Jon, you have to show evidence when you file a lawsuit looking for an injunction or some other immediate relief.Well, while you shouldn’t expect them to show you any evidence, it seems to me that, if there is no evidence, the courts will determine such, and Biden’s election will be affirmed when the states certify and the EC elects. Isn’t that a good thing?
Apparently it is not real clear if he recanted or if that was just a headline.a postal worker who recanted.
Law suites are not frivolous because on the importance of the claim, but on the strength or lack of evidence or legal grounds. Of all the law suits filed so far, only one has had enough merit to even be heard.I don’t think that irregularities in the election of the President of the U.S. is a frivolous lawsuit.
Great example of begging the question.The president and the Republicans are once again standing up for Americans and searching for the truth about all the irregularities in this election.
As has been said multiple times, 2020 has little in common with 2000.I highly doubt you said the same things about Al Gore in 2000.
The lack of evidence of conspiracy proves a conspiracy. I know the term “conspiracy theory” has been slammed, but it might not be used as much if the logic errors of a conspiracy theory didn’t keep popping up.You do realize that this was engineered mainly by Democratic, liberal LAWYERS, who know well how to cheat and make it look legal.
He can, and he has. It is just that there is nothing that a judge has deemed acceptable. So the better question would be how long does it take a man with a team of lawyers ready on election day to file a law suit? I am really okay with him not conceding now. I am not okay with him claiming victory and moving forward as if he has another four years while blocking any funding for early prep at transition. That is down right hypocritical, un-American, and egotistical.And yet some people seem to think that the president shouldn’t access the court process that helps prevent us from being like Venezuela.
Some of the court cases don’t even state a cause of action.And from the court rulings I’ve seen, that’s because they don’t include any evidence .
It sounds like you might not have watched any of the hearings in court. Many are available to the public. I can share a link if you like. When Trump’s campaign lawyers have appeared in court they have presented hearsay’s of hearsay (not admissible) or speculations and at worst had nothing to present.You do realize that this was engineered mainly by Democratic, liberal LAWYERS, who know well how to cheat and make it look legal.
They have failed to show courts evidence. This has been directly stated in the text of the dismissals of the court and in the recorded words of the judges that have seen the cases.while you shouldn’t expect them to show you any evidence, it seems to me that, if there is no evidence, the courts will determine such
In the court room. Not in the media, especially since said media has worked against you for four years.Jon, you have to show evidence when you file a lawsuit looking for an injunction or some other immediate relief.
If that’s true, then Biden’s election is confirmed.There is no evidence of widespread fraud. We should all be glad. There are just spaghetti-against-the-wall allegations meant to undermine confidence in a Biden win. We should all be sad at that.
I generally agree with this.He can, and he has. It is just that there is nothing that a judge has deemed acceptable. So the better question would be how long does it take a man with a team of lawyers ready on election day to file a law suit? I am really okay with him not conceding now. I am not okay with him claiming victory and moving forward as if he has another four years while blocking any funding for early prep at transition.
I hadn’t heard that all the cases had been determined.They have failed to show courts evidence. This has been directly stated in the text of the dismissals of the court and in the recorded words of the judges that have seen the cases.
They have not. They just made a second attempt to appeal a case that was dismissed. The first attempt to appeal was rejected because their filing was defective.I hadn’t heard that all the cases had been determined.
When nothing is provided that confirms to the rules of evidence (ev: personal speculations are not acceptable under the rules of evidence) expect a dismissal.it isn’t enough to prove fraud, he has to prove fraud large enough to change the outcome
Should it be illegal to appeal?They have not. They just made a second attempt to appeal a case that was dismissed. The first attempt to appeal was rejected because their filing was defective.
I expect a dismissal because the chances of proving fraud numbering in the tens of thousands of votes are virtually nil.When nothing is provided that confirms to the rules of evidence (ev: personal speculations are not acceptable under the rules of evidence) expect a dismissal.
Did not recant. Also, I’m not sure if it is PA or MI, but there has been a second USPS whistleblower that has come out. See 2nd article, I am not going to track down every article.Apparently it is not real clear if he recanted or if that was just a headline.
He says he did not recant.
That sounds like a philosophical question. I haven said anything on the legality. I do question the ethics of the filing and the appeal.Should it be illegal to appeal?
I expect a dismissal on any case for which there is a failure to make a claim for which relief can be granted or when there is nothing to present that conforms to the rules of evidence.I expect a dismissal because the chances of proving fraud numbering in the tens of thousands of votes are virtually nil.
I think it can easily be tied up in court for years; proving tens of thousands of fraudulent votes would depend on that “Dominion” software so then? The Speaker of House might become President? That looks like a possible scenario now. Nothing that can be quickly resolved.I expect a dismissal because the chances of proving fraud numbering in the tens of thousands of votes are virtually nil.
Perhaps the US will become like Italy: the country just chugs along disregarding the gong show in the capital. Meanwhile China and Russia eclipse the fallen empire on the world stage.The Speaker of House might become President? That looks like a possible scenario now. Nothing that can be quickly resolved.
That sounds like you think only appeals you approve of are ethical. There is nothing unethical about the appeals. They will probably lose, for the reason I stated, but they are not unethical.That sounds like a philosophical question. I haven said anything on the legality. I do question the ethics of the filing and the appeal.
Again, you’re not a judge, so let’s let judges decide that.I expect a dismissal on any case for which there is a failure to make a claim for which relief can be granted or when there is nothing to present that conforms to the rules of evidence.
What an excellently unbiased, facts-only presentation!Give those lawyers some credit for being good at their profession! This isn’t the type of cheating that a sweet little ol’ lady schoolteacher can smell a mile away. This is some well-engineered, well-thought out cheating by lawyers who were filled with hatred and vitriol towards a President who didn’t respect them and their self-serving and evil ways.
That assessment is overly general.That sounds like you think only appeals you approve of are ethical.
Also very general. I encounter that a lot in these forums; where there is a specific set of circumstances that are involved in something problematic and something overly general becomes the subject of discussion. If someone were to drive through a town in a blue car yelling insults at pedestrians I’d expect someone to say there is nothing wrong with driving blue cars.There is nothing unethical about the appeals.
I wouldn’t look at the dismissal of a case as “loosing” unless it is a “dismissal with prejudice.” It can mean that some technical problem occurred and the problem can be corrected and legal action can still be pursued.They will probably lose, for the reason I stated, but they are not unethical.
I thought it was already known that the person assigned to make judgement is the person that will make a judgement. But I shared my view in response to you sharing yours.Again, you’re not a judge, so let’s let judges decide that.
+1 to this one!Why didn’t these fake ballots also vote for Democratic House & Senate candidates, if they were votes for Biden?
May God protect us from that happeningThe Speaker of House might become President
Because their focus was on the president.Why didn’t these fake ballots also vote for Democratic House & Senate candidates, if they were votes for Biden?