(12-14-2020, 01:43 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 10:59 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: It's the lack of evidentiary hearings that bothers me, but that really falls on the states more than the courts. I knew Trump was going to have an uphill battle. I knew that courts were going to be reluctant to accept these cases, and I have said that here multiple times. I had a strong feeling the Supreme Court would reject this case. However, considering the nature of this election, the anomalies that took place, and the fact that we are using more of the least secure method of voting (absentee ballots), I expected more states to thoroughly audit the ballots. Where states were unwilling to do this, I had hoped the courts would consider it. This, at the very least, reduces some of the mistrust in our current system. Transparency is important.

I believe democrats cheated. No one who holds power cares enough to do anything about it.

I think what a lot of Trump supporters might be missing is that what Trump attorneys say outside of court and what they say in court are two different things.  They make a lot of allegations, but when they actually get to court, they are much more guarded in terms of what they allege.  Outside of court, they scream about voter fraud.  In court, when they are questioned by judges, they have been forced to admit they aren't alleging voter fraud because they don't have evidence of it.  

This is why there haven't been evidentiary hearings.   A judge says, "You're making this charge, what evidence would you present?"  And time after time after hearing the answer to that question, the judge has said, "You don't have enough evidence to bring a case."  

Donald Trump And His Lawyers Are Making Sweeping Allegations of Voter Fraud In Public. In Court, They Say No Such Thing

Keep in mind, I am not a Trump supporter. I am anti-progressive. 

I have watched several of the court hearings, and most of the congressional hearings. Sidney Powell, for example, asked the judge for 5 days to examine dominion voting machines and was denied. You can not get the kind of evidence required without a proper investigation, and, if the states won't authorize it, it won't be done. I understand why the courts are making the choices that they are making, but you are using that to conclude that fraud did not occur, which is incorrect. We have evidence that irregularities occurred, but the powers that be are choosing not to do a rigorous search.

---