re: Trump's court cases: have they had chance to present their evidence in a complete fashion?

The attorneys for Trump never presented the evidence because there was none. So of course they threw them out right away. It was all on conspiracy theories and stuff floating around on the Internet. Once trumps attorneys got to the court room, they knew they couldn’t lie as they would go to jail. This is why the SC shot in down in 2 seconds. Not one attorney in 60 tries could show evidence to a court that could be shown to the Supreme Court. Of course they weren’t gonna waste their time with that. Most attorneys aren’t willing to go to jail for Trump/get disbarred. I don’t understand why this is so hard for yall to understand... and spare me all the allegations BS... if any of those allegations were true their would be more evidence to prove those allegations. That shite doesn’t fly in court if you know anything about the court of law.

quote:

---

So if they find 100% proof that this whole thing was a sham, it no longer matters? In a legal sense they are unable to actually do anything?

---

quote:

---

Basically.

---

By "basically" I think you meant it's basically BULLfrickINGSHIT

Yes. The entire legal strategy of Democrats was to run out the clock.

quote:

---

The attorneys for Trump never presented the evidence because there was none. So of course they threw them out right away.

---

That isn't what happened, everyone had full access to the Michigan SoS database to see dead people were voting in mass.

quote:

---

Not one attorney in 60 tries could show evidence to a court that could be shown to the Supreme Court.

---

There was evidence there just was no trial.

Not sure what you are getting at, even the federal judge in Wood's case said they directive had been given to them not to basically interfere unless it was very specific in nature.

I would be fine with 4 years of Biden if it led to real election reform...sadly, it ain't gonna happen

quote:

---

What in the actual frick are you babbling about?

---

About how you mom isn't that good.

quote:

---

Maybe you should hire actual lawyers rather than Kraken spouting hucksters

---

still implying there's no evidence

quote:

---

They probably never envisioned multiple state legislatures changing procedure and that the supreme court would refuse to hear it at all

---

I'm guessing you're referring to the multiple states which allowed Elector selection procedures to be changed unconstitutionally by officials OTHER than their legislatures. That SCOTUS would not hear those cases is only slightly less troubling than the fact that those States' legislatures let their authority be usurped and didn't vigorously press their cases prior to the election.

quote:

---

In suits they filed seeking a TRO, one of the things the courts look at is the requesting party’s likelihood of success on the merits.

Not sure what you mean by present their evidence in a complete fashion, but they attached affidavits and exhibits to these TRO filings. The state also submitted their responses with contradictory evidence or argument discrediting the affidavits or exhibits filed by the movers.

The courts reviewed the evidence and denied the TRO. I think one may have been granted regarding preservation of evidence or voting machines

---

this is a really good summary. it has been said that rudy and co never claimed fraud. well, evidence of fraud was most certainly submitted.

the evidence was never weighed in and of itself. it was always weighed in terms of procedure or standing or merit. iow, do the allegations have the weight to accomplish what the plaintiffs are asking. that's why the challengers tried some of the allegations multiple times over with different language to get the evidence into a court case.

in many cases, the plaintiffs asked for a halt to counting for investigation or an audit, etc. these motions were denied due to various reasons but the allegations were NEVER ordered to be investigated. and there is no reason whatsoever to deny a motion to halt counting for investigation. no reason. it doesn't matter if the judge felt that the officials or counters followed proper state procedure. that allegation needs to be investigation and counting stopped until it has been completed in full

that's why i've been saying that the judges set the bar impossibly high when for election purposes, the bar should have been the floor. we're not talking about dog catcher. we're talking about freaking POTUS. it matters. and yes i would want the same thing if the challenges were brought by the opposition party. i want to make damn sure the person we're about to put in the chair absolutely deserves to be there.

now the left is running around saying "you lost in court" making the courts the final decision on election fraud when the judges were clear they didn't want the courts to be the final decision on election fraud. stupidity