The 2020 U.S. Election Irregularities.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Supreme Court rejects election challenge brought by Texas

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-election-challenge/

Major blow to Trump :eek:

Shock! They rejected their case that had no evidence and didn't make any sense?!
Who could have predicted that?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Shock! They rejected their case that had no evidence and didn't make any sense?!
Who could have predicted that?

I will reply just this time to point out that you don't know what your talking about
It was a constitutional matter
And Texas had no standing according to the court

No evidence of fraud of which there is plenty was required

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

No evidence of fraud of which there is plenty was required

Cool.
So where is this evidence and why have they not presented it?

Cause it looks awfully like the evidence doesn't exist?

How many more of these challenges will he have to lose before you realise this?

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

I will reply just this time to point out that you don't know what your talking about
It was a constitutional matter
And Texas had no standing according to the court

No evidence of fraud of which there is plenty was required

Weird that they never provided any court with credible proof of that fraud...

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Weird that they never provided any court with credible proof of that fraud...

The Texas case didn't even allege fraud. They tried a spurious constitutional argument that got rightly dismissed out of hand.

King Mob

namloc1980 wrote: »

The Texas case didn't even allege fraud. They tried a spurious constitutional argument that got rightly dismissed out of hand.

I'm curious how Enno and other Trump supports make sense of this.

Did they make the argument knowing that it would get dismissed out of hand, but hope that the supreme court would have ruled in their favour anyway, since Trump had appointed 3 of them?

Or is the idea that now even the supreme court is in on the conspiracy against Trump and falsely ruled that they should dismiss it out of hand.

And again, I'm utterly perplexed why they aren't using the evidence they say they have. And I am curious how the true believers explain this also.

enno99

Evidence show me evidence

Where is the evidence

Constant harping on about it

This dingbats reaction sums it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rs9gkMFwuU

Short clip you can start at 2 min if you dont like Youtube or are short on time

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Evidence show me evidence

Where is the evidence

Constant harping on about it

Yes, but you and Trump can never seen to supply it and can't seem to explain why it's not being used.

Weird how people "harp on" about evidence that other people refuse to show.

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Evidence show me evidence

Where is the evidence

Constant harping on about it

This dingbats reaction sums it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rs9gkMFwuU

Short clip you can start at 2 min if you dont like Youtube or are short on time

Cool, you must be able to show a load of success in court cases so? Presenting evidence still does not automatically credible and the courts did not find it credible. Do you think Trump will be president at the end of January?

enno99

Deleted User wrote: »

Cool, you must be able to show a load of success in court cases so? Presenting evidence still does not automatically credible and the courts did not find it credible. Do you think Trump will be president at the end of January?

your so impatient

Wisconsin Supreme Court takes up Trump case after circuit court judge dismissed it

You have to get before a court before you can present evidence

January is a long way off who knows

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

your so impatient

Wisconsin Supreme Court takes up Trump case after circuit court judge dismissed it

You have to get before a court before you can present evidence

January is a long way off who knows

The failure to appear before a court is generally because they haven't presented credible cases to multiple judges. The view expressed presented by multiple judges is that the cases only exist in an effort to undermine faith in the electoral process rather than presenting credible cases.

enno99

Deleted User wrote: »

The failure to appear before a court is generally because they haven't presented credible cases to multiple judges. The view expressed presented by multiple judges is that the cases only exist in an effort to undermine faith in the electoral process rather than presenting credible cases.

Partisan Justice
How Campaign Money Politicizes Judicial Decisionmaking in Election Cases

Principal Findings
Judges favor litigants from their own party in head-to-head cases.
Campaign finance exacerbates partisan behavior.
Judges are less likely to be partisan when they no longer need to run for office.
The problem of partisan decision making is arguably getting worse over time.

https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/partisan-justice/

Lots of hurdles to get over

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Partisan Justice
How Campaign Money Politicizes Judicial Decisionmaking in Election Cases



https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/partisan-justice/

Lots of hurdles to get over

But if you were following the cases, you'd know that much of the time they weren't even correctly filling in basic documentation at times. They were getting population numbers for states wrong.. None of it was the fault of judges and no large-scale proof of fraud was outlined to judges...

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Partisan Justice
How Campaign Money Politicizes Judicial Decisionmaking in Election Cases

So the claim is that all of the judges are in on the conspiracy against Trump.
Does this include the supreme court?

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

Evidence show me evidence

Where is the evidence

Constant harping on about it

This dingbats reaction sums it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rs9gkMFwuU

Short clip you can start at 2 min if you dont like Youtube or are short on time

weird they never presented this solid gold evidence in court. In fact they (by that I mean Rudy) was very clear in court that they were not alleging fraud.

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

your so impatient

Wisconsin Supreme Court takes up Trump case after circuit court judge dismissed it

You have to get before a court before you can present evidence

January is a long way off who knows

the electoral college votes on Monday so they had better hurry up.

enno99

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the electoral college votes on Monday so they had better hurry up.

No plenty of time. Lots can happen before January

enno99

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

weird they never presented this solid gold evidence in court. In fact they (by that I mean Rudy) was very clear in court that they were not alleging fraud.

Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud

Timberrrrrrrr

enno99 wrote: »

Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud

Fraud

That no one has even presented as a case in court, in fact they clearly state that they are not making any claims about fraud on the court documents.

enno99

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fraud

That no one has even presented as a case in court, in fact they clearly state that they are not making any claims about fraud on the court documents.

What are they claiming ?

Timberrrrrrrr

enno99 wrote: »

What are they claiming ?

Not fraud, they make it clear on the documents that they are not making a claim about voter fraud.

namloc1980

enno99 wrote: »

What are they claiming ?

Spurious legal arguments based on zero evidence in the main. That's why they've been laughed out of court everywhere they've gone.

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud

funny they couldn't find any evidence of fraud.

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

What are they claiming ?

every affidavit filed by trumps lawyers is available to read online. Perhaps educate yourself on what they claiming BEFORE commenting. that would be the smart thing to do.

enno99

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

every affidavit filed by trumps lawyers is available to read online. Perhaps educate yourself on what they claiming BEFORE commenting. that would be the smart thing to do.

I'm aware thanks
just curious if the other poster was

ohnonotgmail

enno99 wrote: »

I'm aware thanks
just curious if the other poster was

sure

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Doesn't mean there wasn't fraud

So why aren't they showing the evidence they supposedly have or arguing fraud?

enno99

https://rumble.com/vbu6xh-election-night-errors-how-did-that-happen.html


Because youtube dont like the truth here is a short video from rumble
6min total

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Because youtube dont like the truth here is a short video from rumble
6min total

No it's because YouTube are less tolerant of bull**** and conspiracy mongers are now turning this into a marketing gimmick.
"We didn't get banned cause our videos were propaganda for nonsense, it's cause they're trying to suppress us. That makes out video way more interesting. Please buy our stuff"

Again if they actually had evidence of fraud that's that Trump and his lackeys would be using in court. Trump and his lackeys aren't using any of this evidence.
You can't explain why, so this makes it pretty clear you realise what everyone else does: there was no fraud and there's no evidence that would stand up to any examination.
Hence we can conclude that this video isn't worth wasting time on.

enno99

Where is the evidence lol