There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: rnaa

Haven't you heard ? Mainstream media is filling your head with lies?
Hello? No evidence to even a single one of those conspiracy theories.
And even if he was guilty on all counts I doubt it would warrant the
psychotic hate on average. Get a life and stop regurgitating the obvious
mainstream lies to excuse the absurdity of your baseless hate. You
can't even be happy that you're about to get exactly that for which
you bargained?

Snap out of it partner before you wreck yourself.

Looks like their heads are lie jars. They just make up crimes for Trump that never have happened and cannot be proved. They gravel at the feet of traitors and then complain about how bad things are. Really sickening people to watch. I think you're wasting your time trying to convince these poorly damaged individuals. They're in on the corruption.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Never mistake a courts decision with the truth.

For the record, the courts did not say there was no evidence. They refused to hear the case which means they never saw the evidence. As for the burden of proof, they need only convince the court there is at least a 50% chance it happened. I think that could be done quite easily. Its not a lack of evidence, its something else.

OJ walked and there was more DNA evidence against him than there ever was for thousands of people currently in prison for murder. Why? Because the courts got scared. Look what was happening in this country just over the fact that OJ got arrested. Which was a foregone conclusion after that clown show slow motion chase. Everyone knew it was going to happen and riots still broke out.

We have had riots going for months now and some areas are still out of control. The courts are afraid to set off these low forehead mouth breathing slug brained idiots even more. The party of peace love and acceptance has been running amok for quite a while now and no one is stopping them. Admitting that this election was rigged would be throwing gasoline on a fire and everybody knows it. This is not the first time a court or legislative body backed out of a decision out of fear. And it won't be the last.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Looks like their heads are lie jars. They just make up crimes for Trump that never have happened and cannot be proved. They gravel at the feet of traitors and then complain about how bad things are. Really sickening people to watch. I think you're wasting your time trying to convince these poorly damaged individuals. They're in on the corruption.

Oh I agree that trying to convince a never Trumper that this
all to obvious conspiracy against the POTUS. Is 1oo% corruption
driving a soft coupe. Is like asking a thief to go find a cop.

originally posted by: Khurzon


But...as Einstein pointed out, in our 3d world, there are these little "spooky" things that sometimes happen outside the normal play of reality, which do not conform to ideals on a 2d piece of written litigation or Logic....

Mickey Einstein? It wasn't Albert.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Khurzon


But...as Einstein pointed out, in our 3d world, there are these little "spooky" things that sometimes happen outside the normal play of reality, which do not conform to ideals on a 2d piece of written litigation or Logic....

Mickey Einstein? It wasn't Albert.

Pardon me... I assumed one word would be enough, and we know what is said about assuming... "Spooky"

a reply to: johnnylaw16

For the most part Trump's cases are being dismissed without being heard (with political reasons likely in some cases). In the case of the Supreme Court, the SC is the court of original jurisdiction for disputes between the states. So yes, the Supreme Court would hear evidence for the first time in such a case, if they had accepted it. Instead the SC refused to hear the case claiming that Texas "lacked standing" to bring the case. Many experienced lawyers know that 'standing' is often a bogus excuse of fairly recent invention that modern Courts like to use to clear their docket, or to avoid a public controversy that the court is anxious about deciding. Texas obviously has an interest in Presidential elections being held legally and without fraud in all of the other participating states. How does such an interest NOT provide 'standing'?

a reply to: LTJosserand

Sure, Trump appointed judges are dismissing cases for political reasons.

The judges in these cases considered the evidence presented and found that it did not merit going to trial. This is what judges do. This is what the Supreme Court did.

The "evidence" does not justify any claims, much less seeking to overturn votes that have been certified.

They didn't just say that Texas lacked standing, SCOTUS said that even if the case had been heard (which Alito thought it should be) the elections of four sovereign states would not have been overturned because Texas or Trump didn't like the outcome.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The judges in these cases considered the evidence presented and found that it did not merit going to trial.

The evidence is not being opened.
Thats what is happening.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Just because a judge is appointed by a given leader does not mean the judge will always decide in favor of that leader. I know that the "top-down" hierarchical thinkers of the Democratic persuasion may find this concept difficult to digest. Consider the example of Justice Suter, who was appointed by Bush Sr. yet who sided with the liberal Justices in nearly all SC cases, including the Bush v. Gore case re: Florida recount in the 2000 election, where Suter voted against the Bush Jr side.

You say the judges considered the evidence, but there is little sign of this and it's merely your own speculation when you claim to know what a given judge truly considered. It's a fact that none of these judicial defeats involved a full hearing of all the evidence of election fraud, and that evidence (much of it from sworn eyewitnesses) is quite substantial in both quality and quantity. And the evidence questions more than enough votes to overturn the claimed result in all 4 states.

The argument has nothing to do with the states being sovereign or because Trump didn't like the results. It concerns the fact that the 4 states (and others) put the validity and constitutionality of the 2020 Presidential election into great doubt due to their multitude of last-minutes changes to voting rules to allow massive use of insecure mail-in ballots with most of the traditional verification checks deliberately removed for those ballots (but not for in-person voters). Furthermore, all of these changes were made by state officials other than the state legislatures, which are clearly the only bodies permitted to make such voting rule changes under the US Constitution. The evidence of fraud in voting counting is too extensive to repeat here but a major clue is that (unlike past elections) Republican observers were illegally prevented from having an effective view of the voting counting process in key precincts and especially during key late night hours when large shipments of new ballots were delivered (long past the cutoff times) while other ballot caches were retrieved from hidden locations, and when Biden's vote totals suddenly skyrocketed in a very odd and statistically unlikely manner. This is the information that Democrats and their media allies have been so desperate to suppress, ridicule and keep out of public discourse.

a reply to: LTJosserand

"Aye...Tha' be the Trrrruth Laddie!"