Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rudy now says that the case is not about fraud after claiming it was about fraud. Seems that the judge had to remind him that he would need to meet heightened standards to make a claim of fraud in court.
One of the problems claiming fraud is not only a high standard but also producing evidence. I don't see that they have any cases remaining in the courts.
so far all i've heard her mention is affidavits about what the machine is capable of doing, not any evidence of what did happen in the 2020 election. "could have happened" is not going to go far in court.
And even that is theoretical. Her Venezuelan example of what may have happened there is disputed. Even so, it involved different software than that used by Dominion or other U.S suppliers. Rudy was ahem a tad confused when he tweeted otherwise.
In any case, no one disagrees that oversight remains crucial. Trump just doesn't like either the vote count or what about every state election official and Homeland Security has told him.
I thought it was overruled by the PA Supreme Court not a federal court. Why wouldnt they appeal to the fed court?
If they are going to use that as an issue in the Rudy case they would need it to be overturned. They can only get it overturned in a federal court.
I believe they need to go entirely through the state supreme court first in order to claim that the state isn't following their own rules, which is how they hope to get the SC involved in this. If they tried before this the SC would refuse to take the case indicating that as a matter of law you cant claim the state isnt following their own rules until you've lost all your state level hearings. I however, am NOT a lawyer.
Maybe someone should tell Rudy that, because he is currently trying to argue it even though it was dropped from the case by the Trump attorneys in the amended complaint.
Not sure what makes you think that.
The issue of not having enough access to conduct meaningful observation is all over the amended complaint.
That was the heart of the case the PA Supreme Court overturned today.
The issue of not having enough access to conduct meaningful observation is all over the amended complaint.
That was the heart of the case the PA Supreme Court overturned today.
The judges statement during the hearing today that that complaint had been redlined by the plaintiffs attorneys.
The two claims they are making in this case are at the bottom of the amended complaint starting on page 56.
Count 1 is a 14th amendment claim that some areas allowed curing of ballots and others didn't.
Count 2 is a violation of electors and election clause. It is stating that no one can change election laws except for legislature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
