Courts have dismissed repeatedly because there’s either no claim of fraud or no credible evidence . I know you love to repeat this vapid talking point but you’re 100% completely wrong. But sure, I bow down before your special knowledge. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1346981586546266115 …
-
-
Talk about weasel words. courts won’t listen because there’s not enough evidence anything took place. A number of judges have said so, while dismissing on standing, if you actually bother to read it instead of continuing to repeat a talking point you’ve grown fond of.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Read just one court opinion. Jesus—it’s not that hard to live In reality. Just because all your bots agree with you and parrot everything you say, word for word, doesn’t mean you’re right.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant.
New conversation -
-
-
Respectfully, that’s not true. Courts have to dismiss up front if standing is lacking, but several have gone further to say that even if there was standing, the “evidence” presented is not sufficient to support a plausible claim. Wisconsin federal judge appointed by Trump did sohttps://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1337860375119884289 …
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What fraud evidence exactly? Show me the evidence that was presented showing a preponderance of fraud.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Uh, that’s not at all true.
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.