4 ms·

> Their legal cases are rejected. Not-an-American here. When their cases seek to disenfranchise large swathes of voters based on zero evidence, what’s the alte

• Nightshaxx 6y ago
  But there are some suspicious looking numbers and events that happened. I personally don't believe that they are true, but why not just investigate them? People distrust dominion voting systems; Just allow a bipartisan audit. People think certain votes were counted without both parties present; just recount those votes. Where is the harm in just being absolutely sure of things? If you just shut down people because there is no absolutely solid, undisputed evidence, they just think you are hiding something.
  • Tokkemon 6y ago
    Every state already did that. There is no evidence of widespread fraud. Georgia, in particular, was crystal clear about this.
  • jansanchez 6y ago
    They have recounted the votes in Georgia like 2 or 3 times. Wisconsin was also recounted once. I didn't check the other states.
• Ancapistani 6y ago
  It’s slightly more complicated than that. First, the position of the plaintiffs of those cases is that the actions of the “other half” have effectively disenfranchised them. If disenfranchisement is the issue at hand, it follows that one should investigate when someone claims to have been disenfranchised. Second, every case that I’ve followed up on has been denied on the grounds of standing. My understanding is that this means that either the court believes that there was no harm or that the court believes that there is no reasonable way the outcome of the case could provide relief for harm that may have taken place. Either way, to my knowledge, none of the court cases have actually been heard. No evidence has been presented and no arguments have been made.
  • sjg007 6y ago
    There is no evidence.
    • mlindner 6y ago
      I mean with even the briefest of searches you can find numerous (maybe doctored) photos alleging various crimes around this election. Yes maybe they were very narrow edge cases and maybe the photos were doctored, but there's easy enough to find "evidence". But we don't know if that's actually evidence or not, because it hasn't been heard in a court (they'd have to commit perjury to try to submit fraudulent evidence).
    • throwaway33292 6y ago
      https://navarroreport.com/ https://navarroreport.com/ You’ve heard of this report, correct? Or the paper written by John Lott of the DOJ? There is evidence, but it sounds like you’ve only heard contradictions (not rebuttals) and rhetoric designed to avoid factual debate, as evidenced by your comments in this thread.
  • lanstin 6y ago
    Evidence has not been presented but it has been solicited. When the courts asked for evidence the President’s lawyers have reduced their claims from fraud or illegal voting to irregularities unsupported by evidence which was asked for. E.g. the case where they said R observers were kept out and then they had to admit that R observers where present. The judge confirmed that and then found for the defense.
  • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    >Second, every case that I’ve followed up on has been denied on the grounds of standing. Also laches. One I followed because it was in my state and I know a lawyer involved was out right dismissed, but the judge was extremely forthcoming that this just wasn't appropriate for their court and issued an immediate appellate number and got that process going. Later in the media, I read how "Another Trump Fraud Case Tossed Out Of Court" which was at best disingenuous and at worst something else. I still have no idea if the case had any merit! Probably not of course it was denied later a appeal, but that's the point. If you thought there was wrongdoing, from your point of view this doesn't help. I don't agree of course, but I get the perspective.
• briandear 6y ago
  It wasn’t “zero evidence.” Hundreds of signed affidavits are by definition, evidence. If the evidence rises to a high enough standard, that’s a question for the courts, however, “zero” evidence is simply not true.