Stinkman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:15 am

Random Dude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 12:45 pm

Username Taken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 12:29 pm

Well, you have numerous lawsuits that team Trump lost because they failed to provide any proof at all,

Utter bullshit. List the court cases that actually went to trial and where evidence was allowed to be presented so we can review your claims. All the court cases filed to investigate the 2020 election results were not taken up by any courts due to "lack of standing". The person or group filing a lawsuit must first be able to prove they are the harmed party in order for the courts to proceed. But the evidence of election fraud is held by the people who committed the fraud. Election fraud is meant to be investigated by individual states, and the states that committed the fraud have corrupt Democrat governance that refused to take any action, as they were the same people who committed or allowed the fraud.


This is how "transparent ballot counting" was performed in Michigan in 2020, with ballot-counting observers locked out of the counting room "due to emergency Covid pandemic measures" and all glass windows papered-over so nobody locked outside could witness the vote count apparently "to save Democracy".

Oops! "Wisconsin 'lost track' of 82,000 cast paper ballots from storage when ordered to provide election integrity proof for court case preparation in 2021 in a state where Biden "won" by 20,000 votes:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/27/ ... -by-20000/

Uh huh.

For about 3 years now Trump and a few of his dingbat lawyers have been yelling about the kracken of evidence proving election fraud. They keep promising to release it any day now.... just you wait ... you'll see .... annny daaaay nowwwwww......
And yet they don't, not even a hint of what all that 'evidence' might be. Trump even promised to hold a press conference where he'd prove his case... yeah, he backed out of it. All this while his elected judges, his appointed officials, his advisors, other prominent Republicans, his hired experts and vote auditors all say he clearly lost.
www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/trump-cancel ... -advice-4/

The cases they took, or tried to take to court were largely nonsense with no actual evidence. I'm not interested enough to spend much time on this but a quick google search found this explainer of the individual cases and why they were shot down...

www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us- ... 793f0f6ab3

Flicking through it I had a bit of a laugh at this part, talking about the case heard by Judge Ludwig.

On December 12 – just two days before the electoral college voted – Judge Brett Ludwig rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit which sought to invalidate the result in Wisconsin.

Judge Ludwig, a Trump appointee, noted he had given the President an expedited hearing “on the merits of his claims”.

This is an interesting one. The defendants – a bunch of Wisconsin officials – argued the Trump campaign lacked standing to bring its case.

Judge Ludwig rejected that argument. He gave the campaign the hearing it wanted, where it was free to call witnesses and present evidence.

“On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the court,” Judge Ludwig continued.

This means essentially, an agreement between both party’s lawyers about what testimony witness would give and what facts would be established at a hearing.

In an article for the National Review, Republican legal expert Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor, explained it like this: “The morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case.

“The President’s counsel basically said, ‘Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof. We’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.’”

So, given a chance to put all that juicy evidence Mr Trump and Mr Giuliani had been talking about before the court, the campaign decided … not to. It just argued legal theory instead.

Judge Ludwig concluded that Mr Trump’s claims failed “as a matter of law and fact”.

“This is an extraordinary case,” he said (emphasis his).

“This court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”




This is the article summary....

"SO, IS DONALD TRUMP RIGHT?

To put it succinctly, no. The President’s explanation for his record in court does not hold up under scrutiny.

There are certainly isolated cases where judges did not consider the merits of the Trump campaign’s arguments. Specifically, he can point to the US Supreme Court, and that last decision I mentioned from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Otherwise, even when his campaign’s lawsuits have been rejected for technical reasons – such as a lack of standing, or the laches doctrine – judges have gone out of their way to address the merits of its arguments as well.

On multiple occasions, Mr Trump’s lawyers have been given the opportunity to present their much-hyped evidence in court, and have failed to do so.

When they have offered purported evidence of fraud, such as in Nevada and Michigan, judges have invariably found it unconvincing.

The President is certainly free to disagree with those judgments. But when he says judges refused to even hear the evidence, he is wrong."

Trump’s argument? There had to be fraud because he lost, evidence be damned.

Kenr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:21 am Trump’s argument? There had to be fraud because he lost, evidence be damned.

I'm not sure that even he believes it, he's had enough people close to him explain it to him, and apparently he has even admitted it a few times.

But he knows there are a certain type of people out there who will believe whatever he tells them. The noise from windmills causes cancer, injecting bleach will cure covid, forest fires are caused by not raking the forest etc.

Trump bragged confidently that he could shoot somebody and get away with it. And not lose any votes. That may be true. He knows his audience well and plays the hits.

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/5N6fUDes

rather than make a add that tells voters what he will do and what he represents
he trolls Biden>

what a fucking waste of donators $$$$

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:32 am

Random Dude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:22 am "injecting bleach will cure covid"

Speaking of people that will believe anything, can you show me the video where he says that?

During the debate, Biden referred to Trump's suggestion earlier this year that people inject bleach to help stave off the coronavirus.

"He said, ‘Don’t worry, it’s going to go away … maybe inject bleach.’ He said he was kidding when he said that. A lot of people thought it was serious," Biden said.
Trump did indeed speculate that an injection of the sort could have a curative effect.

During a news conference at the White House in April, a Homeland Security official described the ability of disinfectants like bleach to kill the coronavirus on surfaces.

Trump said at the time: "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... crd1244478

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:32 am

Random Dude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:22 am "injecting bleach will cure covid"

Speaking of people that will believe anything, can you show me the video where he says that?

As PR said, he didn't tell people to inject bleach. What he did was suggest on TV that it was a possible solution to covid. This lead to an increase in bleach related poisoning cases and health officials around the world having to warn people against injecting or injesting bleach.

PSA: Just in case it needs to be said, don't inject bleach people. It's not a cure for anything and will probably do severe damage to your bigly covfefe, and other vital organs.