Trump Campaign Paid Researchers To Prove 2020 Fraud But Kept Findings Secret

[postman]

No jury has ever been convened... and that is un American....

Don't be stupid. Judges threw out the cases for lack of evidence.
You don't waste tax payers money sending frivolous cases to a jury.

 

[Mac1958]

Just to remind you, the 60+Lawsuits that were rejected for lack of evidence would never have been brought before a jury because there was no case to warrant a jury trial. The MAGA Impaired need things explained to them.

They don't seem to understand that evidence has to reach a certain level to qualify. Shit has to add up. There has to be a crime and evidence of the crime. Not phony "reports" or conspiracy theory or rumors or extrapolations.

It has to be 1 plus 1 equals 2. Not 1 plus "maybe plus I heard this plus Breitbart says" equals 2.

All those judges - including those appointed by Trump - told them their evidence didn't qualify. Rudy himself admitted to one judge that it wasn't even about fraud.

But the rubes are not told about any of that in their world. Instead they're told that everyone but them is corrupt.

And, of course, they buy it.

 

[postman]

How about your inability to get anyone to believe there was no fraud?

Every judge, all the way to the USSC believed there was no fraud.

 

[0311]

So then I didn't lie when I said not one jury has heard any evidence... each time a judge blocked it... and that will not make people feel good about the 2020 election....

There was no "Evidence" to present. That is why there no jury impaneled. How difficult is that for you to understand. You have such "Evidence", post it. Let us see your "Evidence", which of course you do not have.

Your argument fails on its on premise. You know that 60+Lawsuits were rejected for lack of "Evidence" and you continue to bitch about no jury ever hearing "Evidence" that does not exist.

 

[0311]

Has a jury of our peers ever heard any evidence?....

Because there was no "Evidence".

 

[postman]

They don't seem to understand that evidence has to reach a certain level to qualify.

It has to qualify as evidence, to be evidence.

As the judge that sanctioned the lawyers who brought the case before her. Their "evidence" was nothing more than conjectures, suppositions, conspiracy theories and hearsay.

 

[Lastamender]

There were over 60 cases filed. Can you show the evidence from any one of them?

Can you show one evidentiary hearing?

 

[Lastamender]

Because there was no "Evidence".

Here is the Evidence

Crowdsourcing evidence for journalists.

hereistheevidence.com

 

[postman]

Can you show one evidentiary hearing?

Didn't you claim the postal inspectors were withholding evidence?

And then I posted it from their website.

 

[Lastamender]

Every judge, all the way to the USSC believed there was no fraud.

And? How did they decide that without an evidentiary hearing?

 

[Lastamender]

Didn't you claim the postal inspectors were withholding evidence?

And then I posted it from their website.

That is not a hearing, is it?

 

[0311]

So then I didn't lie when I said not one jury has heard any evidence

One more time.

60+Lawsuits were rejected for lack of "Evidence". No jury would have been impaneled for "Evidence" that does not exist.

 

[postman]

And? How did they decide that without an evidentiary hearing?

By reading everything the plaintiffs put forth as evidence.

 

[Lastamender]

One more time.

60+Lawsuits were rejected for lack of "Evidence". No jury would have been impaneled for "Evidence" that does not exist.

One more time, there was massive obvious fraud.

 

[Lastamender]

By reading everything the plaintiffs put forth as evidence.

That is not a legal conclusion, it is an opinion.

 

[postman]

That is not a hearing, is it?

You claimed evidence was being withheld.

I showed that every bit of evidence was being presented, or made public.

And the driver, who claimed he saw thousands of ballots was mistaken. And the postal inspection report proved it.

Which is why you claimed they refused to release it.

Yet it was on their website (that I linked to, and quoted)

 

[Faun]

Can you show one evidentiary hearing?

FruitLoops, cases are filed with claims. Those claims include citations to support their claims. Those citations are the evidence they plan to present in court. That evidence, if there is any, is then presented to a judge, who will decide if there is reason to proceed to an evidentary hearing.

Can't you cite the evidence filed in even one single case??

I can, by the way. Seems you can't.

 

[Lastamender]

You claimed evidence was being withheld.

I showed that every bit of evidence was being presented, or made public.

And the driver, who claimed he saw thousands of ballots was mistaken. And the postal inspection report proved it.

Which is why you claimed they refused to release it.

Yet it was on their website (that I linked to, and quoted)

I still claim evidence is being withheld. There are still cases in GA. where the ballot images are be withheld. Alsothe routers in Maricopa were never inspected by an independent source. Get informed and come back.

 

[Faun]

Here is the Evidence

Crowdsourcing evidence for journalists.

hereistheevidence.com

Which of those were filed in court...?

 

[postman]

And? How did they decide that without an evidentiary hearing?

An evidentiary hearing only gives the witnesses a chance to verify the claims they swore to on their affidavits.

The judge already read their statements, and saw their affidavits contained no actual evidence, so there was no need for them to be cross examined on it in an evidentiary hearing.