Oklahoma lawmaker wants forensic audit of 2020 election results

[frigidweirdo]

What bullshit. How is it "democracy" when one side wins the popular vote every single time, and yet needs still loses the House or the White House?

It's not really democracy at all.

Democracy is when every single person's voter counts the same as everyone else's vote.

The EC is ridiculous.

Do you know which state had more votes for Trump at the 2020 Presidential election?

California. Literally the largest Republican state. And all those Republican voters were literally disenfranchised.

But it's worse. But quite a lot of them weren't Republican voters at all. Same with the Democrat voters. They voted for Republican/Democrat because they know a third party is not viable. With Proportional Representation, they could vote third party, and also be sure their vote would count.

In a presidential election it might have to be a little different to PR, but the essential is that everyone's vote actually counts. Or just change the presidency.

 

[woodwork201]

Wholly fuck.

"The Courts never heard a single case. Can you rebutt that".
That's what the fuck the an opening statement is for you moron.
To see if a case can proceed or be heard.

Crazy eyes and the loony woman didn't have one scintella of evidence, let alone not even one witness.

Once again, you show your ignorance as well as your idiocy. Not a single case ever had an opening statement. Let me educate you:

https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/04open.pdf

After the jury has been selected, the parties give their opening statements.The opening statements introduce the jurors to the parties’ competing theoriesof the case.

No case got that far. Many were thrown out on lack of evidence without ever allowing evidence to be presented. Judges were tossing cases based wholly on CNN and MSNBC reporting.

 

[woodwork201]

They heard all of them....

The judges got briefs from both sides...on each pending lawsuit. Many cases went forward, many cases did not, because they were frivolous lawsuits, or with no legal merit, or standing, some were just too late to legally contest....it should have been done before the election and not after one lost, etc etc..... Some went on to trial, and then appeals court, some to the state supreme court, some went to federal courts and federal appeals courts and some even on to the US Supreme court who determined not to hear them in most if not all, cases.

None went to trial.

 

[woodwork201]

Try looking at it another way: 81 million Americans voted AGAINST Trump have a second term. The Democrats could have elected a glass of water because it wasn't Donald Trump.

All of the Democrats who stayed home last time because they don't like Hillary Clinton, had no problem at all voting against a second term for Donald Trump.

Not everyone voted FOR Biden. Millions voted AGAINST Trump.

There is some truth to that. And look at what happens when when you vote against someone you don't like instead of voting on the merits: you get a new nation based wholly on terrorism and largely on hatred for the US - and for homosexuals. You get a president who gives many billions in arms to terrorists in addition to 85 billion dollars. You get a president who abandons tens of thousands of partners to whom we promised protection. You get a president who abandons thousands of US Citizens, many employees or contractors to the US Government, behind enemy lines in a terrorist run nation. But who cares about those thousands of lives and the thousands of lives yet to be taken by those terrorists with the weapons Biden gave them - at least we're not getting any mean tweets from Biden.. as long as you don't think it's mean to be told that, as an American citizen, you're on your own with the Taliban.

 

[Faun]

None went to trial.

Due to lack of evidence, lack of standing or lack of merit.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Once again, you show your ignorance as well as your idiocy. Not a single case ever had an opening statement. Let me educate you:

https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/04open.pdf

After the jury has been selected, the parties give their opening statements.The opening statements introduce the jurors to the parties’ competing theoriesof the case.

No case got that far. Many were thrown out on lack of evidence without ever allowing evidence to be presented. Judges were tossing cases based wholly on CNN and MSNBC reporting.

NOT the same, you moron.
An opening statement by lawyers to the judge, you fucking idiot.

Court of Appeals Case Processing

When an appeal is filed, the trial court sends the official case records to the Court of Appeals. When the records and the attorneys’ written arguments (briefs) have been received by the court, the case is said to be at issue and is assigned to a three-judge panel for consideration. All cases filed in the Court of Appeals must be accepted for review and decided by the court.

The brief of the person filing the appeal (the appellant) contains legal and factual arguments as to why the decision of the trial court should be reversed. The person against whom the appeal is made (the appellee) has the right to respond to these arguments.

An appellate court does not conduct trials. It reviews papers, exhibits, and transcripts from the trial court. These items are the record on appeal and are used to determine whether the trial court correctly followed the law in making its decision.

After they have reviewed the record, Court of Appeals judges may hear ORAL ARGUMENTS from the attorneys before deciding the case and issuing an opinion. A majority vote (at least two out of three judges in agreement) decides the case.
Court of Appeals judges have three choices when making a decision:
•affirm (agree with) the trial court’s decision;
•reverse the decision (disagree), or
•remand the case (send the case back to the trial court for further action or a new trial).

During ORAL ARGUMENT, the attorney for the appellant (the party making the appeal) highlights and clarifies the client’s side of the case. Then the attorney for the appellee (the party responding to the appeal) presents the other side. The justices often question the attorneys about the issues and about the case law cited in support of their position.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and hearing the parties’ oral argument, the justices meet privately to deliberate and vote on how the case should be resolved. A majority vote (five out of seven votes) decides the case, and the Chief Justice assigns a justice to write the court’s majority opinion.

 

[otto105]

We'll have to wait and see if they get disbarred. My money says no.

Definitely going to be a disbarment

 

[lennypartiv]

Definitely going to be a disbarment

I doubt it.

 

[otto105]

I doubt it.

Definitely going to be disbarments.

 

[woodwork201]

NOT the same, you moron.
An opening statement by lawyers to the judge, you fucking idiot.

Court of Appeals Case Processing

When an appeal is filed, the trial court sends the official case records to the Court of Appeals. When the records and the attorneys’ written arguments (briefs) have been received by the court, the case is said to be at issue and is assigned to a three-judge panel for consideration. All cases filed in the Court of Appeals must be accepted for review and decided by the court.

The brief of the person filing the appeal (the appellant) contains legal and factual arguments as to why the decision of the trial court should be reversed. The person against whom the appeal is made (the appellee) has the right to respond to these arguments.

An appellate court does not conduct trials. It reviews papers, exhibits, and transcripts from the trial court. These items are the record on appeal and are used to determine whether the trial court correctly followed the law in making its decision.

After they have reviewed the record, Court of Appeals judges may hear ORAL ARGUMENTS from the attorneys before deciding the case and issuing an opinion. A majority vote (at least two out of three judges in agreement) decides the case.
Court of Appeals judges have three choices when making a decision:
•affirm (agree with) the trial court’s decision;
•reverse the decision (disagree), or
•remand the case (send the case back to the trial court for further action or a new trial).

During ORAL ARGUMENT, the attorney for the appellant (the party making the appeal) highlights and clarifies the client’s side of the case. Then the attorney for the appellee (the party responding to the appeal) presents the other side. The justices often question the attorneys about the issues and about the case law cited in support of their position.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and hearing the parties’ oral argument, the justices meet privately to deliberate and vote on how the case should be resolved. A majority vote (five out of seven votes) decides the case, and the Chief Justice assigns a justice to write the court’s majority opinion.

You're dumber than I had even thought. Where is the phrase "opening statement" in what you quoted? There's no such legal thing as an opening argument made by the lawyers to the judge and the document you quoted doesn't say otherwise. Geeze, why do I bother. Your reading comprehension is less than a trained horse who can tap 3 times to seeing the symbol in exchange for a piece of sugar.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You're dumber than I had even thought. Where is the phrase "opening statement" in what you quoted? There's no such legal thing as an opening argument made by the lawyers to the judge and the document you quoted doesn't say otherwise. Geeze, why do I bother. Your reading comprehension is less than a trained horse who can tap 3 times to seeing the symbol in exchange for a piece of sugar.

Wow.
"MY COMPREHENSION"?
You're brain-dead.

"During ORAL ARGUMENT, the attorney for the appellant (the party making the appeal) highlights and clarifies the client’s side of the case. Then the attorney for the appellee (the party responding to the appeal) presents the other side. The justices often question the attorneys about the issues and about the case law cited in support of their position".

That's their opening statement, you fucking moron.

 

[woodwork201]

Wow.
"MY COMPREHENSION"?
You're brain-dead.

"During ORAL ARGUMENT, the attorney for the appellant (the party making the appeal) highlights and clarifies the client’s side of the case. Then the attorney for the appellee (the party responding to the appeal) presents the other side. The justices often question the attorneys about the issues and about the case law cited in support of their position".

That's their opening statement, you fucking moron.

Oral Argument is NOT equal to Opening Statement. Two completely different things, idiot.

No cases were dropped because the plaintiffs failed to convince the court during opening statement. Geeze you're stupid.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Oral Argument is NOT equal to Opening Statement. Two completely different things, idiot.

No cases were dropped because the plaintiffs failed to convince the court during opening statement. Geeze you're stupid.

WOW.

Totally, brain- dead.
You must have aced that Trump U. "law" school correspondence course.

""During ORAL ARGUMENT, the attorney for the appellant (the party making the appeal) highlights and clarifies the client’s side of the case'.

That must come when the lawyers present their closing arguments.