What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed. Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence.
Bowyer v Ducey - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Order-Granting-MTD.pdf "Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
King v Whitmer - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Preview_7405F132-B4F1-4A0A-9BB1-28CB11C48E21.pdf "Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
Trump v Benson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20201106-Opin-and-Ord.pdf "hearsay within hearsay"
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf "A theory for which no evidence exists" "the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election"
Ward v Jackson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/AscDecisionOrder-3939735-0.pdf "the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes”
There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish. What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?
What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed. Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence.
Bowyer v Ducey - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Order-Granting-MTD.pdf "Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
King v Whitmer - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Preview_7405F132-B4F1-4A0A-9BB1-28CB11C48E21.pdf "Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
Trump v Benson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20201106-Opin-and-Ord.pdf "hearsay within hearsay"
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf "A theory for which no evidence exists" "the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election"
Ward v Jackson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/AscDecisionOrder-3939735-0.pdf "the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes”
There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish. What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?
What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed. Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence. Bowyer v Ducey - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Order-Granting-MTD.pdf "Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible" King v Whitmer - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Preview_7405F132-B4F1-4A0A-9BB1-28CB11C48E21.pdf "Nothing but speculation and conjecture" Trump v Benson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20201106-Opin-and-Ord.pdf "hearsay within hearsay" Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/CV2020014553-elections-m.e.-1.pdf "A theory for which no evidence exists" "the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election" Ward v Jackson - https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/AscDecisionOrder-3939735-0.pdf "the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes” There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish. What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?
What do you mean? There's been loads of cases where evidence was heard, the judges considered it, but the n felt it wasn't compelling (to put it mildly) and then dismissed.
Here are some cases where the judges considered the evidence, I've also included a direct link to the judgements and quotes from the judge on the evidence.
Bowyer v Ducey - https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G?amp=1 "Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"
King v Whitmer - https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL?amp=1 "Nothing but speculation and conjecture"
Trump v Benson - https://t.co/17GeGhImHF?amp=1 "hearsay within hearsay"
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - https://t.co/5aTdtXbcrv?amp=1 "A theory for which no evidence exists" "the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election"
Ward v Jackson - https://t.co/w16Cmnga9G?amp=1 "the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes”
There's lots more, but I think you get the idea. If you read the judgements it's clear the judges have heard and considered the evidence, its just they felt it was rubbish.
What gave you the idea that plaintiffs haven't been given the chance to present evidence?