4 ms·

Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?

by Nuzzerino 6y ago

unethical_ban 6y ago
You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
  - ahiknsr 6y ago
    > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
    - Nuzzerino 6y ago
      Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
      - pbourke 6y ago
        So that’s a no?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
        https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/ Maybe some of this stuff is debunked but they try to catalog it here.
      - jonwithoutanh 6y ago
        so no?
  - toast0 6y ago
    If the claim is the courts weren't willing to hear the evidence, then why not share this compelling evidence in the court of public opinion? All I've heard is claims that there is evidence, none of which has been shared. Or when it has been shared is not compelling.
brazzy 6y ago
Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.
standardUser 6y ago
Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.
walshemj 6y ago
Exactly what merit would this be based on?
croon 6y ago
The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.

Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?

unethical_ban 6y ago

You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?

Nuzzerino 6y ago
I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
- ahiknsr 6y ago
  > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
  - Nuzzerino 6y ago
    Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
    - pbourke 6y ago
      So that’s a no?
      - Nuzzerino 6y ago
        https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/ Maybe some of this stuff is debunked but they try to catalog it here.
    - jonwithoutanh 6y ago
      so no?
- toast0 6y ago
  If the claim is the courts weren't willing to hear the evidence, then why not share this compelling evidence in the court of public opinion? All I've heard is claims that there is evidence, none of which has been shared. Or when it has been shared is not compelling.

brazzy 6y ago

Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.

standardUser 6y ago

Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.

walshemj 6y ago

Exactly what merit would this be based on?

croon 6y ago

The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.