Office of the Former President?

[Wrangler]

You should probably phrase it more along the lines of "do you have any evidence that will hold up in court that thousands of votes came from dead people"?

Another Leftist lie! The Courts did not rule based on the evidence but ‘standing.’ Who does have standing when election fraud is discovered?

 

[Wrangler]

I suspect you are simply going to ignore them.

Appeal to Authority. By ‘them’ you must mean my political betters who are only motivated by truth and justice and not my lying eyes and ears.

 

[McBell]

Another Leftist lie! The Courts did not rule based on the evidence but ‘standing.’ Who does have standing when election fraud is discovered?

That is a mighty long winded "no"...

 

[McBell]

Appeal to Authority. By ‘them’ you must mean my political betters who are only motivated by truth and justice and not my lying eyes and ears.

What authority are you claiming I am appealing to?
I merely presented three links with a prediction you would simply ignore them.
Which you did.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Another Leftist lie! The Courts did not rule based on the evidence but ‘standing.’ Who does have standing when election fraud is discovered?

What, you know more about the law than the Supreme Court Justices? Here is the legal definition of standing:

They rejected Texas complaint against Pennsylvania because Texas could not demonstrate these elements>

Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Standing

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another Leftist lie! The Courts did not rule based on the evidence but ‘standing.’ Who does have standing when election fraud is discovered?

Nope, not so. Only some of the cases were rejected for standing. Why make such easily refutable claims?

 

[ecco]

Truth is strongly biased against the globalist narrative.

Then what were you talking about when you said...
"I'm afraid you are the victim of the propagandists in the legacy media. "

 

[ecco]

Another Leftist lie! The Cour

Nonsense! That is true in some of the cases. In many of the other cases, Rudy and his cohorts presented their evidence and their witnesses and the courts ruled against them.

There were sixty cases. All but one was found to be baseless for a variety of reasons.

• In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.
By MARK SCOLFORO and COLLEEN LONGNovember 21, 2020

ARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

The case was always a long shot to stop President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, but it was President Donald Trump’s best hope to affect the election results through the courts, mostly because of the number of electoral votes, 20, at stake in Pennsylvania. His personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, stepped into a courtroom for the first time in decades to argue the case this past week.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

The judge wrote, he got “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations .... unsupported by evidence.”

​

You really need to listen to someone other than the OANNs and the Brietbarts. Willful ignorance of the facts is not bliss.

 

[Wrangler]

Nope, not so. Only some of the cases were rejected for standing. Why make such easily refutable claims?

‘Some’ does not invalidate my statement.

Let me type this slow to help you understand. There is mountains of evidence. I saw it with my own eyes.

There is a reason the oligarchs are attempting to shut down all media outlets that talk about it. Compare the treatment to the fraudulent claims of Russia Collusion.

You are being played. Keep relying on Appeal to Authority.

 

[McBell]

There is mountains of evidence. I saw it with my own eyes.

And yet you do not offer up even one shred of it even after being flat out asked to present....

 

[Subduction Zone]

‘Some’ does not invalidate my statement.

Let me type this slow to help you understand. There is mountains of evidence. I saw it with my own eyes.

There is a reason the oligarchs are attempting to shut down all media outlets that talk about it. Compare the treatment to the fraudulent claims of Russia Collusion.

You are being played. Keep relying on Appeal to Authority.

LOL! You should not try to use logical fallacies since you do not know how to apply them. You only make yourself look like an incompetent parrot when you make that error.

If you "saw it with your own eyes" then you should be able to find valid evidence for it. People with a high degree of prejudice are easily fooled. You have been fooled. As I just pointed out to another when even conservative judges appointed by Trump tell you that there is no evidence of widespread fraud then you can bet that there is no widespread evidence.

All that you need to do is to find evidence from a reliable source. I am not a creationist, I do not deny evidence or run away from it.

 

[Wrangler]

If you "saw it with your own eyes" then you should be able to find valid evidence for it.

I have. You do not have eyes to see

 

[Wandering Monk]

I have. You do not have eyes to see

Yeah, I thought so. You got nothin'. Welcome to my iggy list confabulist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have. You do not have eyes to see

Please, do not post falsehoods about others. If you cannot support your claims with evidence they become personal attacks.

You have claimed to have seen events. If that is true then you should be able to support your claims. This is not an unreasonable demand on my part. Your reluctance to do so indicates that for all of your bluster you know that you are wrong. I have seen Trumpettes misinterpret events endlessly, but they never have been able to support their claims.

 

[McBell]

I have. You do not have eyes to see

This is nothing more than a bold line of bull **** in a sad attempt at back peddling.

 

[Wrangler]

And yet you do not offer up even one shred of it even after being flat out asked to present....

You are whacked! I am the evidence. Are you a witness for Christ? I am a witness for the massive fraud.

 

[McBell]

You are whacked! I am the evidence. Are you a witness for Christ? I am a witness for the massive fraud.

You are not the least bit convincing as evidence.
And I mean for both the fraud you claim and Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are whacked! I am the evidence. Are you a witness for Christ? I am a witness for the massive fraud.

Nope, it appears that you are merely acting as a reactionary. Please learn what is and what is not evidence. You are the claim at best.