[Lord Dave]

I wonder if we will start to see a turning of the tide?

Biden is making enemies of Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. I wonder if they will begin a fight back soon? Hunter Biden stories promoted to the top of searches. Stories of dementia following. The gushing praise Biden is getting having accomplished literally zero coming to a halt. I wonder if big tech over played their hand and will soon rue the day they sided with the rotten Democrats? Will be fun to watch as a conservative. Big Tech vs Liberal government. I literally don't give a shit which one of them gets wrecked.

How is he making enemies of them?

[Tom Bishop]

It's about the same subpoenas that the elections officials were refusing to comply with. The orders were issued a while ago and they were refusing to follow it.

The body issuing the subpoenas determined that there was evidence of fraud and that the data contained further evidence of fraud. This is why the title is correct. It was already declared and determined that there is fraud there, hence the issuing of the subpoenas.

Nope, your headline is incorrect. No evidence of "Fraud" was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..." That did not happen. No evidence of "Fraud" was released, period. That's already been shown.

Wrong. The legislative body had already declared and determined that there was fraud and that the data would contain further evidence of fraud, and used its authority and power to issue these subpoenas. That's why it is permissible to say that they are handing over evidence of fraud.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Have 60.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Here is one judge from Pennsylvania ruling on one of Trumps factless lawsuits before throwing it out:

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

lol politifact. You still have not provided suitable quotes which say that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. That quote isn't talking about the bulk of the cases. The only quote in that link of anything like that comes from Joe Biden.

Rep. Matt Gaetz - a lawyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rep-matt-gaetz-speech-transcript-after-riots-at-capitol-building-objection-of-electors

"In 2016, Democrats found out that they couldn’t beat Donald Trump at the ballot box with voters who actually show up, so they turned to impeachment and the witness box. And when that failed they ran to the mailbox where this election saw an unprecedented amount of votes that could not be authenticated with true ID, with true signature match, and with true confidence for the American people.

Our Article III courts have failed by not holding evidentiary hearings to weigh the evidence. We should not join in that failure. We should vindicate the rights of states, we should vindicate the subpoenas in Arizona that have been issued to get a hold of these voting machines and we should reject these electors. I yield back."

Alex Swoyer, a legal affairs journalist with a law degree: https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/alex-swoyer/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/29/trump-judges-refuse-look-election-fraud-evidence/

"Most courts dismissed the cases before conducting evidentiary hearings"

Spartalive - https://spartalive.com/stories/th-winds-of-war,36942

"There is substantial proof in the form of eyewitness accounts, sworn affidavits, video footage, and the bypassing of state legislators to create illegal election-related laws and procedures that widespread fraud was committed.  However, lower courts would not accept the cases presented to them and ruled against the complaints without any evidentiary hearings to look at and consider the evidence."

[Lord Dave]

@Tom

Crooked AZ politicians finally give up

https://thedcpatriot.com/one-hour-after-biden-is-sworn-in-arizona-senate-president-releases-evidence-of-voter-fraud/

Please link to the evidence, if you are sure it exists.  I'm sure you've seen it.  Right?

Also:
1. If judges are dropping cases based on procedural issues, why are lawyers getting these procedural issues so wrong?  Why are they not doing their jobs and why haven't thry fixed the error and resubmitted the case?

2. Why do you claim judges don't want to overturn an election but spent (days?) Looking for evidence of a judge overturning an election?  It contradicts your argument.

[JSS]

Wrong. The legislative body had already declared and determined that there was fraud and that the data would contain further evidence of fraud, and used its authority and power to issue these subpoenas. That's why it is permissible to say that they are handing over evidence of fraud.

Well the legislative body can say anything they want to, but it's up to a Judge to decide if their evidence is valid, or if they have any evidence at all.

So far, no Judge has ruled that fraud occured, showing that there is no evidence.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Have 60.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Here is one judge from Pennsylvania ruling on one of Trumps factless lawsuits before throwing it out:

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

You still have not provided quotes which say that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. The only quote in that link of anything like that comes from Joe Biden.

I directly quoted a Judge saying a Trump case had no merit. I think that certainly qualifies as a valid quote showing that cases were considered on the merits. And for the ones that were dismissed because Trump's lawyers filed cases full of mistakes and using the wrong laws and made other errors that made their cases invalid? That's Trumps fault, not the Judges.  If you want court cases not to be dismissed, you need evidence and to file them without glaring errors and fraudulent practices.

All the dismissed cases are simply proof that Trump can't hire lawyers who know what their doing.

The fact that Trump lost 61 of 62 cases is also very good evidence that the bulk of his lawsuits have none. In fact the only one he won was a lawsuit stopping PA from letting voters fix errors and typos on their addresses. Big win, he stopped a handful of voters from voting. It showed no evidence of fraud.

Here are some more quotes from the Judges who threw them out.

"Judges consistently found there was no substantive evidence to support claims of fraud and irregularities — that Biden’s votes were, in fact, legal votes." - From the article

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.” - District Judge Brett H. Ludwig

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” - Judge Stephanos Bibas

“Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - Also from District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

 “The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” - U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann

I have now provided quotes from eight Judges showing that those cases had no evidence.

I asked you to provide a quote from a JUDGE where he accepted evidence of Democratic fraud.  All your quotes are from reporters and news articles and lawyers.  Those are not Judges.

If there are mountains of evidence, why isn't any of it being used in court?  Where is this evidence of fraud in any of these lawsuits?  Funny how it's talked about but not used.

I ask again, where have any Judges said that they accept submitted facts showing Democratic fraud? Please provide quotes from Judges in the cases, not the lawyers or TV personalities.

[AATW]

lol politifact.

Indeed. And herein lies your problem.
Any source which doesn’t say what you want it to...the source is wrong or biased.
Any source that does and to you it’s gospel. It’s telling that you continue to post links to the same sources which have been filling you with false hope for the last 2 months.
It’s not my opinion that it’s been false hope - Biden is the President. You’ve spent the last 2 months jumping from one false hope to the next.

“The courts are going to save us.”
“It’s good the courts are rejecting the cases, that just clears the path to the SCOTUS”
“The Kraken will save us”

You even went so far as to think the inauguration may be interrupted and Trump reinstalled, desperately trying to interpret Trump’s use of the word “transition” to mean something other than than what it actually means.

And here we are. Biden is the President, like we all told you he would be.

And here you are now still thinking that could change. It won’t. As others have said, how long are you going to keep this up? How long are you going to continue to hang on the words of the same sources whose previous stories have been shown false?

I’m sorry you didn’t want Biden as President. I didn’t want Brexit but here we are. As the Brexiteers oft used to say to us, “you lost, get over it”.

[Rama Set]

The lawsuits are so shit that they can’t even find a proper defendant or show an injury that needs to be redressed or isn’t moot. Surely if they could get over that hurdle it would be a slam dunk. Surely.

[Dr David Thork]

I wonder if we will start to see a turning of the tide?

Biden is making enemies of Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. I wonder if they will begin a fight back soon? Hunter Biden stories promoted to the top of searches. Stories of dementia following. The gushing praise Biden is getting having accomplished literally zero coming to a halt. I wonder if big tech over played their hand and will soon rue the day they sided with the rotten Democrats? Will be fun to watch as a conservative. Big Tech vs Liberal government. I literally don't give a shit which one of them gets wrecked.

How is he making enemies of them?

Because he is looking to alter section 230
https://www.businessinsider.com/future-of-section-230-democrats-both-houses-2021-1?r=US&IR=T

and break up big tech firms
https://www.afr.com/technology/biden-tipped-to-be-aggressive-in-big-tech-break-up-20210119-p56v9g

Do you live under a rock? Why do you know so little about the guy YOU voted for? 🙄

[Tom Bishop]

Wrong. The legislative body had already declared and determined that there was fraud and that the data would contain further evidence of fraud, and used its authority and power to issue these subpoenas. That's why it is permissible to say that they are handing over evidence of fraud.

Well the legislative body can say anything they want to, but it's up to a Judge to decide if their evidence is valid, or if they have any evidence at all.

So far, no Judge has ruled that fraud occured, showing that there is no evidence.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Have 60.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Here is one judge from Pennsylvania ruling on one of Trumps factless lawsuits before throwing it out:

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

You still have not provided quotes which say that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. The only quote in that link of anything like that comes from Joe Biden.

I directly quoted a Judge saying a Trump case had no merit. I think that certainly qualifies as a valid quote showing that cases were considered on the merits. And for the ones that were dismissed because Trump's lawyers filed cases full of mistakes and using the wrong laws and made other errors that made their cases invalid? That's Trumps fault, not the Judges.  If you want court cases not to be dismissed, you need evidence and to file them without glaring errors and fraudulent practices.

All the dismissed cases are simply proof that Trump can't hire lawyers who know what their doing.

The fact that Trump lost 61 of 62 cases is also very good evidence that the bulk of his lawsuits have none. In fact the only one he won was a lawsuit stopping PA from letting voters fix errors and typos on their addresses. Big win, he stopped a handful of voters from voting. It showed no evidence of fraud.

Here are some more quotes from the Judges who threw them out.

"Judges consistently found there was no substantive evidence to support claims of fraud and irregularities — that Biden’s votes were, in fact, legal votes." - From the article

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.” - District Judge Brett H. Ludwig

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” - Judge Stephanos Bibas

“Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - Also from District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

 “The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” - U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann

I have now provided quotes from eight Judges showing that those cases had no evidence.

I asked you to provide a quote from a JUDGE where he accepted evidence of Democratic fraud.  All your quotes are from reporters and news articles and lawyers.  Those are not Judges.

If there are mountains of evidence, why isn't any of it being used in court?  Where is this evidence of fraud in any of these lawsuits?  Funny how it's talked about but not used.

I ask again, where have any Judges said that they accept submitted facts showing Democratic fraud? Please provide quotes from Judges in the cases, not the lawyers or TV personalities.

You quoted two judges twice in there, bolded above Looks like you don't really have much.

And we have discussed some of those quotes and they are not actually talking about the fraud cases. They are talking about the procedural cases .There are fraud cases and cases complaining that the state did not properly follow the law. You have some quotes from those mixed in with your quotes; IE the 'strained legal arguments' quote. That's not actually talking about a case about voter fraud.

By providing only a few quotes from judges about merit in a particular case you have not provided evidence that the bulk of the "60 cases" were decided on merit, or that the voter fraud cases did not have merit. In fact, you shown the opposite, that you are unable to substantiate this claim.

Since you are unable to substantiate your claim, kindly cease from repeating this lie.

[JSS]

You quoted two judges twice in there.

I quoted one on purpose twice, but did not notice the other, my mistake.  So I have quotes from 7 different Judges saying they found the evidence to be lacking instead of 8.

And we have discussed some of those quotes and they are not actually talking about the fraud cases. They are talking about the procedural cases .There are fraud cases and cases complaining that the state did not properly follow the law. You have some quotes from those mixed in with your quotes.

By providing a few direct quotes from judges about merit, you have not provided evidence that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. In fact, you show that you are unable to substantiate this claim.

You have shifted the goalposts here. This is what I said: "The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence."

I said it was a myth that no judges considered the merits of the case. I've supplied several quotes that show that in fact several did. This substantiates my claim.

You moved the goalposts to now demand I show the 'bulk' of the lawsuits were on merits, but that was not my claim.

I agree that a large number of the lawsuits were thrown out due to Trump's lawyers filing them incorrectly and making large mistakes that got them thrown out. That is only proof that his lawyers are pretty bad, and not very supportive of any argument that Trump is about to suddenly start winning cases. They have had plenty of time to re-file them correctly, if they had any evidence to back them up.

I am still waiting to see any evidence at all of massive Democratic fraud that's been accepted by a Judge. If you can't provide any, I stand by my claim that no credible evidence of it exists.

[Tom Bishop]

Take a look at one of your other quotes. The Ludwig case was not a fraud case, and wouldn't support your argument that there is no fraud because the bulk of fraud cases were dismissed on merit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/trump-election-lawsuit-wisconsin.html

"“This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case,” Judge Ludwig wrote, “and he has lost on the merits.”

The suit in Milwaukee in many ways echoed the petition filed by Texas, which was backed by 17 Republican attorneys general and more than 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives.

Unlike other legal challenges by the president, the suit in Milwaukee did not allege that voting fraud took place in Wisconsin. Rather, it accused a group of state and local election officials of violating state law by expanding the manner in which absentee ballots were received and processed this year in an unusual election that took place during a pandemic."

[stack]

Wrong. The legislative body had already declared and determined that there was fraud and that the data would contain further evidence of fraud, and used its authority and power to issue these subpoenas. That's why it is permissible to say that they are handing over evidence of fraud.

Well the legislative body can say anything they want to, but it's up to a Judge to decide if their evidence is valid, or if they have any evidence at all.

So far, no Judge has ruled that fraud occured, showing that there is no evidence.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Have 60.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Here is one judge from Pennsylvania ruling on one of Trumps factless lawsuits before throwing it out:

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

You still have not provided quotes which say that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. The only quote in that link of anything like that comes from Joe Biden.

I directly quoted a Judge saying a Trump case had no merit. I think that certainly qualifies as a valid quote showing that cases were considered on the merits. And for the ones that were dismissed because Trump's lawyers filed cases full of mistakes and using the wrong laws and made other errors that made their cases invalid? That's Trumps fault, not the Judges.  If you want court cases not to be dismissed, you need evidence and to file them without glaring errors and fraudulent practices.

All the dismissed cases are simply proof that Trump can't hire lawyers who know what their doing.

The fact that Trump lost 61 of 62 cases is also very good evidence that the bulk of his lawsuits have none. In fact the only one he won was a lawsuit stopping PA from letting voters fix errors and typos on their addresses. Big win, he stopped a handful of voters from voting. It showed no evidence of fraud.

Here are some more quotes from the Judges who threw them out.

"Judges consistently found there was no substantive evidence to support claims of fraud and irregularities — that Biden’s votes were, in fact, legal votes." - From the article

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.” - District Judge Brett H. Ludwig

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” - Judge Stephanos Bibas

“Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - Also from District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

 “The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” - U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann

I have now provided quotes from eight Judges showing that those cases had no evidence.

I asked you to provide a quote from a JUDGE where he accepted evidence of Democratic fraud.  All your quotes are from reporters and news articles and lawyers.  Those are not Judges.

If there are mountains of evidence, why isn't any of it being used in court?  Where is this evidence of fraud in any of these lawsuits?  Funny how it's talked about but not used.

I ask again, where have any Judges said that they accept submitted facts showing Democratic fraud? Please provide quotes from Judges in the cases, not the lawyers or TV personalities.

You quoted two judges twice in there, bolded above Looks like you don't really have much.

And we have discussed some of those quotes and they are not actually talking about the fraud cases. They are talking about the procedural cases .There are fraud cases and cases complaining that the state did not properly follow the law. You have some quotes from those mixed in with your quotes; IE the 'strained legal arguments' quote. That's not actually talking about a case about voter fraud.

By providing only a few quotes from judges about merit in a particular case you have not provided evidence that the bulk of the "60 cases" were decided on merit, or that the voter fraud cases did not have merit. In fact, you shown the opposite, that you are unable to substantiate this claim.

Since you are unable to substantiate your claim, kindly cease from repeating this lie.

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

[JSS]

Take a look at one of your other quotes. The Ludwig case was not a fraud case, and wouldn't support your argument that there is no fraud because the bulk of fraud cases were dismissed on merit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/trump-election-lawsuit-wisconsin.html

"“This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case,” Judge Ludwig wrote, “and he has lost on the merits.”

The suit in Milwaukee in many ways echoed the petition filed by Texas, which was backed by 17 Republican attorneys general and more than 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives.

Unlike other legal challenges by the president, the suit in Milwaukee did not allege that voting fraud took place in Wisconsin. Rather, it accused a group of state and local election officials of violating state law by expanding the manner in which absentee ballots were received and processed this year in an unusual election that took place during a pandemic."

If you want to focus on the word fraud, why not examine these three quotes?  This is also you shifting the goalposts, I did not limit my statement to 'fraud' either. That's twice you have done that.

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

This shows conclusively that some judges did rule on the merits of the case, and found the evidence to be entirely lacking. Which is exactly what I claimed.

[Tom Bishop]

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

I gave you a quote that it was already decided that the data contained evidence of fraud. Look into why that was decided if you are interested.

If you want to talk about Obama now, and claims that someone made, then it looks like you have given up and are out of ammo, in your poor attempt at substantiating your claims.

If you want to focus on the word fraud, why not examine these three quotes?  This is also you shifting the goalposts, I did not limit my statement to 'fraud' either. That's twice you have done that.

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

This shows conclusively that some judges did rule on the merits of the case, and found the evidence to be entirely lacking. Which is exactly what I claimed.

You provided quotes from two judges here.

You are supposed to be showing that the bulk of the 60 cases were dismissed on merit, or that the bulk of the voter fraud cases were dismissed on merit, to allow you to keep using this claim about the courts finding no merit to voter fraud.

It is you who is "shifting the goal posts". It is repeated that the courts found no validity to voter fraud, so you need to show that the bulk of the cases were dismissed on merit.

[JSS]

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

I gave you a quote that it was already decided that the data contained evidence of fraud. Look into why that was decided if you are interested.

If you want to talk about Obama now, and claims that someone made, then it looks like you have given up and are out of ammo, in your poor attempt at substantiating your claims.

If you want to focus on the word fraud, why not examine these three quotes?  This is also you shifting the goalposts, I did not limit my statement to 'fraud' either. That's twice you have done that.

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

This shows conclusively that some judges did rule on the merits of the case, and found the evidence to be entirely lacking. Which is exactly what I claimed.

You provided quotes from two judges here.

You are supposed to be showing that the bulk of the 60 cases were dismissed on merit, or that the bulk of the voter fraud cases were dismissed on merit, to allow you to keep using this claim about the courts finding no merit to voter fraud.

No I am not supposed to be showing that, re-read my claim that started this.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence.

You added the condition they must be 'fraud'. You added the condition that 'the bulk' of them must be. You can not shift the goalposts and demand I prove your argument.

I have proven that some judges did indeed consider the case on it's merits, and rejected it.

If you want to claim that there was valid evidence that was rejected due to Trump's lawers making mistakes and filing them incorrectly, it's up to you to show them.  I've shown exactly what I claimed.

[Rama Set]

Trump’s lawsuits were “supposed” to have standing to be worthwhile. I guess Tom is going to continue to be disappointed by things that were “supposed” to happen the way he wished, but didn’t.

[Tom Bishop]

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

I gave you a quote that it was already decided that the data contained evidence of fraud. Look into why that was decided if you are interested.

If you want to talk about Obama now, and claims that someone made, then it looks like you have given up and are out of ammo, in your poor attempt at substantiating your claims.

If you want to focus on the word fraud, why not examine these three quotes?  This is also you shifting the goalposts, I did not limit my statement to 'fraud' either. That's twice you have done that.

Trump’s 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 in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

This shows conclusively that some judges did rule on the merits of the case, and found the evidence to be entirely lacking. Which is exactly what I claimed.

You provided quotes from two judges here.

You are supposed to be showing that the bulk of the 60 cases were dismissed on merit, or that the bulk of the voter fraud cases were dismissed on merit, to allow you to keep using this claim about the courts finding no merit to voter fraud.

No I am not supposed to be showing that, re-read my claim that started this.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence.

You added the condition they must be 'fraud'. You added the condition that 'the bulk' of them must be. You can not shift the goalposts and demand I prove your argument.

I have proven that some judges did indeed consider the case on it's merits, and rejected it.

If you want to claim that there was valid evidence that was rejected due to Trump's lawers making mistakes and filing them incorrectly, it's up to you to show them.  I've shown exactly what I claimed.

I did read your post and you were talking about fraud in your post. Don't backtrack and try to play word games now. You speak about fraud all through the post and try to use the cases as evidence that there is no voter fraud.

In the Stinson case, there were a large number of fraudulent votes that had been discovered and proven. To date, nobody has found 7 million fake votes for Biden. Even after multiple hand recounts in several battleground states.

If any real evidence [for voter fraud] existed it would have been presented in one of the hundred odd GOP lawsuits that got tossed out due to a total lack of evidence.  The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

Biden won, legitimately and honestly and is not going to be removed by any fantasy lawsuit with nonexistent evidence. He won by over 7 million votes. Nobody has been able to show any large scale fraud. In fact in Pennsylvania after an extremely detailed check found only three fraudulent votes. Three. All voting

I have added in the brackets above "[for voter fraud]". You are clearly talking about voter fraud in that post, and think that the cases prove that there is no voter fraud. No need to lie to us now.

[stack]

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

I gave you a quote that it was already decided that the data contained evidence of fraud. Look into why that was decided if you are interested.

You didn't answer the question, what fraud evidence, specifically, was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."?  That's your claim. Back it up.

If you want to talk about Obama now, and claims that someone made, then it looks like you have given up and are out of ammo, in your poor attempt at substantiating your claims.

I don't necessarily want to talk about it. It's just exemplary of the sheer metric ton of unsubstantiated claims you glom on to without a smidge of evidence. All because your narrative has been shown to be false. And your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration just so happens to be one of the more fantastical ones you were hanging on to. And then "poof", it disappeared. All in all, you have have less than zero credibility when it comes to your claims, as evidenced by everything you've put forth for the past couple of months.

[JSS]

You provided quotes from two judges here.

You are supposed to be showing that the bulk of the 60 cases were dismissed on merit, or that the bulk of the voter fraud cases were dismissed on merit, to allow you to keep using this claim about the courts finding no merit to voter fraud.

No I am not supposed to be showing that, re-read my claim that started this.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence.

You added the condition they must be 'fraud'. You added the condition that 'the bulk' of them must be. You can not shift the goalposts and demand I prove your argument.

I have proven that some judges did indeed consider the case on it's merits, and rejected it.

If you want to claim that there was valid evidence that was rejected due to Trump's lawers making mistakes and filing them incorrectly, it's up to you to show them.  I've shown exactly what I claimed.

I did read your post and you were talking about fraud in your post. Don't backtrack and try to play word games now. You speak about fraud all through the post and try to use the cases as evidence that there is no voter fraud.

In the Stinson case, there were a large number of fraudulent votes that had been discovered and proven. To date, nobody has found 7 million fake votes for Biden. Even after multiple hand recounts in several battleground states.

If any real evidence [for voter fraud] existed it would have been presented in one of the hundred odd GOP lawsuits that got tossed out due to a total lack of evidence.  The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

Biden won, legitimately and honestly and is not going to be removed by any fantasy lawsuit with nonexistent evidence. He won by over 7 million votes. Nobody has been able to show any large scale fraud. In fact in Pennsylvania after an extremely detailed check found only three fraudulent votes. Three. All voting

I have added in the brackets above "[for voter fraud]". You are clearly talking about voter fraud in that post, and think that the cases prove that there is no voter fraud. No need to lie to us now.

Please don't call me a liar unless you can prove intent, that's a very strong word to throw around.

This is what you quoted me as saying. This is the entirety of what you quoted me as saying.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Nowhere in that quote did I say that 'the bulk' of the lawsuits were decided on the merits, you added that one yourself.  Nowhere in that quote did I state that I was talking only about fraud, I didn't even mention fraud. I said evidence. If I had meant 'only fraud' I would have said so. Evidence includes fraud, it is not limited to only fraud so shy should my examples?

You added [for voter fraud] because you ASSUMED I was talking about fraud and only fraud, when what I actually said was evidence. You are free to assume things, you are not free to demand I agree with you.  Especially when I wrote them and know exactly what I meant, and did write.

Just to make things clear, I never even remotely indicated that the ONLY kind of voting irregularities was 'fraud' and was specifically excluding all other forms. I did not restrict my claim to just a subset of Trumps lost cases. So by saying I can only now use quotes with the word 'fraud' in them is shifting the goalposts at best.

I stand by my claim that saying no judges considered the merits of any of Trumps cases is false. And I am confident my quotes back me up.

[Tom Bishop]

You didn't answer the question, what fraud evidence, specifically, was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."?  That's your claim. Back it up.

I did back it up. It was declared that it was evidence of voter fraud by the judiciary committee. I provided a quote on that. That's why it can be called evidence of voter fraud. If you want more details on the type and kind of evidence that committee has determined, do your own research. I never made a claim on any specificity they determined.

I don't necessarily want to talk about it. It's just exemplary of the sheer metric ton of unsubstantiated claims you glom on to without a smidge of evidence. All because your narrative has been shown to be false. And your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration just so happens to be one of the more fantastical ones you were hanging on to. And then "poof", it disappeared. All in all, you have have less than zero credibility when it comes to your claims, as evidenced by everything you've put forth for the past couple of months.

You were incorrect and wrong about that too. You do not know what evidence is. Claims are evidence. Someone's word is considered to be evidence.

If someone makes a claim or accusation it is considered to be evidence, and is worth talking about.

See the following:

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0020.htm on rape accusations:

""'[T]he testimony of a single witness [can be enough] to support a conviction'" (People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005] quoting People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]). Although corroboration is not necessary in support of a rape prosecution, the underage victim's testimony was bolstered by her prompt outcry the morning after the first rape occurred..."

From https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions on jury instructions:

"Similarly, the government is not required to prove the essential elements of the offense by any particular number of witnesses, or by every witness. The testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of an essential element of the offense charged if you believe that the witness was truthful."

All it takes is for a single claim and for the jury to think that they are truthful.

Ask a lawyer: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

Q: “So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

A: "The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/the-state-only-has-one-witness-isn-t-that-hearsay.html

"We often get questions about whether the State can convict you of a crime when they only have one single witness in a "he said/she said" type of case. We usually get the question, "Isn't that hearsay?" Is "he said/she said" testimony hearsay and inadmissible?

No. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Hearsay relates to when a witness testifies about an out of court statement. For example, if Jill testifies, "John told me that Phil punched him," this statement is hearsay because Jill is testifying about John's out of court statement. Now if John testifies that Phil punched him, that is not hearsay, because John is testifying to what happened, not what somebody told him.

Also, hearsay is not always inadmissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule where an out of court statement would be admissible."

https://splinternews.com/people-are-convicted-based-on-one-witness-all-the-time-1829367479

People Are Convicted Based on One Witness All The Time

"I rob you on a dark, deserted street at night. You call the police. You describe me. The police find me. You confirm it was me. You testify against me. I go to jail. This sort of thing is completely normal.

Sure, the police and prosecutors would like to have as much evidence as possible. They would like to have another witness, or my DNA, or to find the items that I stole from you in my possession. But if they don’t have any of those additional things—if they only have your own testimony that I robbed you—I have news for you: they will still arrest me. And, if the jury finds your testimony to be credible, they will find me guilty, and I will go to jail."

[Rama Set]

But probably not on Melissa Carone’s word.