(12-14-2020, 01:49 PM)Minshew Mania Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 01:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: 1) If you did not know that the Supreme Court would slam the door on that case, then your sources of information are severely lacking.  Almost everyone under the sun knew that was going to happen.  So I'm not playing the role of the "smart man," as you allege.  I only knew what almost everyone else knew.  There was not a snowball's chance in hell that under our Constitution, Texas could tell 4 other states how to run their elections. 

2) Trump's lawyers scream and yell about voter fraud, but when they get to court, what they present is not a case of voter fraud.  Over and over, they have admitted in court that they are not presenting a case of voter fraud.  They make allegations in public that they don't present in court.  

https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no...nce-fraud/

3) Judges don't call evidentiary hearings unless you can show that you have some evidence to enter into the record.  Failing that, the judge will not bother to call an evidentiary hearing.  In these cases, judge after judge has excoriated Trump's lawyers for lack of evidence.  There was no evidentiary hearing because there was no evidence presented to the judge to persuade him or her to go forward with the case.  

4) As for your last paragraph, that speaks for itself.

---

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/stat...5463188482


https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/stat...9682915328

That is absolute nonsense.  

1) Dominion voting machines are used all over the country.  If they generated "an enormous amount of errors" as that guy alleges, no one would have bought them.  Dominion has been doing this since 2003.  Why has no one complained about the "enormous amount of errors" until now?  And if they generate an enormous amount of errors, when why did the hand recount in Georgia show that the machine count was correct?    

2) Even if that were true, that they generate a lot of errors, he then leaps to the conclusion that they were intentionally designed that way.  What evidence does anyone have of that?  

3) Even if they were intentionally designed that way, he still isn't actually alleging fraud.  He's saying it presents an opportunity for fraud.  That is not evidence of fraud.  

I call total BS on that tweet.

---