Trump says he ‘didn’t respect’ his lawyers who said he lost 2020 election

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So what's your threshold?  How many illegalities did I need to witness in order for it to meet your legal standard?

It's not my legal standard.  It's the legal system's.

Your question really has two parts to it: 1) what constitutes actual first-person knowledge of illegality, and 2) how much of that must there be to cast the election into doubt?

I was really addressing the first point.  I assume from what you're saying that you were in-person at a specific polling location, so that would be the limit as to your first-person knowledge.  So you could testify as to what you personally saw when you looked into a particular box box, what happened to that box foras long as it was under your direct visual observation, what other people actually did who were in your direct visual observation, etc..  It would have to be established where you were standing, etc., and whether that gave you the opportunity to see what someone actually was doing or writing versus what you may infer or assume they were doing or writing, etc..  But that's the basis for a proper affidavit.

I am not claiming you weren't in a position to do all of that. I'm just saying I have heard an awful lot of people (not talking just about elections here) describe things that happen, claim that they know they happened, but when you get down into the details and press them on the exact nature of what they actually observed first hand, it's not quite the same thing.  That's why so many affidavits fall apart when placed under legal scrutiny.

So what you need is enough of those kind of affidavits on critical issues to prove whatever legal point it is you're trying to make.

[Kamaji]

It's not my legal standard.  It's the legal system's.

Your question really has two parts to it: 1) what constitutes actual first-person knowledge of illegality, and 2) how much of that must there be to cast the election into doubt?

I was really addressing the first point.  I assume from what you're saying that you were in-person at a specific polling location, so that would be the limit as to your first-person knowledge.  So you could testify as to what you personally saw when you looked into a particular box box, what happened to that box foras long as it was under your direct visual observation, what other people actually did who were in your direct visual observation, etc..  It would have to be established where you were standing, etc., and whether that gave you the opportunity to see what someone actually was doing or writing versus what you may infer or assume they were doing or writing, etc..  But that's the basis for a proper affidavit.

I am not claiming you weren't in a position to do all of that. I'm just saying I have heard an awful lot of people (not talking just about elections here) describe things that happen, claim that they know they happened, but when you get down into the details and press them on the exact nature of what they actually observed first hand, it's not quite the same thing.  That's why so many affidavits fall apart when placed under legal scrutiny.

So what you need is enough of those kind of affidavits on critical issues to prove whatever legal point it is you're trying to make.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The issue here is not that Trump 'lost' the electoral vote.  The issue here is that our election integrity was destroyed.  The only cases that matter in court are the ones that force elected officials to act with integrity and operate within the law, securing a true election result based on legitimate votes cast by legitimate voters.  Unfortunately, that was never a concern for Trump.  His only objective was to have some judge nullify the electoral vote and declare Trump the winner.  It was legal idiocy on steroids.

He should have put all his effort/political capital into advocating for changes to make future elections more secure.  As you said, it was instead the futile effort to reverse electoral votes.

[Hoodat]

It's not my legal standard.  It's the legal system's.

Your question really has two parts to it: 1) what constitutes actual first-person knowledge of illegality, and 2) how much of that must there be to cast the election into doubt?

I was really addressing the first point.  I assume from what you're saying that you were in-person at a specific polling location, so that would be the limit as to your first-person knowledge.  So you could testify as to what you personally saw when you looked into a particular box box, what happened to that box foras long as it was under your direct visual observation, what other people actually did who were in your direct visual observation, etc..  It would have to be established where you were standing, etc., and whether that gave you the opportunity to see what someone actually was doing or writing versus what you may infer or assume they were doing or writing, etc..  But that's the basis for a proper affidavit.

I am not claiming you weren't in a position to do all of that. I'm just saying I have heard an awful lot of people (not talking just about elections here) describe things that happen, claim that they know they happened, but when you get down into the details and press them on the exact nature of what they actually observed first hand, it's not quite the same thing.  That's why so many affidavits fall apart when placed under legal scrutiny.

So what you need is enough of those kind of affidavits on critical issues to prove whatever legal point it is you're trying to make.

It has all been posted here before.  Here is my own personal involvement:

- Witnessed a ballot drop-off box located at Roswell Library in excess of the amount of boxes allowed by law and with no video monitor, also in violation of State law.

- Witnessed election workers entering batch tallies into the computer not putting two sets of eyes on the tallies.  One called out a number while the other typed.  That is a violation of State election law.

- Witnessed the separation of mail-in envelopes and ballots which prevented the signature checks required by law.  Saw envelopes discarded in the trash and picked up by shredding trucks.

- Witnessed ballots marked as 'adjudicated' mixed in with the regular ballots and counted again.

- Witnessed ballot boxes taken out of back rooms and placed on metal shelving that was within public access and left unguarded while they awaited recounting.

- On a live real time tally count, I have an electronic copy showing Donald Trump's vote count decrease over a ten minute time period, which is not possible when all they are doing is adding votes.

And then of course there are the documented cases:

-  Failing to keep chain of custody on the transfer of ballot batches in violation of State law

-  Not recertifying electronic voting machines after software changes were made in October, in violation of State law

-  The double-counting of ballots in violation of State law

-  Failure to secure ballot storage locations in violation of State law.

-  Tallying votes without Republican observers present in violation of State law.

-  Allowing ballots to be added to the final tallies three, four, and five days after election day in violation of State law.

-  Failure to conduct signature checks on absentee ballots in violation of State law.

-  Sending out unrequested absentee ballots via the mail to every voter address in the State in violation of State law.

-  Allowing people to register to vote by mail without showing photo ID, proof of signature, or proof of residence, and then allowing those same people to vote by mail, again without showing photo ID or proof of signature in violation of State law.

-  Allowing the Dominion election system to be connected to the internet during an election in violation of State law.

-  Making unilateral changes to election rules without legislative approval, in violation of the US Constitution.

Now you ask how much of that must there be to cast the election into doubt.  My answer is that any of it casts the election in doubt because each item above makes the election unlawful.  This isn't about finding enough votes to declare Trump the winner.  It is about restoring integrity to our elections.  It is my opinion that Georgia's electors should have been disqualified since the State of Georgia willfully chose to violate its own election laws.

[deb]

Well, there goes his "advice of counsel" defense.  No wonder most decent attorneys refuse to accept him as a client, along with him not paying his legal bills.

Trump is so easy to figure out.
If you tell him what he wants to hear, he likes you.
If you tell him something he disagrees with, you’re a bad person, lousy attorney, blah, blah, blah.
It’s akin to dealing with a toddler. Only toddlers are cute.

[txradioguy]

He doesn't listen to anyone...lawyers advisors etc that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.

[Kamaji]

Trump is so easy to figure out.
If you tell him what he wants to hear, he likes you.
If you tell him something he disagrees with, you’re a bad person, lousy attorney, blah, blah, blah.
It’s akin to dealing with a toddler. Only toddlers are cute.

[LMAO]

Trump is so easy to figure out.
If you tell him what he wants to hear, he likes you.
If you tell him something he disagrees with, you’re a bad person, lousy attorney, blah, blah, blah.
It’s akin to dealing with a toddler. Only toddlers are cute.

At least with a toddler you can spank them or make them go sit in the corner

[Kamaji]

At least with a toddler you can spank them or make them go sit in the corner

[DefiantMassRINO]

In Trump's world, and to some extent the business world, you don't pay people to disagree with you.

If you take their money, you're their indentured servant.  You're paid to tell them what they want to hear, not the truth.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In Trump's world, and to some extent the business world, you don't pay people to disagree with you.

If you take their money, you're their indentured servant.  You're paid to tell them what they want to hear, not the truth.

Not if you're a decent lawyer.  Telling your client what he wants to hear today is a great way to get sued tomorrow, and guess who the client is going to blame for that?

That really goes with anyone who is truly loyal.  Telling unpleasant truths to someone who needs to hear them is what you do if you're truly loyal.

Of course, Trump either fires those people, or abused them so badly that they quit.  So he ends up with yes men who tell him what he wants to to hear, but who really aren't very loyal.

[Kamaji]

In Trump's world, and to some extent the business world, you don't pay people to disagree with you.

If you take their money, you're their indentured servant.  You're paid to tell them what they want to hear, not the truth.

Which just shows how out-of-touch Trump is.  Sometimes the best advice a lawyer can give a client is "you can't do what you want to do, and if you persist, you'll come to grief" - and it is the sign of a wise client who accepts that advice.