Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th Presidents statements were accurate or not and he therefore denies they were false
4D chess. They're basically saying because no court chose to hear the cases, they couldn't rule that fraud claims were inaccurate and therefore can be taken as truth. Lol
I caught that, nice wording. Though I noticed they mention his statement as he won in a landslide as inaccurate. Just straight out but his opinion....odd.
If you're referring to Answer 5, its actually the opposite. Its saying that they are alleging that his opinion on winning by a landslide is "factually in error", and the President is denying that allegation.
Edit: I get that its semantics on the word "opinion", but it has to be worded that way because they are framing this as a "freedom of speech" issue.
Lmao on Page 4:
4D chess. They're basically saying because no court chose to hear the cases, they couldn't rule that fraud claims were inaccurate and therefore can be taken as truth. Lol
I caught that, nice wording. Though I noticed they mention his statement as he won in a landslide as inaccurate. Just straight out but his opinion....odd.
If you're referring to Answer 5, its actually the opposite. Its saying that they are alleging that his opinion on winning by a landslide is "factually in error", and the President is denying that allegation.
Edit: I get that its semantics on the word "opinion", but it has to be worded that way because they are framing this as a "freedom of speech" issue.
It being in the Articles is a farce in and of itself. It's a childish charge. "He said something mean, and he's a liar, liar, pants on fire!"
Who are "they" in "they are alleging" ? The democrats? If it means that then you are right.
He DID win a landslide of counties. He DID win a landslide of Bellweather states. He DID help the GOP ("we") win a landslide of House seats.