a big part of it is that the Trump legal team has decided to take a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. so they are filing simultaneous, redundant (somewhat) lawsuits in state and federal courts

The NV case showed that... Trump campaign lawyers brought forth their best witnesses and experts and they did not stand up well under cross examination during their depositions.

'But...it's so much that *some* of it must be true, right?'

That's the whole idea.

Rejected.

kind of like if I throw enough manure on these weeds they'll turn into flowers

Thank you for all of the responses. I am not versed in legal so it's been a bit confusing for me.

I personally just assumed, you're asking those who helped commit fraud, persecute themselves, it's not going to happen. But thats a lot simpler of an idea than all of the court information I am struggling lol

@Beast, you just advanced to level 1!

How long til those two are disbarred?

It would have to be malfeasance or something. They're just morons.

they're not going to be disbarred ... at least not for what we've seen so far in court

Fair point. Who knows that they were doing behind the scenes to put these case crackers together. Lol

I don't think they were that out of line just incompetent

Does anyone have an estimate of how much all these suits have cost?

@jfindley, you just advanced to level 9!

How much they cost or how much they are robbing trump supporters?

It may begin to make sense if you consider for a moment that President Trump telling his supporters for 7 months that there would be massive fraud created an environment where by 11/3 it was a forgone conclusion that the fix was in. On the other side, Dems were certain he would claim victory before the mail-in votes were counted and election workers were on edge anticipating delay tactics by Trump's supporters. It created a perfect storm.

Trump's supporters saw every act as a potential attempt at fraud, every worker as a potential suspect, and every ballot as being illegal until proven otherwise. Poll and election workers were on edge because they were working in a fish bowl and perceived that every interaction was an attempt to prevent them from getting work done.

We have dueling confirmation biases that ended up amplifying each other.

Just the cost.

That's hard to say but way less than the hundreds of millions they got

They arent going to say publically lol

So are affidavits not strong evidence?

not robbery, they gave money voluntary

Yeah, I'm just ball-parking here based on gross assumptions and complete fabrication of numbers in many places, but I'd figure somewhere in the 10-20 million range, grand total.

You can have people give you money voluntarily from a scam and be robbing then. This is legal but I mean ethical robbery

Televangelists. Nothing more.

In every sense.

Salvation is at hand!
(send money)

it is evidence, yes ... the strength of which is determined in court under cross-examination ... of course that would be done in trial and first the case must survive the pre-trial motion hearings

What I'm really curious to know, is... Does our POTUS and these hot-shot lawyers really take what they find on the 'chans, and run with it to the tune of publicly humiliating themselves while raking in tons of money?

I mean, is that really how all of this work? "The 'chans say fraud happened. Let's sue literally_everybody and make a big show of it."

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Alot of info

Affidavits is just testimony they arent under actual threat of perjury. They can run the gambit from UFO abductions to internet comments to complaining to a manager at Jcpenney to eyewitness to a crime to an expert in a field. Perjury comes in when you like intentionally lie in a murder trial or something.

They haven't presented any evidence... They're doing their damnedest to not. Pretty sure they're just grifters who know they've got nothing but aggregation of other better law suits. Which means they'll never be disbarred since their claims won't be falsified in court.

yep and the guy appointed by Trump to look at all this the last 4 years was fired when his conclusions weren't the ones that Trump desired

They have put forward witnesses and experts in some of these

Yeah, and then appealed before they could have an evidentiary hearing.

Grifters gonna grift. I say, God bless.

Do you have an example when that took place?

They still said heres out experts heres their qualifications and studies and statements judge it on its merit

The only evidentiary hearing I'm aware of is the one in PA where the judge granted it along with an injunction on certification, but then a circuit judge tossed that decision.

I think AZ they had witnesses come up I saw