This is the problem with Trump worshippers. Anybody who doesn't see things the exact way they do is an idiot. Despite the fact that they can offer proof of nothing they say.
I'll make a prediction here. Trump and his legal team will not bring substantial enough evidence to the courts that will come close to swaying the outcome of the election. "Kraken" will be a snail and "Biblical" will be anything but.
I can't see what's not there. Show me the evidence of mass fraud and I can address individual claims. Random claims of being blind because I can't see it don't count.
The largest CLAIMS of fraud in Arizona are not even backed up by flimsy affidavits much less more substantive evidence. Again, where is the EVIDENCE? I agree that there are all kinds of claims out there. It's just that I'm not seeing any evidence to back up those claims and the latest Arizona hearing is no exception. The Trump legal team has claimed to have such overwhelming evidence but they sure haven't been presenting it in any of the court cases thus far. What are they waiting for?
No, I'm quoting the article which in this case, whatever you feel about Fox News, was simply reporting the fact that neither courts, state nor local election officials have found evidence of widespread fraud thus far.
Okay then, point me to a court case, state official or election official that has found widespread fraud and what they found. Or are you saying the courts are lying?
I think there is merit to the claims that election law was changed unconstitutionally and even that there was opportunity for fraud. But as far as actual evidence of fraud occurring, I have yet to see anything beyond what a few people say they thought they saw. That won't hold up in court.
I'm somewhat doubtful the Supreme Court is going to do anything about the non-legislative changes to state election laws if the states themselves don't want to do anything about it but we'll see. Most likely if they choose to rule at all it will be something to the effect that there isn't enough evidence to suggest it affected the outcome of the election enough for the court to do anything about it. I think the Supreme Court will be hesitant to change the outcome of an election without a significant number of provably fraudulent ballots.
This is the problem with Trump worshippers. Anybody who doesn't see things the exact way they do is an idiot. Despite the fact that they can offer proof of nothing they say.
I'll make a prediction here. Trump and his legal team will not bring substantial enough evidence to the courts that will come close to swaying the outcome of the election. "Kraken" will be a snail and "Biblical" will be anything but.
I can't see what's not there. Show me the evidence of mass fraud and I can address individual claims. Random claims of being blind because I can't see it don't count.
Arizona Hearing
"So far, courts and state and local election officials have not found evidence of widespread voter fraud, enough to overturn the results of the election."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-giuliani-arizona-election-fraud-gop-hearing
The largest CLAIMS of fraud in Arizona are not even backed up by flimsy affidavits much less more substantive evidence. Again, where is the EVIDENCE? I agree that there are all kinds of claims out there. It's just that I'm not seeing any evidence to back up those claims and the latest Arizona hearing is no exception. The Trump legal team has claimed to have such overwhelming evidence but they sure haven't been presenting it in any of the court cases thus far. What are they waiting for?
Are you quoting William Barr who should be fired?
No, I'm quoting the article which in this case, whatever you feel about Fox News, was simply reporting the fact that neither courts, state nor local election officials have found evidence of widespread fraud thus far.
They are lying.
Okay then, point me to a court case, state official or election official that has found widespread fraud and what they found. Or are you saying the courts are lying?
I think there is merit to the claims that election law was changed unconstitutionally and even that there was opportunity for fraud. But as far as actual evidence of fraud occurring, I have yet to see anything beyond what a few people say they thought they saw. That won't hold up in court.
I'm somewhat doubtful the Supreme Court is going to do anything about the non-legislative changes to state election laws if the states themselves don't want to do anything about it but we'll see. Most likely if they choose to rule at all it will be something to the effect that there isn't enough evidence to suggest it affected the outcome of the election enough for the court to do anything about it. I think the Supreme Court will be hesitant to change the outcome of an election without a significant number of provably fraudulent ballots.