Trump never got an evidentiary hearing.
Complaining about slow vote count?
- Thread starter Port Tack
- Start date
Trump never got an evidentiary hearing.
There was no evidence of fraud and the lawsuits didn’t claim fraud because the lawyers presenting the cases for Trump knew there was no evidence of fraud.
“According to the Washington Post here , instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...aud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Massachusetts now has mail-in voting, early voting, and is pretty much always done by 11PM on election night.
(I still vote on election day because what the fuck else do I have to do?)
It's simply a matter of how many resources are applied to counting the vote.
On that same subject, I've never waited in line to vote for more than fifteen minutes, either, and that's going back to 1968.
Some people in red states have to wait for hours.
You can do it right or do it half-assed.
That's to what it really amounts.
(I still vote on election day because what the fuck else do I have to do?)
It's simply a matter of how many resources are applied to counting the vote.
On that same subject, I've never waited in line to vote for more than fifteen minutes, either, and that's going back to 1968.
Some people in red states have to wait for hours.
You can do it right or do it half-assed.
That's to what it really amounts.
Maybe they should wake up and understand they have a fucked up system
Hand counting is the type of counting that takes the longest. You said this-
Are you saying your statement is BS since I am only using YOUR words that you now seem to think are not backed up.
Your old talking points are stupid? That seems to be a given.
Rank choice voting will always result in a candidate where at least 50% of the voters support that candidate. That might not be a bad thing.
You think whatever you say is a given. Even a person with limited intelligence know it does not work that way, so why don't you?
I stand by what I said and you cannot change it.
You stand by your bullshit? OK.
You stand by your bullshit?
Why would he? He was devoid of evidence. That is all the courts asked from him. He had zip. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...aud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1 The fact is there was plenty of evidence and testimony that it was a fair and honest election.
Last edited:
He did not because when cases are dismissed they lose their chance of getting that very hearing. Get a lawbook fuckface.
The judges asked him directly for evidence to continue the case. That was his opportunity to present evidence or any case at all. He had none. The judges tossed them out and criticized Trump's people for wasting the court's time. You are wrong, of course.
Prove it. I'll wait. And I am not wrong. When a case is dismissed it means they will never get an evidentiary hearing. FACT.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Coldie: When the judges in court proceedings asked Rudy or whomever to repeat their claim there was fraud, they refused to. You know why? They can say any lie in public but cannot commit perjury in court. You really don't know this? You're really sticking to your MAGA story there was fraud? You poor thing.
Was it an evidentiary hearing? The answer is no. Please link to the proceeding and prove what you say. I do not expect you to prove anything.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
You poor trump worshipper
Dispute what I said you POS. Your name calling only proves you have nothing but propaganda and perpetuated lies. Come back when you have something with substance. Guess I won't see you again.