*based on evidence that was to be presented in a bunch of court cases that failed because the judges refused to hear them for one bullshit reason or another.
In a detailed, 35-page decision, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court in Carson City vetted each claim of fraud and wrongdoing made by the Trump campaign in the state and found that none was supported by convincing proof. The judge dismissed the challenge with prejudice, ruling that the campaign failed to offer any basis for annulling more than 1.3 million votes cast in the state’s presidential race.
The campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin of victory, which was about 33,600 votes, Russell wrote.
No, I'm saying you can't say the evidence was rejected in court by citing a completely separate, largely irrelevant case that had zero overlap in the evidence it presented.
The difference there is that if you ran that trial 60 times with different people involved in the process, he would have been convicted probably many many times.
It's the same situation, friendo: people who felt aggrieved for really their own community's faults blatantly ignore the facts and the law to get 'justice'.
You could rerun it a hundred times, and each time the jurors' feelings would triumph over facts and rule of law - because that's what matters to them, their feelings. This is really the only criticism anyone has ever had of Trump, that their feelings were hurt.
OJ was so innocent and non violent that he ended up in prison for 15 years for armed robbery and assault. Lmao that fucking idiot killed his wife and the whole country knows it, The fact that sports and movie and music stars or anyone with money gets away with literal murder is well known. Stop shilling for a piece of shit violent criminal. Oh wait that is what the whole blm leftist bullshit is a fucking shill piece for violent rapists and drug addicts.
But there was still no substantial evidence. The cases failed because they were shitty lawyers, who had no idea what they were doing, and then tried to blame the "deep state" for stopping them.
Wether you think the cases failed due to shitty lawyers or purposeful stonewalling is up to interpretation. However, because none of the cases got to the point where evidence was presented in court, it is objectively incorrect to claim the cases failed because evidence was not substantial.
*based on evidence that was to be presented in a bunch of court cases that failed because the judges refused to hear them for one bullshit reason or another.
In a detailed, 35-page decision, Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court in Carson City vetted each claim of fraud and wrongdoing made by the Trump campaign in the state and found that none was supported by convincing proof. The judge dismissed the challenge with prejudice, ruling that the campaign failed to offer any basis for annulling more than 1.3 million votes cast in the state’s presidential race.
The campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin of victory, which was about 33,600 votes, Russell wrote.
Now show me Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. The states that mattered.
So you basically admit that fraud doesn't matter, only that he lost. Got it.
No, I'm saying you can't say the evidence was rejected in court by citing a completely separate, largely irrelevant case that had zero overlap in the evidence it presented.
TIL a lack of evidence is a bullshit reason. Huh. I guess that's why you're a lawyer, and I'm not. My bad.
Courts let OJ go scot free. I guess you're still looking for the "real killer" since the courts said there was a lack of evidence.
The difference there is that if you ran that trial 60 times with different people involved in the process, he would have been convicted probably many many times.
It's the same situation, friendo: people who felt aggrieved for really their own community's faults blatantly ignore the facts and the law to get 'justice'.
You could rerun it a hundred times, and each time the jurors' feelings would triumph over facts and rule of law - because that's what matters to them, their feelings. This is really the only criticism anyone has ever had of Trump, that their feelings were hurt.
Yes, because OJ was innocent. Also, this is different, because there is actual evidence of the opposite of your claim.
OJ was so innocent and non violent that he ended up in prison for 15 years for armed robbery and assault. Lmao that fucking idiot killed his wife and the whole country knows it, The fact that sports and movie and music stars or anyone with money gets away with literal murder is well known. Stop shilling for a piece of shit violent criminal. Oh wait that is what the whole blm leftist bullshit is a fucking shill piece for violent rapists and drug addicts.
There were many reasons the cases were thrown out. None of them were for lack of evidence or unsubstantial evidence.
But there was still no substantial evidence. The cases failed because they were shitty lawyers, who had no idea what they were doing, and then tried to blame the "deep state" for stopping them.
Wether you think the cases failed due to shitty lawyers or purposeful stonewalling is up to interpretation. However, because none of the cases got to the point where evidence was presented in court, it is objectively incorrect to claim the cases failed because evidence was not substantial.
100,000 ballots were 'adjudicated' and the original ballots were destroyed.
There is zero way to confirm the authenticity of those 100,000 votes.