US Election 2020

[pErvinalia]

That's even worse for him. Couldn't gather enough pre-trial evidence or argumentation to even go to trial.

[Hermit]

Giuliani is much more convincing than Hermit.

Probably because he has better hair. And facts.

Which is why he keeps winning all those court cases regarding massive voter fraud.

I'm not aware of which court has heard the evidence. I know a bunch of different ones rejected revieing the evidence, but not which one heard the case.

I guarantee you would have heard all about it if team Trump had won their case regarding massive voting fraud in any court. And it is massive, if true. Trump claims to have won a landslide victory, and yet the posted voting tally shows him trailing Biden by 7 million. The reason you are not aware of such court cases is that they never happened.

[JimC]

I'm not aware of which court has heard the evidence. I know a bunch of different ones rejected revieing the evidence, but not which one heard the case.

When courts reject a case (as most of the Trump-inspired cases have been) it is not a sign of some weird conspiracy theory, but a sign that the putative "evidence" was so pathetic that the judge decided not to waste the court's time with it...

And, if you are not aware of some actual facts, then either don't bother posting, or humbly ask Hermit or L'emmy for the relevant information...

[Cunt]

The reason you are not aware of such court cases is that they never happened.

That's exactly what Giuliani said. In his podcast amusingly named 'Common Sense'.

He sells cigars in between being more convincing about this subject than you.

I'm thinking of taking up smoking the disgusting things.

[JimC]

Actual facts are not something you are comfortable with, Cunt...

[Hermit]

The reason you are not aware of such court cases is that they never happened.

That's exactly what Giuliani said. In his podcast amusingly named 'Common Sense'.

Did he actually say that team Trump has not succeeded in winning a case proving massive voter fraud? I don't believe it.

[Cunt]

The reason you are not aware of such court cases is that they never happened.

That's exactly what Giuliani said. In his podcast amusingly named 'Common Sense'.

Did he actually say that team Trump has not succeeded in winning a case proving massive voter fraud? I don't believe so.

No, he said that no court has heard the evidence. They've all dismissed without considering the evidence.

Fine news agencies everywhere will have experienced lawyers on talking about this.

Have none of them presented his position fairly?

Surely YOU have listened to his side of things, with your high interest...

[pErvinalia]

So it's a conspiracy theory, Scot?

[Joe]

I haven't looked at all of the cases, but I do know Trump's lawyers would have had to present enough evidence to show they had standing or the case would be dismissed. Consider the Pennsylvania case that was dismissed.

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

In this case at least, the court didn't heard the evidence because Giuliani and company didn't present enough to justify going forward. If they had this kind of evidence and sat on it, they should be sued for malpractice.

[JimC]

No, he said that no court has heard the evidence. They've all dismissed without considering the evidence.

Do you have any idea about how the US court system works?

The cases he and Trump's legal team presented were dismissed because the judges in each case considered that the evidence was so scanty as to be worthless. These are many different judges, all part of a fairly conservative legal system, several of them Republican appointed. Do you seriously think that some vast conspiracy amongst a wide range of courts (including the Republican dominated Supreme court) has decided to pervert the course of justice on such a scale?

[Cunt]

No, he said that no court has heard the evidence. They've all dismissed without considering the evidence.

Do you have any idea about how the US court system works?

I think it would be the height of arrogance to think I knew more about it than Rudy Giuliani.

You, on the other hand, without having even heard his side of things, have decided for yourself, based on what 'experts' say about him, rather than what he says about him.

OK, you have a system. I think it's mostly good. I just think you are missing the piece where you heard directly from the horses ass.

The cases he and Trump's legal team presented were dismissed because the judges in each case considered that the evidence was so scanty as to be worthless. These are many different judges, all part of a fairly conservative legal system, several of them Republican appointed. Do you seriously think that some vast conspiracy amongst a wide range of courts (including the Republican dominated Supreme court) has decided to pervert the course of justice on such a scale?

Should I believe you, or Rudy?

I know you believe you, but so far, you haven't made it very clear that you understand his side of things.

[Hermit]

The reason you are not aware of such court cases is that they never happened.

That's exactly what Giuliani said. In his podcast amusingly named 'Common Sense'.

Did he actually say that team Trump has not succeeded in winning a case proving massive voter fraud? I don't believe so.

No, he said that no court has heard the evidence. They've all dismissed without considering the evidence.

If Giuliani has said that, and I believe your claim that he has if you provide a link to him saying that, it is not what I said. It is also wrong.

To my knowledge there is only one case a court has dismissed without hearing the evidence. Summarised from the relevant article in the Wikipedia: SCOTUS has refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, wherein Texas alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means. Within one day of Texas's filing, Trump, over 100 Republican Representatives, and 18 Republican state attorneys general filed motions to support the case. The incumbent president referred to this case as "the big one". The Supreme Court issued orders on December 11, declining to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of the election held by another state.

Of the remaining 51 cases (to date), 3 are ongoing, 10 have been dropped by team Trump, 25 have been dismissed during the hearing of evidence, 7 have been ruled on after completion of the hearing and appeals are pending on 7 decisions.

So, if Giuliani has said what you claim he said, and I repeat that I want you to provide a link to him saying it, he is bullshitting.

[Brian Peacock]

I have evidence that I can see through 2" lead plate. The oroblem in convincing people I have this amazing superpower is not the lack of evidence but that no-one will listen to it because everyone is biased.

[Cunt]

So, if Giuliani has said what you claim he said, and I repeat that I want you to provide a link to him saying it, he is bullshitting.

I usually don't bother offering you sources, since mine are so often suspect (I'm admitting it, not griping)

https://rudygiulianics.com/

It looks like it is genuine 100% Rudy.

[Hermit]

So, if Giuliani has said what you claim he said, and I repeat that I want you to provide a link to him saying it, he is bullshitting.

I usually don't bother offering you sources, since mine are so often suspect (I'm admitting it, not griping)

https://rudygiulianics.com/

It looks like it is genuine 100% Rudy.

Point me to the bit where Giuliani says or writes what you claim. I can't see it anywhere.