Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Court Transcripts from Trump Lawsuit DEFEATS, Cry Babies please dont read

PENNSYLVANIA

The Court : In your petition, which is right before me - and I read it several times - you don't claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That's correct?

Goldstein: Your Honour, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the (Democratic National Committee) or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We're all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.

The court: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?

Goldstein: To my knowledge at present, no.

The court: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?

Goldstein: To my knowledge at present, no.

The Trump campaign also sought to temporarily stop counting some ballots in Detroit. It cited a GOP poll watcher who had said she had been told by an unidentified person that late mail ballots were being predated to before Election Day, so they would be considered valid.

The judge, Cynthia Stephens, repeatedly asserted this was hearsay, but Trump campaign lawyer Thor Hearne sought to argue that it wasn't - despite it having been someone who said they heard about something they weren't personally involved in. He pointed to a vague note the poll watcher produced - which said "entered receive date as 11/2/20 on 11/4/20" - as evidence:

Stephens : So I want to make sure I understand you. The affiant [the person who makes an affidavit] is not the person who had knowledge of this. Is that correct?

Hearne : The affiant had direct first-hand knowledge of the communication with the elections inspector and the document they provided them.

Stephens : OK, which is generally known as hearsay, right?

Hearne : I would not think that's hearsay, your honour. That's first-hand personal knowledge by the affiant of what she physically observed. And we included an exhibit which is a physical copy of the note that she was provided.

The two later returned to the point, after Stephens reviewed the note, and Stephens echoed Judge Diamond's exasperation:

Stephens : I'm still trying to understand why this isn't hearsay.

Hearne : Well, it's, it, I -

Stephens : I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her. But the truth of the matter ... that you're going for was that there was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don't know what its relevancy is.

Hearne : Right. I would say, your honour, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a first-hand factual statement made by Ms Conoron, and she has made that statement based on her own first-hand physical evidence and knowledge --

Stephens : 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell my why that's not hearsay. Come on, now.

Hearne : Well it's a first-hand statement of her physical -

Stephens : It's an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is (at-issue), right?

In a later written decision, Stephens slammed the argument as "inadmissible hearsay within hearsay." And after the campaign appealed, Stephens rebuked it Monday for failing to include required documentation.

"I regret to inform you that your submission is defective," Stephens said.

Another of the Trump teams' claims crumbled rather quickly in Georgia.

In Chatham County, as in Michigan, the Trump campaign cited supposed evidence that 53 late ballots might have been predated so they could be counted. Except two witnesses they called acknowledged under oath that they didn't know whether the ballots were received after the deadline. And two others for the local board of elections testified that they were, in fact, received on time.

Judge James Bass dismissed the case in a one-sentence, eight-word ruling, saying, "I'm denying the request and dismissing the petition" and abruptly adjourned the hearing. He then elaborated in a written opinion: "... The Court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7pm on election day, thereby making those ballots invalid. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Chatham County Board of Elections or the Chatham County Board of Registrars has failed to comply with the law."

The common thread running through all of these is that Trump's lawyers are regularly offering a significantly more watered-down version of Trump's claims about rampant voters fraud - because they, unlike Trump, actually have to substantiate their claims. And as these exchanges show, it's a rather thankless task that can rather quickly land them on a judge's bad side.

But.. but... they have 234 signed affidavits hahahaha

Yeap and the silence from the Commie Trump supporters say it all, effing Cowards

Cant wait for the Secret Service to man handle Trump and remove him like a Trespasser on the 20 Jan.

It will just go up the line until it hits a court not ruled by blithering idiots. The more this happens the less likely people will accept this election.

Ginther GFY you commie biotch

Ginther is another lying piece of Commie sh-it.

Here is the case that Trump won not lost.

In The Commonwealth Court Of Pennsylvania

It reads:
A Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of the Trump campaign Thursday, ordering that the state may not count ballots where the voters needed to provide proof of identification and failed to do so by Nov. 9.

State law said that voters have until six days after the election — this year that was Nov. 9 — to cure problems regarding a lack of proof of identification. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots could be accepted three days after Election Day, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar submitted guidance that said proof of identification could be provided up until Nov. 12, which is six days from the ballot acceptance deadline. That guidance was issued two days before Election Day.

“The Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar [D], in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said in a court order.

He reads like a libtard.

I have a $10.00 bet with a friend, that all of TRUMP's lsuits won't give him 1,000 additional votes. Ease money.

Your out $10.