quote:
I don’t pretend anything. It’s a fact not enough evidence was found to overturn the results in any state.

You’re pretending like that’s not a fact.

I'm generally sympathetic to your point of view. However, this rebuttal doesn't sway me much.

It's my understanding that there are strict time limits on presenting evidence to challenge an election. In this case I think there was compelling evidence, but it wasn't gathered until 6 months or more after the election.

The problem is that I think those time limits are in place to reduce the degree of disruption caused if an election ever is overturned, and I get the reasoning on that. If something like that is going to happen you want to deal with it preferably before the candidate is sworn in.

However, the cost of that thinking is that if it takes some time to gather compelling evidence, you're SOL.

It seems at some point our country decided that we preferred to err on the side of reducing instability rather than seeking the truth of an election. We'd rather have a stable but stolen election than the truth producing an unstable situation.

In any case, I view the, "Well, all the courts struck down the legal attempts to throw out votes" not as necessarily being proof that it didn't happen. I view it like a piece of evidence that the rules of evidence don't allow to be presented that, if it were presented, would likely change the outcome of the ruling.

Just like the recent Danny Masterson re-trial.

This post was edited on 8/15/23 at 8:06 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jon Ham

Member since Jun 2011

28631 posts

Posted on 8/15/23 at 8:14 am to wackatimesthree

Just because a court refuses to see the evidence doesn’t preclude the evidence from being shown to the public via other methods. If Trump was serious about 2020 being stolen, and he had evidence that the courts simply wouldn’t look at, he would do something like have a website outlining all of it for the public to see.

After listening to the testimony of those in Trump’s camp, and reading the facts in the 2020 Election indictment, it’s clear Trump and his team were not simply following the evidence. Trump’s agenda, before the results even started coming in, was to claim victory no matter what. If the official results said he lost, he was going to claim fraud then try to make the case, not look for evidence and then build the case from there. When fraud wasn’t substantiated, he tried to use a crackpot theory that his VP could close his eyes and cover his ears on January 6 and that would let him stay in office and result in some sort of constitutional crisis which he could leverage.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board