020-11-26 4:37:16 PM  
Ignoring everything Else with this, how on earth would anything an appellate judge decides effect a Supreme Court certification?
 
2020-11-26 4:37:20 PM  
A random person saying "I totally saw something sketchy, I don't have faith in the system." Means nothing if they can't back that up. It means even less if it's a sworn affidavit, because you can't cross-examine them to determine their trustworthiness.

It's not like all the other judges have said "I don't want to see your evidence." Instead they've said "none of this actually counts as evidence."

/Trump sure loves losing, he's lost all the swing states 2-5 times over at this point
 
2020-11-26 4:37:22 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: What the actual fark?  I've always been a political junkie, but I grow to hate it more every day.  Does he really think flipping an election will somehow make people think that NOW he is legitimate?  Here's a clue.  It WON'T!


It's not like flipping Nevada will flip the election anyway, it'll just change Joe's win from a 306 EV win to a 300 EV win.

The number of steps required to flip the election to Trump involve so many things that would piss so many people off there's no way there wouldn't be some kind of violent uprising and possibly a literal civil war. And with the level of competence (or lack thereof) that Trump has been showing I'm pretty sure he either doesn't think that'll happen or thinks the military (and militias) can just "put the rioters down" and the country will go back to normal in a few months. Because he's an idiot.
 
2020-11-26 4:40:10 PM  
Man, here we go again...

Let them spew conspiracy theories at the judge for an hour and then...
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-26 4:41:10 PM  
Sling enough shiat. Bribe enough judges. Repeat yourself to the point where your hoarse. Eventually, you're bound to get lucky.
 
2020-11-26 4:41:15 PM  

Someone Else's Alt: Man, here we go again...

Let them spew conspiracy theories at the judge for an hour and then...
[Fark user image 458x326]



Narrator:  There was no beef
 
2020-11-26 4:41:24 PM  
An opinion piece from the Washington examiner....yeah....
 
2020-11-26 4:42:49 PM  
Wow, the court system sure is bending over backwards to make republicans happy over this not even remotely close election. I seem to remember they shut Gores recount down in a hurry to move things along in the republicans favor. Gee, I sure hope we don't have a flagrantly biased, and thus illegitimate judicial branch.
 
2020-11-26 4:43:37 PM  
at what point in time can judges just stay saying ok you filed dozens of lawsuits in a  bunch of state and lost them all.  unless you can show me something solid right here and now forget bout even starting a case.
 
2020-11-26 4:44:01 PM  

HugeMistake: What's the over/under for once they are in front of the judge, Giuliani admitting "this is not a fraud case"?

Because falsely claiming fraud in a Hilton meeting room or a landscaper's yard is one thing. Trying it in front of a judge is quite another.


Wait. Lemme check the MGM Superbook.
 
2020-11-26 4:45:06 PM  
There argument is thousands if not millions of legal ballots should be thrown out because of a hypothetical possibility that some are fraudulent.
 
2020-11-26 4:45:06 PM  

Aussie_As: RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump

No. There is a hell of a legal jump from "election officials farked up" to "throw out all the affected votes".

Presuming the Trump team's case has some merit (I know, right? I'm just Devil's Advocating here) and the Nevada election officials should not have done things the way they did, then it's still an abomination to democracy to use that as a reason to throw out thousands of votes cast in good faith.


Yep, the crux of every one of their arguments has been "Someone saw a technical violation in the way a few ballots were handled, so we ask you to through out 100s of thousands of ballots cast in good faith and overturn the vote"

It is a bullshiat remedy that would happen solely in a Rudy fever dream.
 
2020-11-26 4:45:24 PM  

Corvus: There argument is thousands if not millions of legal ballots should be thrown out because of a hypothetical possibility that some are fraudulent.


*Their
 
2020-11-26 4:46:06 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-26 4:46:26 PM  

Someone Else's Alt: Aussie_As: RoboZombie: runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.

Right. If that are the case wouldn't they have to throw out ALL votes, including g those for Trump

No. There is a hell of a legal jump from "election officials farked up" to "throw out all the affected votes".

Presuming the Trump team's case has some merit (I know, right? I'm just Devil's Advocating here) and the Nevada election officials should not have done things the way they did, then it's still an abomination to democracy to use that as a reason to throw out thousands of votes cast in good faith.

Yep, the crux of every one of their arguments has been "Someone saw a technical violation in the way a few ballots were handled, so we ask you to through out 100s of thousands of ballots cast in good faith and overturn the vote"

It is a bullshiat remedy that would happen solely in a Rudy fever dream.


Actually sometimes it's not even that.

One of their was someone saw ballots that they said look too new.


So it wasn't even anything was wrong at all.
 
2020-11-26 4:47:07 PM  

runwiz: If indeed the signatures were verified by machine and not by a person, that is still not evidence that the ballots were cast fraudulently.


Doing signature analysis on the massive scale needed for verifying identity for voting is pretty much impossible to do correctly. If anything, it causes valid ballots to be tossed out way more often than it stops fraud, although most states allow for curing ballots that were disqualified due to a signature "mismatch".
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.