Now Joe has to worry about Impeachment!!!!

@kevcvs57 said
Haha yes you’ve spotted the flaw in every legal system on the planet, ultimately they are just opinions based on evidence and argument made based on evidence.
Every sane and reasonable person looking at the 💩 load of evidence would conclude that Trump broke his sacred oath of office when he tried to usurp / hold on to power by claiming without evidence that the 2020 electio ...[text shortened]... l war and dictatorship in the US would claim otherwise
Apparently Putin has endorsed Trump again 👍

Every sane and reasonable person in your mind is a democrat. Why is that?
Bush v. Gore was a 5 to 4 decision. Which were the sane and reasonable decision makers?

@metal-brain said
Every sane and reasonable person in your mind is a democrat. Why is that?

Does a sane and reasonable person believe a president whose claims were dismissed by 60 different courts, including SCOTUS where a third of the justices were picked by that president?

Without pivoting or deflecting to a different topic, can you answer yes or no?

@vivify said
Does a sane and reasonable person believe a president whose claims were dismissed by 60 different courts, including SCOTUS where a third of the justices were picked by that president?

Without pivoting or deflecting to a different topic, can you answer yes or no?

Yes because most of those cases were dismissed on standing, not on the merits of the case. I ask the same question to you except in Saddam Hussein's Iraq when he was in power and won the elections in that Shiite majority country.

@metal-brain said
Every sane and reasonable person in your mind is a democrat. Why is that?
Bush v. Gore was a 5 to 4 decision. Which were the sane and reasonable decision makers?

No I’m not a democrat you dummy it’s just so effing obvious you’d have to be retarded not to get if

@metal-brain said
Yes because most of those cases were dismissed on standing, not on the merits of the case. I ask the same question to you except in Saddam Hussein's Iraq when he was in power and won the elections in that Shiite majority country.

They were dismissed on standing because there wasn't a reason to file a case. There was no rigged election.

If trump lawyers really wanted to present evidence, they could have done so. These cases were lost on purpose, so they could keep arguing that they were fighting the outcome in the courts without having to reveal that they didn't have evidence of a rigged election.

@kevcvs57 said
No I’m not a democrat you dummy it’s just so effing obvious you’d have to be retarded not to get if

Oh, right. You are British so you are the British equivalent to a democrat. What political party is that called over there?

@wildgrass said
They were dismissed on standing because there wasn't a reason to file a case. There was no rigged election.

If trump lawyers really wanted to present evidence, they could have done so. These cases were lost on purpose, so they could keep arguing that they were fighting the outcome in the courts without having to reveal that they didn't have evidence of a rigged election.

"If trump lawyers really wanted to present evidence, they could have done so"

That is not true in every case. When cases are dismissed on standing no evidence is looked at. What sense would that make if they wont even hear the case?

"They were dismissed on standing because there wasn't a reason to file a case"

That is also false. I will easily prove that wrong while supporting the very last sentence you wrote which I think may be true. Here is why. His seemingly incompetent lawyers missed a deadline to file the case. There was very good reason to file the case but no evidence was heard because his lawyers screwed up. It was almost like they missed the deadline on purpose to merely pretend they were trying to win cases.

I am very open to the possibility that Trump never tried to win cases because he knew he could not win the election in the end anyway. Why do you get so eager to get Trump in ways that always boost his poll numbers every time? Don't you ever think the news media is just pretending they hate Trump so most people will think their buddy is against them?

@metal-brain said
"If trump lawyers really wanted to present evidence, they could have done so"

That is not true in every case. When cases are dismissed on standing no evidence is looked at. What sense would that make if they wont even hear the case?

"They were dismissed on standing because there wasn't a reason to file a case"

That is also false. I will easily prove that wrong wh ...[text shortened]... news media is just pretending they hate Trump so most people will think their buddy is against them?

It was almost like they missed the deadline on purpose to merely pretend they were trying to win cases.

Yes this is exactly what was happening. Even in the cases where evidence was permitted, the lawyers went out of their way to say that they did not intend to prove election fraud occurred, so they didn't have to say what the evidence was.

But the part you miss is why. Why would they intentionally lose case after case? Because they didn't have any evidence to begin with. If they hadn't missed that deadline, then they'd be forced to admit that and then the game would be up.

@metal-brain said
Yes because most of those cases were dismissed on standing, not on the merits of the case.

You need to have legal standing *before* you can even deliberate the merits of a case. That's a basic prerequisite for every civil trial. If Trump didn't even have legal standing for his cases that makes it worse and even less sane to believe Trump.

I doubt you grasp what legal standing means.

@wildgrass said
They were dismissed on standing because there wasn't a reason to file a case. There was no rigged election.

If trump lawyers really wanted to present evidence, they could have done so. These cases were lost on purpose, so they could keep arguing that they were fighting the outcome in the courts without having to reveal that they didn't have evidence of a rigged election.

A lib dare says he has an understanding of trial strategy. He may even be right, but, he does know that he is right. He has not one inkling of why these matters are handled like they are. They are kick-ass strategies, and libs with faerie bent have no feel for such goings-on.

@kevcvs57 said
Haha yes you’ve spotted the flaw in every legal system on the planet, ultimately they are just opinions based on evidence and argument made based on evidence.
Every sane and reasonable person looking at the 💩 load of evidence would conclude that Trump broke his sacred oath of office when he tried to usurp / hold on to power by claiming without evidence that the 2020 electio ...[text shortened]... l war and dictatorship in the US would claim otherwise
Apparently Putin has endorsed Trump again 👍

Has Biden not broken his oath of office by not protecting us from invasion from the South? It is his NUMBER ONE oath at his inauguration, for god sakes.
I know this is a whataboutism to you, but not really. You see, I have asked it many times before and not one of you lily livered libs will answer it.
You yourself will not answer this question?

@wildgrass said

It was almost like they missed the deadline on purpose to merely pretend they were trying to win cases.

Yes this is exactly what was happening. Even in the cases where evidence was permitted, the lawyers went out of their way to say that they did not intend to prove election fraud occurred, so they didn't have to say what the evidence was.

But the part ...[text shortened]... they hadn't missed that deadline, then they'd be forced to admit that and then the game would be up.

Funny all you laymen, non-lawyers, argue the law. Are you well-versed in civil procedure or Rules of Evidence? Mott is the only qualified lawyer here and he,like a good lawyer, keeps his comments close to the vest

@wildgrass said

It was almost like they missed the deadline on purpose to merely pretend they were trying to win cases.

Yes this is exactly what was happening. Even in the cases where evidence was permitted, the lawyers went out of their way to say that they did not intend to prove election fraud occurred, so they didn't have to say what the evidence was.

But the part ...[text shortened]... they hadn't missed that deadline, then they'd be forced to admit that and then the game would be up.

Simple. You are falling for the actor. You are assuming Trump is honestly trying to fight the establishment. Trump is an actor who hosted the TV program called "The Apprentice". The most well known catch phrase from that program is "you are fired" but he did not fire Sydney Powell. Explain that.

@vivify said
You need to have legal standing *before* you can even deliberate the merits of a case. That's a basic prerequisite for every civil trial. If Trump didn't even have legal standing for his cases that makes it worse and even less sane to believe Trump.

I doubt you grasp what legal standing means.

You are a liar. You made that up.

@metal-brain said
You are a liar. You made that up.

https://americasvoice.org/blog/standing-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters-to-the-supreme-court-and-to-us/

Before a federal court can even address the merits of a case, the Constitution requires the plaintiff to demonstrate “standing.”