I dunno why would you say he's screeching. If there's fraud Trump has every right to continuously and endlessly expose it and complain about it.
If they succeed in making Biden Pres, mark my words, the tables will turn back on the Dems. There's videos of them complaining about voter fraud in the past when Bush stole the election.
I'm getting a sense that you don't believe there is fraud. I can assure you from an IT perspective there is
You have not been doing your homework. If you watched any of the hearings with the legislators they have presented lots of evidence.
As I type this not ONE single court rejected the cases because of evidence nor has seen them. Got dismissed because of "standing". If a court ever decides to even see the evidence they cannot deny it.
If you caught your neighbor breaking into your other neighbors home and robbing him, with clear evidence, you go to court to file a suit, and the courts never got to see the evidence you had but instead rejected it on standing. Then no, you cannot say there is no evidence!
This is what happened! Even tho they did have standing.
As for not saying here is fraud, some fraud happened as manipulation of the voting machines. But when some cases were saying this isnt about fraud, they were pointing to the cases where the state changed the voting laws vs the legislators. Therefore in those cases and only those cases it wasn't fraud per se but unconstitutional changes they are challenging.
I dunno why would you say he's screeching. If there's fraud Trump has every right to continuously and endlessly expose it and complain about it. If they succeed in making Biden Pres, mark my words, the tables will turn back on the Dems. There's videos of them complaining about voter fraud in the past when Bush stole the election. I'm getting a sense that you don't believe there is fraud. I can assure you from an IT perspective there is
You have not been doing your homework. If you watched any of the hearings with the legislators they have presented lots of evidence.
As I type this not ONE single court rejected the cases because of evidence nor has seen them. Got dismissed because of "standing". If a court ever decides to even see the evidence they cannot deny it.
If you caught your neighbor breaking into your other neighbors home and robbing him, with clear evidence, you go to court to file a suit, and the courts never got to see the evidence you had but instead rejected it on standing. Then no, you cannot say there is no evidence!
This is what happened! Even tho they did have standing.
As for not saying here is fraud, some fraud happened as manipulation of the voting machines. But when some cases were saying this isnt about fraud, they were pointing to the cases where the state changed the voting laws vs the legislators. Therefore in those cases and only those cases it wasn't fraud per se but unconstitutional changes they are challenging.
That will not happen!
Wanna bet?