for what it's worth, he brought up that apparently PA supreme court is famous across the country for being a corrupt travesty of partisan politics.
Still, some of the mistakes our side made in courts sounded pretty bad.
I think you are overall right though - i've been reading these cases and judge statements myself and I see clear bias. Many judges twist whatever way it takes to justify not allowing audits.
the problem is that, as far as I know, no court of law in any of the disputed states has yet agreed to rule on the merits - that being the process of actually examining the evidence of fraud presented.
(in some cases, the evidence has been presented to the court in attempt to justify going forward with the case, but there is a big difference between 'here is my analysis' and 'okay, lets go through it and see if its valid')
You can have all the evidence in the world, but if no legal authority will hear you out, you officially haven't proven anything as far legitimate legal process is concerned.
if he knew better why wasn’t he getting in contact with them or better yet taking over the lawsuit?
you have a point there, and I am trying to keep in mind the wide chasm between the people willing to pound sand in arena and spectators on the stands.
Whatever is said about their performance and capability, these 3 are actually trying. However this turns out, I am going to remember that.
The arguments the lawyers bring up don't matter. Because the law doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the judges want to happen.
you are probably right.
for what it's worth, he brought up that apparently PA supreme court is famous across the country for being a corrupt travesty of partisan politics.
Still, some of the mistakes our side made in courts sounded pretty bad.
I think you are overall right though - i've been reading these cases and judge statements myself and I see clear bias. Many judges twist whatever way it takes to justify not allowing audits.
the problem is that, as far as I know, no court of law in any of the disputed states has yet agreed to rule on the merits - that being the process of actually examining the evidence of fraud presented.
(in some cases, the evidence has been presented to the court in attempt to justify going forward with the case, but there is a big difference between 'here is my analysis' and 'okay, lets go through it and see if its valid')
You can have all the evidence in the world, but if no legal authority will hear you out, you officially haven't proven anything as far legitimate legal process is concerned.
you have a point there, and I am trying to keep in mind the wide chasm between the people willing to pound sand in arena and spectators on the stands.
Whatever is said about their performance and capability, these 3 are actually trying. However this turns out, I am going to remember that.