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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
lol Way to move the goalposts. You literally asked for a judgement that dismissed the evidence. Sad! And that quote is a direct excerpt of the judgement, genius. Quit embarrassing yourself.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mongymongmongy @CovfefeAnon and
And, btw, the plaintiff's evidence was dismissed because it turned out to be total BS once all the people involved were called to give sworn statements.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
>was dismissed because You don't get to make claims about why something was dismissed without linking the actual decision.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.