A buddy is asking for a source that the courts never admitted evidence of fraud. I keep telling him how lawsuits were rejected before any evidence was even allowed
I’d challenge him to find one ruling that stated the election was fair. You cant find one because, like you said, the courts didn’t allow the cases to be heard.
Bring up the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. "Discovery," of evidence is not addressed until later in the trial process.. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
I want to say the NV case actually entered evidence into the fact record, but the judge punted. I think the state-based WI case did as well (with the ultimate 4-3 ruling). AZ had some court-ordered discovery (e.g. signature verification), which was damning.
Those are the only ones that were allowed to proceed outside of muh standing and muh laches.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-election-court-losses-electoral-college
I’d challenge him to find one ruling that stated the election was fair. You cant find one because, like you said, the courts didn’t allow the cases to be heard.
Bring up the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. "Discovery," of evidence is not addressed until later in the trial process.. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
Wat fo?
You could show the rulings for like 49 out of 50 of them never made it into court. I think maybe one or two did
I want to say the NV case actually entered evidence into the fact record, but the judge punted. I think the state-based WI case did as well (with the ultimate 4-3 ruling). AZ had some court-ordered discovery (e.g. signature verification), which was damning.
Those are the only ones that were allowed to proceed outside of muh standing and muh laches.
That's not what the TV and Dems are saying.