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.
-
-
>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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Dude, you're just blatantly lying now. I don't even see the point, as anyone who googles these cases and goes directly to the trial summaries (especially for the Ga case) can easily see how full of crap you are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Should be no problem for you to post a quote from one of these judgements about there being insufficient evidence if you've read the cases, right? Wonder why you didn't start with that instead of a vague "courts dismissed the cases". (because you're lying is why)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I really don't understand why you'd be so stupid as to make a claim like that knowing that I'd be able to, unless you're just completely ignorant about the topic outside of Newsmax segments. https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-case-in-chatham-ballot-dispute/YKBA6IYQKBB4JCSQEIJBQQT6QI/ …pic.twitter.com/ddpirLNC83
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
First, link to the case and not a media report - the important part isn't the words - it's the actual evidence. Second - some (D) judge throwing out a case has as much weight as saying that (D) poll workers counted the ballots and found, yep, their own count was correct.
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.