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

quote:

---

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

---

The courts never allowed any case to come to trial because everything they came with was just feelings and not facts! Judges really don't give a shite about how you FEEL! If you have evidence that suggests widespread fraud they would allow it. If you come with "feelings" and "he said, she said" they're like GTFO. Even Trump appointed judges. I don't know why thats so hard to understand???

Evidence necessary to meet the standard to defeat an initial motion to dismiss is intentionally set rather "light". 9 times out of 10 affadavit(s) are plenty good enough to meet the plaintiff's burden at that preliminary stage. Typically the plaintiff meets the light burden which in turn leads to the all-important discovery stage. It's a rare thing for a plaintiff to have the bulk of his evidence bagged and ready to go prior to discovery processes. In fact, more often than not the plaintiff secures his best evidence during that subsequent discovery stage.

Long story short, the judges held the plaintiffs in these matters to a cartoonish stringent standard for an initial motion to dismiss, the intentions being to derail the cases before plaintiffs could have secured much, much better evidence, as it typically goes. It was all an embarrassing and disgusting show of jurisprudential service.