"The Campaign never alleges that
You're lying about it, it upheld the district court ruling dismissing the entire case and denied trumps portion for leave to amend. They didn't actually appele the judges ruling dismissing the case just his descion to prevebt them from amending it.
Rudy actually commented on this on his podcast on his youtube channel. He basically says they were trying to get the witnesses to a hearing, and they weren't allowed to there, BUT luckily they were for the PA state legislature one. SO it counted.
uh... What are you even saying here? That just sounds like random gibberish. It counted? For what exactly? Because the only relevant case is now defunct, having been thrown out for... Well, every reason. Lack of standing, lack of evidence, failure to demonstrate damage caused by the one party to the other, and failure to demonstrate how the hoped for measure would address the imagined damages.
Uh...you mean it was turned down and is going to go higher. And there is still cases gong on in AZ and GA, MI, WI. Oh should I also mention that the PA state legislature which are Rep held, are going to do what the Gov did to them and bypass him to choose the EC and have them go for Trump? The Majority leader already said.
You know, there's basically no evidence presented in any of the cases. It's all the same things, and basically none of the cases even allege fraud. Neither Trump nor his allies is actually alleging fraud in a court where they could prove it. You can't add new evidence to a case on appeal, let alone change the entire basis of the complaint. This ridiculous idea that "They will take it to SCOTUS, and then they'll unleash their secret weapons of fraud allegations and proof!" is entirely separate from the reality of what's been presented in court, and how US law works.
What evidence is not fraud? Like SHOW me what evidence isn't! We have multiple cases showing valid evidence, we have multiple VIDEOS, PICTURES! AFFIDAVITS! I need you to prove all of this does not count. You are making baseless statements right now
Really? It's evidence? In which court case? Coz it looks like the answer is "None of them." Giulliani himself repeatedly specified in court that he wasn't alleging fraud. If the "evidence" showed what you think, as strongly as you think, why do you think none of the trained lawyers are willing to even try presenting it as such? Why do you think the garbage they are trying instead is being thrown out as such, by Trump appointed judges? If they had strong ecidence you lead with it.
I think it's simply easier to invalidate the fradulent election by proving "irregularities" instead of outright fraud. Irregularities allegations require proving that stuff didn't work as it was supposed to do, Fraud requires proving malicious intent by certain actors on top of it.
Oh there is malicious intent in various of these cases. it is just harder to get it to stick. WHat I have seen is at least Voter fraud
This is the peculiarity of the US justice system. Often enough it's better to get someone on a lesser charge you have better evidence for, instead of a much more serious charge that's risky and might result in the perp walking free if it fails.
Oh I understand. Why Zimmerman got off.
Still nothing to back up your claims of there being no voter fraud.
And even their attempts at that have been basically laughed out of court, by GOP or even Trump appointed judges. Who've repeatedly made the point that even if the irregularities claimed were entirely fraudulent and beneficial to Biden it wouldn't change the outcome. The case for what you claim is so weak that it's not even apparently worth presenting in court, it's weaker than the cases being laughed out of court.
Yeah, but they can't even get those weaker charges to stick. He'll, they can't even get the weaker charges taken seriously by what should be an entirely sympathetic court.
Wow, it's pretty incredible that you can achieve more in your own minds, where no particular evidentiary standards exist, compared to what Trumps lawyers can actually prove. Or, in fact, even allege with a straight enough face to bring up alongside claims that are getting them kicked out of court.
And, that's still not my job, and the laziest, saddest shifting of the burden of evidence I've seen in a long time. The extraordinary claim is that there was massive fraud. It's so extr in fact that even Trumps lawyers are careful to make clear they are not making such a claim in court. Because then they'd have to actually try and prove it, with evidence. Evidence they apparently don't have, but a random vs debate internet site does. Or, alternatively they've looked at the same shit you have, and realised it doesn't show what's claimed and they'd be laughed out of court even harder if they tried to use it.
I'm hearing what you're saying, and it further confirms you don't have a clue what you're talking about. A criminal case is held to the standard of reasonable doubt. A civil case is judged on the balance of probability. Regardless, these cases aren't even making it to the stage where that's relevant. They're being summarily dismissed on myriad grounds, by what should be "friendly" courts, because anyone who knows anything about law is basically doing Bender's "laugh harder" bit from futurama.
That's such a typical complete failure to respond from "you people."