2 ms·

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 disenfr

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.

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.