Because the evidence presented failed to plausibly establish the allegations, and hence had no reasonable chance of succeeding at discovery, as per the judgement.
That's on the lawyers making the case, if the evidence is overwhelming they should have no problem filing something to convince a judge to take it further, instead they keep filing procedurally invalid claims based on largely inadmissable hearsay and conjecture. They've been given a fair shot at making a case, and the judges have been utterly unconvinced by the arguments and the evidence to back them up.
At some point youve got to question what the lawyers are up to, because they must know that these cases are all DOA, yet they file them anyway. Almost like it's all just for show, and somebody's taking donations for the tickets...
Why would witness testimony help? It would have the same fundamental hearsay inadmissability as the affidavits in that none of the claims of the witnesses are substantiated by physical evidence.
If I signed an affadavit saying you murdered someone, yet there was no name of the victim and no body and no other physical evidence of my allegation, do you think the judge should still allow a full hearing and put you on trial for murder? Or what about the multiple signed affadavits from women claiming Trump raped them, do you think a judge should allow full discovery and put Trump on trial for rape based solely on those claims?
That's not how courts have ever worked, you need specific evidence, especially to allege fraud, not the 'he said she said' allegations presented in this case. Why is it that Trump supporters want to throw out centuries of precedent and evidential rules and procedures because Trump can't seem to present evidence correctly? Especially as the evidence for fraud is apparently overwhelming, why aren't they submitting some of this overwhelming evidence rather than the vague inadmissable hearsay that they seem to be submitting instead?
Can you show me a single case where a pedophile has been convicted on witness testimony alone, absent any physical evidence of a crime? Or what about the witnesses that claim Trump raped them, is that enough for you to conclude Trump is a rapist? Of course it isn't, it's just hearsay.
The rules are quite clear, eye witness testimony can only be used to identify the person on trial as the person who commited the alleged offence, it cannot be relied on to allege an offence. I can stand in court and say that I saw you murder the person who's body was discovered with a gunshot wound (though it's still very unlikely that that would be enough to convict). I can't however stand in court and say I saw you murder someone when there's no body or other physical evidence to suggest a murder took place, because that's just inadmissable hearsay.
That's the exact problem the testimony faces in these cases, there's no physical evidence of fraud, people have alleged it, and the reports have suggested it's theoretically possible, but without some physical evidence, it's all conjecture and hearsay and therefore inadmissable.
These witness admissibility rules have existed for centuries, it only seems to be Trump supporters that have collective amnesia over their existance
Because the evidence presented failed to plausibly establish the allegations, and hence had no reasonable chance of succeeding at discovery, as per the judgement.
That's on the lawyers making the case, if the evidence is overwhelming they should have no problem filing something to convince a judge to take it further, instead they keep filing procedurally invalid claims based on largely inadmissable hearsay and conjecture. They've been given a fair shot at making a case, and the judges have been utterly unconvinced by the arguments and the evidence to back them up.
At some point youve got to question what the lawyers are up to, because they must know that these cases are all DOA, yet they file them anyway. Almost like it's all just for show, and somebody's taking donations for the tickets...
Why would witness testimony help? It would have the same fundamental hearsay inadmissability as the affidavits in that none of the claims of the witnesses are substantiated by physical evidence.
If I signed an affadavit saying you murdered someone, yet there was no name of the victim and no body and no other physical evidence of my allegation, do you think the judge should still allow a full hearing and put you on trial for murder? Or what about the multiple signed affadavits from women claiming Trump raped them, do you think a judge should allow full discovery and put Trump on trial for rape based solely on those claims?
That's not how courts have ever worked, you need specific evidence, especially to allege fraud, not the 'he said she said' allegations presented in this case. Why is it that Trump supporters want to throw out centuries of precedent and evidential rules and procedures because Trump can't seem to present evidence correctly? Especially as the evidence for fraud is apparently overwhelming, why aren't they submitting some of this overwhelming evidence rather than the vague inadmissable hearsay that they seem to be submitting instead?
Can you show me a single case where a pedophile has been convicted on witness testimony alone, absent any physical evidence of a crime? Or what about the witnesses that claim Trump raped them, is that enough for you to conclude Trump is a rapist? Of course it isn't, it's just hearsay.
The rules are quite clear, eye witness testimony can only be used to identify the person on trial as the person who commited the alleged offence, it cannot be relied on to allege an offence. I can stand in court and say that I saw you murder the person who's body was discovered with a gunshot wound (though it's still very unlikely that that would be enough to convict). I can't however stand in court and say I saw you murder someone when there's no body or other physical evidence to suggest a murder took place, because that's just inadmissable hearsay.
That's the exact problem the testimony faces in these cases, there's no physical evidence of fraud, people have alleged it, and the reports have suggested it's theoretically possible, but without some physical evidence, it's all conjecture and hearsay and therefore inadmissable.
These witness admissibility rules have existed for centuries, it only seems to be Trump supporters that have collective amnesia over their existance