So, lay out the evidence. We were often promised, by Trump's foes, that unnamed sources were just over the next hill bearing smoking guns that never quite arrived. Why rely on the same m.o. now if you have the goods?https://twitter.com/ericmetaxas/status/1330146002037338113 …
How do you address the argument that litigants generally don't want to clue the opposing side onto their evidence until they have to? I'd have expected you to make a preemptive strike of that argument. Then, = QED that they don't have the evidence. Why would they tip hand early?
-
-
-
It occasionally works for defendants in criminal trials or arbitrations. But even in arbitration, they've tightened the rules on that sort of thing. It never, ever works if you're the plaintiff or prosecutor.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That makes no sense. If the evidence is irrefutable, any argument the other side can make will not be able to knock it down. Dominion aside, Rudy said “I can prove Trump won PA by 300,000 and MI by 50,000”. None of what’s in court in those states even claims that. Proof?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That’s not how lawsuits in civil courts work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s not how it works in federal court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.