Will antifa / BLM commit acts of violence in the future??? 100% they will

If a state is saying there was no fraud, does the federal government have a right to say "we don't believe you - show us all the data you reviewed to conclude that"? -- that's what Trump's lawyers were requesting from the state legislatures

@Friedrich, you just advanced to level 2!

When Trump lost they said eh let’s go to the courts. Lost in courts they said state legislatures can rig this thing. That didn’t work they said VP can just seize power. No US congress can just steal the election. No wait riots determine the winner. There’s never been a goalpost that cannot be moved. Don’t pretend any amount of facts or news reporting was preventing another delusion

@Beth thats copyrighted

Lmao

Mail in ballots illegal in Wisconsin.

It is in fact possible for courts to get rulings wrong (when they choose to hear a case). Is BLM crowd justified in being upset with courts ruling guilty on defendants with planted evidence? Of course.

Threats or gutless judges???

I remember reading one of the fact checks on the dominion vote switching conspiracy saying "it can't possibly be true because Republicans will win the GA runoff" - then both seats went blue 😆

@Beth gotta hire Guliani maybe he can win one case

He did good for New York back in the day, I like to remember the good things

Of course, Trump suppressed voter turn out with all fraud allegations... still made me chuckle though. I think a lot of the fact checks are true but some of them seem biased.

Yes he did.. he clean the city

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire again they presented almost no fraud cases. The evidence they did provide was such trash they got laughed out of court. All these claims that were at the hearing were either unverifiable claims or have been debunked. There is no case. The courts did not get these rulings wrong. “Let the courts decided”- Giuliani . There is a reason they didn’t pursue the evidence route of fraud. It’s because the did not have any.

And I think we need someone to do that again, in various places across the country

I simply disagree that that was the case. I don’t believe they had a fair hearing in these states and the judges were under great duress, and felt they had no standing to overturn an entire election despite the facts presented.

It simply means the judges are out for themselves.

Post less and read more statutes.

@Kaptain Tailhook, you just advanced to level 3!

I think Trump lawyers and witnesses had suspicions of fraud based on publicly available data - they wanted to gather more data during discovery but cases were thrown out. No idea if they have a right to do that - I can see it might look like fishing.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire then present a specific court case

@Beth he did with a strong crime apprehension policy.. but now if the government is to strong in crime base places they get accused of abuse of power

They said there was mountains of evidence but they couldn’t show anyone the evidence until court. Then in court there was nothing. They said they couldn’t present their evidence in court and then again refused to show evidence. They trotted some fake shit that couldn’t hold up in court before some state congresses. Still waiting for that evidence of “obvious fraud”. 😂

standing when used in these cases were not used on fraud cases @AdvanceManExtraordinaire Texas and Pennsylvania were not fraud cases

In Pennsylvania, the court system had the duty to enforce the rules and throw out votes that were not cast and counted according to the procedures set forth by their constitution. They simply failed to do so and did not throw out these votes.

If it can fool me it can fool a judge just isn’t a legal basis for proving fraud

That is true. We just need some consistency. Everything is so politicised. It’s not good for anyone

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire penn was not a fraud case

Supposing there was fraud in a state election, and supposing all voters in that state are fine with it - does the federal gov have a right to contest it?

@Beth everything is in video and social media is streaming live the news .

Why would all the voters in a state be fine with fraud

No they don’t. However in this case the voters were not fine with it.

Also rule changes were made in Texas and nc, the Trump team for some reason didn’t go after them @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

thanks, just curious 🙂

I don’t think that’s a thing 😂 are the all the same party or something

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire he lost by the same machines he won in 2016.

I don’t think they should be faulted for that. Why should they sue in states they won when their goal is to pursue the legitimate outcome of the election?

Just saying everything I don’t like is fraud without evidence isn’t a thing that will garner credibility

Yep, the fact that he won in 2016 does seem to invalidate a lot of the conspiracy theories (other than the massive mail in voting and alleged lack of accurate signature verification)

The allegation is that the voting machines can be programmed to do whatever you want, or give access to third parties to do whatever they want. Not that their programmed to make people named trump lose.