The Wisconsin claims were, in fact, considered on the merits & rejected https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/ …https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/biden-won-wisconsin-but-it-was-even-closer-than-reported/ …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Dan, did you do your own work on this or just posting other people’s work? Are you aware a lawsuit on WI election still pending at SCOTUS?https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/30/the-badger-states-ballot-fix-was-in/ …
1 reply 4 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
I've gone into quite a number of these things myself & found, every single time, that they were BS & the president & his supporters kept pushing BS. Andy has covered some of the areas I haven't. As for the Feehan case:https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-sidney-powells-election-fraud-petitions-without-further-comment/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
So you support unelected partisans in swing states violating or making up their own rules in contravention of state law and the Constitution. HR 1 codifies the illegalities, period.
1 reply 5 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
No, I do not support that. I oppose it, have for years. I have a forthcoming piece on proposed reforms. My argument, however, is that the evidence does not support the claim that this changed the outcome of the election.
10 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Dan, I appreciate the engagement but you’re wrong to conclude it didn’t affect the outcome because it’s unknowable
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @julie_kelly2
We're obviously not going to reach agreement on this, but I'm a lawyer. I live in the world of evidence and law. Yes, some things can't be traced. A fox in the snow may not leave visible tracks. But an elephant will.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @RogerThomas1288 @julie_kelly2
Facts aren't arrogant, they're facts. Declining to believe things that cannot be proven by evidence - or even shown to be sufficiently likely to be true by evidence - is not arrogance, it's reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @RogerThomas1288
“Judge, I know my client broke the law but the store he robbed is still in business so let’s forget this ever happened.”
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
"My client did not cause the plaintiff's damages" is a defense in virtually any civil lawsuit, even when the defendant committed some legal violation. It's foundational to Anglo-American law.
-
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.