P
puer.dei
Guest
I’m asking a question, and you falsely impute a motive that doesn’t exist, while dodging answering the question.
Why, I wonder?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Why, I wonder?
P
pnewton
Guest
Because, you are asking the same old questions that have been asked and answered for weeks. It is only a reversal that is wanted, not answers, not justice, and darn sure not democracy.I’m asking questions! You seem to want to shut the questions down! Why, I wonder?
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Trump filed around five and most have been rejected for frivolous reasons since they were not on time or some official didn’t cooperate.
There is no reason to think that. Now that the media conveniently decided the Biden scandal was credible, Kamala will probably be president.Trump will win and be president for the next 4 years
Last edited:
C
ChuckB
Guest
They were not rejected for “frivolous” reasons. They were rejected for legal reasons. Trump’s legal team must be the most incompetent group of lawyers ever to be assembled.Trump filed around five and most have been rejected for frivolous reasons since they were not on time or some official didn’t cooperate.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Probably the most irresponsible.Trump’s legal team must be the most incompetent group of lawyers ever to be assembled.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It wasn’t really based on the merits of the evidence either way.
S
sallybutler
Guest
What happens if the Judicial branch doesn’t do anything and the Legislature confirms Biden on Jan. 6. Will you then accept that Biden will be sworn in a President on Jan 20? Or if on Jan 20 the Chief Justice swears in Biden as President?
I know you don’t think that will happen, but what if it does?
I know you don’t think that will happen, but what if it does?
C
ChuckB
Guest
Because they presented no evidence. All they had were baseless claims, none of which were backed by evidence.It wasn’t really based on the merits of the evidence either way.
B
billsherman
Guest
Many of the lawsuits have been rejected based on the evidence.It wasn’t really based on the merits of the evidence either way.
In particular the Trump lawsuit in WI, the Wood lawsuit in GA, the Congressman’s lawsuit in PA, Sidney Powell’s “Kraken” lawsuits everywhere.
These have been evaluated on the merits and found to be severely wanting.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The court tossed them without looking at the evidence.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
Not the cases in WI, GA, and PA. Those courts (sometimes several courts) reviewed all of the evidence and rejected them as meritless.The court tossed them without looking at the evidence.
From the WI case: "fail as a matter of law and fact.”
Read more on the WI cases (in all which, the evidence was heard by the courts):
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That one had more to do with the legal interpretation rather than evidence.
B
billsherman
Guest
Which cases then had more to do with the evidence than the legal interpretation?That one had more to do with the legal interpretation rather than evidence.
I’m not aware of a single case Trump has brought in which he alleges fraud.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The one in the article you gave. It only mentioned unsubstantiated claims of fraud in one sentence without any details.Which cases then had more to do with the evidence than the legal interpretation?
B
billsherman
Guest
No it doesn’t. I think you misread this sentence (about cases in general): “Trump and his allies have suffered dozens of defeats in Wisconsin and across the country in lawsuits that rely on unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud and election abuse.”
Trump’s lawyers have been very careful about not alleging fraud in court (because they have no evidence for it, and could be punished by the courts for bringing frivolous lawsuits). Instead, they have argued things, like in this particular case, that the state did not properly follow procedures. That’s not an allegation of fraud.
Trump’s lawyers have been very careful about not alleging fraud in court (because they have no evidence for it, and could be punished by the courts for bringing frivolous lawsuits). Instead, they have argued things, like in this particular case, that the state did not properly follow procedures. That’s not an allegation of fraud.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Then evidence does not have anything to do with it.Instead, they have argued things, like in this particular case, that the state did not properly follow procedures. That’s not an allegation of fraud.
B
billsherman
Guest
Then what are you complaining about?Then evidence does not have anything to do with it.
The courts did their jobs.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You are right.
T
twf
Guest
How can you be sure that Her Majesty the Queen isn’t a Lizard person? Can you prove to me that she is not?
P
Petra202
Guest
I seem to remember the term RESIST and marching in the streets and false accusations of Russia collusion and false investigations that our own fbi knew were false from the beginning!!! And now there is worry about the peaceful transfer of power??? It’s like four years too late to worry about that!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.