ScribeAlpha

Q) Why did Trump attorneys tell federal judges there is no fraud?

A) There is no accountability for lying to you. There is to a federal judge.

Rcki

Let us not forget the Missle that struck the RV parked outside of the AT&T building in Nashville Tennessee that housed all of the d******n v****g machines, the morning of December 25 2020. This was a part of the cover-up.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Nope.
No fraud worth discussing was found.
Free f**r e******n was declared.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

He only said he didn’t lose.
He knew he lost , and said out loud to his sideshow
“Don’t tell them we lost !”
“Don’t tell them we lost!”
And continues this big lie to date.
The reason being ,
He thinks y’all is stoopid.

Fab

Give it up!

EmilyD

Bots don't do that. She gets a LOT of attention by being the way she is. She wouldn't get nearly enough attention if she were respectful to people.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

She can’t. Too stoopid

Army

Archie bunker on the energy crisis


https://youtu.be/IGQxjmofOTY

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Proven... baloney,,, trump and his minions could not even find any evidence to get into a court room.. over 60 time they dreamed things up and had nothing that would stand in court..

Not one iota of proof and yet after all this time it is rumored that many of the cult members still send money which trump spends on golf and lobster.. such a joke on his troops.. he laughs at them every day..

Just a reminder of what was done to our nation by the orange crazed mob..

EmilyD

They weren't allowed to show the proof....which was witnesses, affidavits, testimony (a LOT of it), videos, etc...

The reason the evidence was not heard by the court was because Texas (the state that brought the suit to the courts) has no say in how Pennsylvania/Michigan/Wisconsin/Georgia conduct e******ns. Therefore, the court determined no basis to sue (no "standing"). So they didn't even take the evidence into consideration...they weren't going to listen to it because of a technicality.

Not hearing evidence because of a technicality is not settling a case. THAT is what still needs to happen.

You can't screech "there's no evidence" because a court won't look at it....

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You’re wasting your true explanation on that lying POS.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

no Emily.. You must show some law related reason to get into court. You can not simply say "I want to go to court on this", you must show cause.. from a murder case to a civil suet.. if you have nothing to show cause, you do not get into court..

The Texas case.. far from a technicality, this is a long standing point of law.. no state can go to court because of something that happened in any other state.. that has no affect to the first state well being.. in this case what may or may not have happened Wisconsin or any other state had nothing at all to do with Texas.. standing point of law..

If you demand to know the source of this information.. it comes in simple language from "my son the lawyer".. in a few cases I have asked him specific questions and this was one of those. So after he made the class room ID of the law, he told me in terms I could understand.. I know you will not accept facts. after all this time why would you.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Look up no standing then STFU.!

elledee

The demonrats e******n day worst nightmare.......TRUMP!!!!!!!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Ok J, this may suit you better..

https://www.brownandcrouppen.com/blog/what-is-standing/#:~:text=At%20its%20most%20basic%2C%20standing,%E2%80%9Cantecedent%E2%80%9D%20to%20a%20lawsuit.

DEFINITION
At its most basic, standing is the right of a party to challenge the conduct of another party in court. Standing is not about the actual issues of the case. Instead, it is about the parties to the lawsuit and where they “stand” in relation towards each other. Courts treat standing as an “antecedent” to a lawsuit. In other words, a party must prove they have standing before the court will consider the merits of the case.

Although the definition of standing varies among different jurisdictions, most courts look at some or all of the following elements before determining whether a party has standing in a case:

A legally cognizable interest. This means that the plaintiff must show an interest that is recognized by the courts or by statute.
An injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have a real or a threatened injury. This doesn’t have to mean a bodily injury. It can also mean an infringement of a concrete and actual protected interest. (property rights, civil rights, etc.)
Causation: The injury must be caused by the named defendant, not a third-party who acted independently.
Redressability: A plaintiff must show that a favorable court decision will likely redress the injury. Mere speculation is not enough.