Another day, another.....
View attachment 498387
Another day, another.....
Another day, another.....
View attachment 498387
There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.
Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?
Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".
So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.
What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?
Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.
Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?
NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?
No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.
Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!
By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.
You write as if you were there in the court. Were you? Clearly not, or you would know better than to write nonsense.
You see, for the most part, Trump's lawsuits did not allege widespread fraud because there was never any evidence to substantiate that claim. That's why they argued on smaller issues like the vote counting process or which ballots should or should not be counted, or the vague claim of unfairness. Even then, the lawyers failed to present evidence to back up their assertions.
[According to the Washington Post
here , instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence.
“The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. (
here ). At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy.
Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."]
Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...
www.reuters.com