Again, before parroting this absolutely insane stupidity, why don't you read up on how this claim was eviscerated in court, once the standards of evidentiary scrutiny and testimony under oath were applied to it.
-
-
Replying to @mongymongmongy @martyrmade
What "claim"? I watched it happen in real time. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @nan_point @martyrmade
Oh, random anonymous internet stranger? All of the video footage, wtiness testimony under oath, documentation, etc. was scrutinized thoroughly for the judicial record, and those claims were torn apart, but you saw otherwise? Where were you when they needed you on the stand?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Wow, if the claims were "scrutinized and torn apart" you should be able to point to exactly what this devastating evidence that destroyed the claims was, right? Doctored videos in all those states? Mass hallucination about simultaneous pauses in the counts? Please let us know.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The videos weren't "doctored"--it's what Trump's team claimed truncated clips of those videos showed that was false. ALL of the footage, sworn testimony, documentation, etc. was reviewed in court, where, unlike on Fox, people can't lie w/ impunity w/o risking consequences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
>ALL of the footage, sworn testimony, documentation, etc. was reviewed in court Just factually wrong. None of this was "reviewed in court" - none of the cases got to the point where factual findings were made. Which specific case was dismissed after an evidentiary hearing?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
LOL, what a disingenuous thing to post to fool people who don't know how trials work. Why did these cases not make it that far, again? You know the answer, and that answer is actually even more damning.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, you see one of us here is a liar and it's you. No court "heard evidence and dismissed it" they all manipulated procedural outcomes to come up with excuses as to why the cases shouldn't be heard and then you imply that it's b/c of insufficient evidence b/c you're a liar.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
You're the one either lying or completely ignorant about the way trials work. Evidence was absolutely reviewed during the GA case speficially (including footage) and many of the other frivolous Trump cases. This is easily verified by anyone who cares to read the proceedings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mongymongmongy @CovfefeAnon and
It's just that the cases they built were so empty and clearly full of false info after review that they couldn't even make it past the early stages. Your assertion that this was due to manipulation even by all the conservative and even Trump appointed judges is derranged.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is a straight up lie - "the early stages" aren't evidentiary hearings. There aren't partial evidentiary hearings - "well, let's hear *some* evidence to see if we can proceed". Every case was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.