Perdue comes out in support of the attempted coup.

They didn't hear the cases. Period. Why they didn't hear the cases is a guess and my guess differs from yours.

 

That’s not how it works. A judge can’t dismiss a case because he feels like it. They hear from both sides and make a determination if there is enough evidence to move forward. It’s a cool process. You should read up on it.

 

There is always a reason a judge decides not to hear a case. Evidence is one of them. Politics and the fear of subjecting the nation to a possible disastrous result are a couple more. If I were a judge I wouldn't hear the case either. Imagine the disaster that would ensue if the election were found to be fraudulent. I wouldn't let it happen. You are convinced that there was not enough fraud to swing the election. I, on the other hand, have no idea because the premise hasn 't been investigated. I understand why it has never been investigated but I don't like running a country from a position of fear of the truth. There is no truth in this case. Sorry. There is only the ugliness of politics.

 

As you know, there was no evidence of that. So that wasn't a consideration for any judge throwing out any of Trump's cases for lack of evidence.

 

.

Round and round we go.

 

Indeed. You make false assertions, I point them out.

 

We have opinions. You point out those with which you disagree. I also do it.

 

Wrong again. The cases were dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

 

As I said earlier, we have different opinions. I don't like to repeat myself.

 

No point repeating something that is false. I'll just keep proving you wrong.

On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. ( here ). At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

Similarly, on Dec. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas and backed by Trump, which sought to throw out voting results in four states ( here ). In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case.

On Dec. 1, then-Attorney General William Barr said that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election, even as President Trump kept up his legal efforts to reverse his defeat ( here ). Two weeks later, Barr announced his resignation from the Trump administration ( here ).
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...aud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

 

I believe it is what these people said. I don't think the words meant anything other than it would be a disaster to show the public how fraudulent the 2020 election was.

 

The election wasn't fraudulent so those words would indeed not have meant anything...........other than those uttering them are gullible fools.

 

They don't mean anything to you because you are certain that the evidence is false despite the lack of any investigation. Every election has fraud. Evidence shows this election had much more fraud than usual. Only an investigation can determine how much more. You are wasting your time asking me to ignore the evidence and stop calling for an investigation. You are sure there was insufficient fraud to change the election but you can't possibly know. Nobody knows.

 

Of course they have a preliminary hearing and look at the evidence and if it is so stupid it is laughable They don't go on. Don't be ridiculous like your propaganda machine.....

 

Please change the channel and rejoin reality.

 

Changing channels changes reality?

 

There is no evidence, they couldn't even find any BAMBOO!

 

You won't see the evidence if you refuse to believe it exists.

 

Only for those watching Fox or internet craziness....

 

I wasn't aware that there is a channel for internet craziness. Learn something every day.

 

YouTube channel seems to be popular for the missinformed, Parler

 

What is that mumbo jumbo lol? We have the rule of law and we have real journalists. Yes that exists.

 

We have the rule of law which is subject to interpretation with every action and we have different journalists that choose report some stories and not report others.

 

I'll be darned. I don't access either one. Perhaps I don't like being misinformed.

 

Then it must be that you are unaware of it.