Davin News Server

On 2024-04-23 11:03, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:33:39 -0700,  Alan says...
> 
>>> No... there was plenty produced and subsequently thrown out by liberal judges.
>>
>> Give a single example.
> 
> I can't... give a single example, liberal.

That's what I thought, loser.

> 
> The problem is not a lack of evidence supporting Trump's allegations. Rather,
> it's that judges across the United States have refused to even look at the
> evidence, and have instead dismissed case after case based on legal
> technicalities.

OK. Even if true, how does that prevent those who claim they have 
evidence from making that evidence public?

> 
> This argument really came into focus last Friday, when the US Supreme Court
> REJECTED a lawsuit from Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton.

What suit would that be, loser?

> 
> Mr Trump had largely pinned his hopes of overturning the election result on
> that lawsuit, which he labeled "the big one" and "the case everyone has been
> waiting for".
> 
> Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision, Mr Trump said it had "zero interest
> in the merits" of Mr Paxton's case and had "chickened out" of considering them.
> 
> "We've not gotten any court to judge this on its merit," he said on December
> 12, quoting Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.
> 
> "WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT IN OUR PROOF. They say you don't have standing," he
> told Fox Business in an interview on November 29.

He would be allowed to make it public...

...so why hasn't he done so, loser?

> 
> Mr Trump's lawyers have echoed this argument, repeatedly insisting the evidence
> proving fraud exists and they merely need a chance to present it.

Who is stopping them?

> 
> "What we have asked for in court is to not have the certification of false
> results. And so to say, 'Hold on a minute, we have evidence that we will
> present to the court.' We haven't had an opportunity yet to present that to the
> court," Rudy Giuliani said during his rather famous media conference on
> November 19.

You mean when he said he was going to make it public...

...and then punked?

> 
> You get the picture. So, is Mr Trump's explanation correct? Have judges really
> refused to hear the evidence?
> 
> What I'm going to do here is walk you through the key judgments from the last
> six weeks, examining whether or not judges at federal and state level
> considered the merits of the President's allegations before throwing out each
> lawsuit.
> 
> THE SUPREME COURT
> 
> Let's start with the Supreme Court's decision on Friday, for which the answer
> is an unambiguous no.
> 
> "The state of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied
> for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," the court said in
> a brief order shutting down the case.
> 
> "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in
> which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are
> dismissed as moot."
> 
> That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton's voter fraud
> claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump's.

It has to do with the law, loser.

Texas doesn't have standing to challenge another state's election results.

> 
> Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit - and this is
> not just true of election cases, by the way - they must convince the court that
> they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is
> "standing".
> 
> If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle
> and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.
> 
> Texas was trying to sue four other states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and
> Wisconsin - over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential
> election.
> 
> Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its
> own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things,
> but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge
> Pennsylvania's rules is from within Pennsylvania.
> 
> This works both ways. Democrats in California, for example, could not sue Texas
> for something like voter suppression. It's none of their business.

You still haven't actually provided any of the evidence you claim exists.