Can anyone point to a Court that actually looked at the election fraud evidence.??

Dipshit said:
You don't know how the burden of proof works, do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, that the one making the accusation must provide the proof to back it up, so far you have shown nothing but accusations and Zero proof, just like trump and his legal team. The only one you are fooling is yourself.
 
It was more than the 60 court cases that Trump's terrible lawyers walked in empty-handed, but state courts were used before that. Truimpies sued to stop the terrible fraud. The judges said, "show us the proof' of fraud." Trump layers said we have none, but we know it exists. That is bigfoot proof, not court proof.
 
PERCAS said:
Yes, that the one making the accusation must provide the proof to back it up, so far you have shown nothing but accusations and Zero proof, just like trump and his legal team. The only one you are fooling is yourself.
Click to expand...

I have made no "accusation".

I echoed a question initially asked by the OP, and you have failed to present anything but news articles and opinion pieces citing quotations devoid of context and procedural validity.
 
Nerdberg said:
It was more than the 60 court cases that Trump's terrible lawyers walked in empty-handed, but state courts were used before that. Truimpies sued to stop the terrible fraud. The judges said, "show us the proof' of fraud." Trump layers said we have none, but we know it exists. That is bigfoot proof, not court proof.
Click to expand...

Is that a citation, or your amateurish version of events, Nerdberg?
 
Dipshit said:
I have made no "accusation".

I echoed a question initially asked by the OP, and you have failed to present anything but news articles and opinion pieces citing quotations devoid of context and procedural validity.
Click to expand...
Oh, so do you now claim there was no fraud or steal?
 
no worries said:
60 courts rejected crazy eyes and the looney woman's claims of election fraud because they have no evidence, hearsay isn't evidence, that is lack of standing.

Just like most of Dotard's claims, he can't prove them, if Dotard shows up in court claiming he's a billionaire, he needs financial documents or bank statements to prove it.

So, when crazy eyes makes his opening statement of voter fraud, why didn't he bring in ONE eyewitness, a poll worker, a teabagger observer of the count or any employee of Dominion?

In 60 court cases, crazy eyes couldn't bring one witness to testify?

They aren't that stupid, they didn't want to go to jail or prison.
Click to expand...

Also, the simplistic mantras the Trump chumps spew to their idiot mass follwers is NOT the same lanuage in court. They know better, yet STILL got the boot because their premise had no credible cause for a court case. Trump chumps will just wail "hoax" and such before trundling off into the horizon.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
From your previous post.

"The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court."
Click to expand...

No wonder all the major law offices refused to take Trump's cases and he had to dig deep in the chasm of idiocy to select incompetent attorneys Rudi Giuliani and Sydney (release the Kraken) Powell to take his cases.

iu
 
Taichiliberal said:
Also, the simplistic mantras the Trump chumps spew to their idiot mass follwers is NOT the same lanuage i court. They know better, yet STILL got the boot because their premise had no credible cause for a court case. Trump chumps will just wail "hoax" and such before trundling off into the horizon.
Click to expand...

So true. When Trump says "Voter Fraud", his minions say "Voter Fraud".

When Trump says "Hoax", his sycophants say "Hoax".

When Trump says "Drink the Clorox"...well, you know...

iu
 
Text actually thinks you go to courts and make a claim and it is the court's job to disprove it. He is working with so little.
 
Legion said:
:rofl2:

DEMOCRATS claimed that the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections were "stolen", grandpa, and they still do.

Now, all of a sudden, that's not allowed?
Click to expand...

path little guy on the head just go out and play in the traffic you'll be okay eventually
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
They all just refused to hear the cases citing crap like "lack of standing". The fake news press says courts have rejected all claims of electoral fraud but that's a brazen lie. The courts know the election was stolen and don't want to admit the truth and be crucified by the press.
Click to expand...

The election fraud lawsuits were fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top