3 ms·

That's literally what's been disputed. Your opinion doesn't make it fact. The courts have literally said they will not hear any testimony at all, both the 7th c

That's literally what's been disputed. Your opinion doesn't make it fact. The courts have literally said they will not hear any testimony at all, both the 7th circuit who decided they had standing but the case had no merit, and the Supreme Court which decided Texas had no standing in the only venue available for States to resolve conflicts with other States (a state cannot sue in another state court). The Supreme Court could have taken the case and simply ruled. America is upset because no one is listening. Every means of relief is full of cowards.

pfdietz 6y ago
It's a lie in the same sense unicorns exist is a lie. No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. This tells us the persons making the claims had no valid evidence. All that exists is self-justifying propaganda.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  >No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. Can you please point me to a court case that allowed evidence to be heard before being dismissed?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    All the cases had to present enough evidence to allow there to be a chance of a favorable verdict. If the cases are dismissed it's because even if favorably interpreted the claims did not meet that standard. One cannot just say "we'll show our evidence later, just believe me for now".
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      SCOTUS rejected Texas for standing. Wisconson and PA SCOTUS both rejected for standing and laches, multiple states had courts immediately dismiss because they said they were not the correct court for this and in the cases I saw immediately offered the paperwork for the appellate process. Which fraud cases were actually lost vs dismissed for technical or procedural reasons? If your claim is "the courts proved no fraud" you need to show me where the courts actually investigated and heard evidence. Otherwise, I can't agree with your claim.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Right, that was a case that didn't even state a claim that could be addressed. If your case lacks standing then there is literally no evidence for it that could work. What they were doing there, of course, was trying to use SCOTUS to relitigate claims that had already been shot down in state courts. That all of the fraud stuff is bullshit should have been obvious from soon after the beginning. The claim of fraud was made, but the evidence to justify the claims was a constantly revolving circus of nonsense. It shows they reached the position that fraud must have occurred not because they had evidence of fraud, but because they didn't like the result. I like how the courts have treated Trump so brutally. His thing is complete disregard of facts or reason. The courts are the polar opposite of that, so of course he failed utterly there. His normal modus operandi of dishonesty is something judges are there to destroy.
pfdietz 6y ago
I will add: repeating this lie would now be providing aid or comfort to an armed insurrection, a felony that can get you up to ten years in prison.

pfdietz 6y ago

It's a lie in the same sense unicorns exist is a lie. No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. This tells us the persons making the claims had no valid evidence. All that exists is self-justifying propaganda.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
>No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. Can you please point me to a court case that allowed evidence to be heard before being dismissed?
- pfdietz 6y ago
  All the cases had to present enough evidence to allow there to be a chance of a favorable verdict. If the cases are dismissed it's because even if favorably interpreted the claims did not meet that standard. One cannot just say "we'll show our evidence later, just believe me for now".
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    SCOTUS rejected Texas for standing. Wisconson and PA SCOTUS both rejected for standing and laches, multiple states had courts immediately dismiss because they said they were not the correct court for this and in the cases I saw immediately offered the paperwork for the appellate process. Which fraud cases were actually lost vs dismissed for technical or procedural reasons? If your claim is "the courts proved no fraud" you need to show me where the courts actually investigated and heard evidence. Otherwise, I can't agree with your claim.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Right, that was a case that didn't even state a claim that could be addressed. If your case lacks standing then there is literally no evidence for it that could work. What they were doing there, of course, was trying to use SCOTUS to relitigate claims that had already been shot down in state courts. That all of the fraud stuff is bullshit should have been obvious from soon after the beginning. The claim of fraud was made, but the evidence to justify the claims was a constantly revolving circus of nonsense. It shows they reached the position that fraud must have occurred not because they had evidence of fraud, but because they didn't like the result. I like how the courts have treated Trump so brutally. His thing is complete disregard of facts or reason. The courts are the polar opposite of that, so of course he failed utterly there. His normal modus operandi of dishonesty is something judges are there to destroy.

pfdietz 6y ago

I will add: repeating this lie would now be providing aid or comfort to an armed insurrection, a felony that can get you up to ten years in prison.