Doesn't matter how much evidence there is if judges throw out the cases before even seeing anything. "Oh you brought the fraud case to me on tuesday? Nope Has to be friday. Since you didn't bring it on the right day, I'm rejecting this and you can't submit again for seven days."
Well cause they were in on it. I suppose why they kept pushing the "collusion" narrative in 2016 was so that when they colluded with everything to steal the election, people would already be tired of it or just not understand what collusion actually means.
Correct, that is unfortunately how they do it. They don't believe in an objective truth so as long as they can manipulate everyone to see a false perception of reality they can decide that is "truth", just as authoritarians always have done through censorship and politically propaganda biased "news" reporting.
Doesn't matter how much evidence there is if judges throw out the cases before even seeing anything. "Oh you brought the fraud case to me on tuesday? Nope Has to be friday. Since you didn't bring it on the right day, I'm rejecting this and you can't submit again for seven days."
The judges reject this because the judges were the ones who violated the constitution.
Well cause they were in on it. I suppose why they kept pushing the "collusion" narrative in 2016 was so that when they colluded with everything to steal the election, people would already be tired of it or just not understand what collusion actually means.
As long as they don't see the evidence of fraud it's not a legal election. It's as simple as that.
you mean as long as they ignore everything and don't actually officially see the evidence, its a "legal" election?
Correct, that is unfortunately how they do it. They don't believe in an objective truth so as long as they can manipulate everyone to see a false perception of reality they can decide that is "truth", just as authoritarians always have done through censorship and politically propaganda biased "news" reporting.