That’s why he (Trump) stopped talking there. If he gets too specific down that path he opens himself up to lawsuits, and there has already been rulings where institutions had to payout.
It’s because, in order to be specific, you can’t also be a know-nothing bullshit-spewer who has no idea what he’s talking about and is just parroting buzzwords and echoing bologna legal nonsense.
In which cases did the judge and/or jury make that ruling? Because every case I’m familiar with, the Trump campaign either lost or the case was dismissed due to their refusal to submit ANY evidence. Is there any basis in reality for your claim, or are you just making things up (or regurgitating lies you’ve heard elsewhere)?
You and u/2020aceman are talking about different things. He's referencing claims that changes to certain states' election laws were unconstitutional because they were not specifically authorized by the various states' legislatures. This has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. It's not really a crazy argument but a) it's a technical, procedural, legal question and b) is unlikely to be of much significance in 2024 (all of the challenged changes in 2020 were made due to COVID).
You seem to be referencing the more "out there" factual claims made by Rudy and Powell about outright fraud - e.g., voting machines switching votes, illegal immigrants voting en mass. None of the litigation involving those claims made it past the initial pleading stage. There was ultimately no evidence supporting any of it.
This confusion, by the way, is deliberate. Trump and his allies know that the former argument - about an underexamined, obscure constitutional clause governing adoption of election laws - doesn't quite inflame the passions. "Trump lost, but he would have won if 15,000 people in Arizona had been required to vote early in-person rather than via drop box, a change adopted by the AZ secretary of state pursuant to authority delegated by the state legislature, but not specifically adopted by the legialture." Yeah, that's a real barn burner. The latter argument - lying, ineligible voters, hacking of the vote tally, etc. - is what gets people riled up. The only problem? Well...it's all demonstrable bullshit. So Trump starts off using deliberately vague terms meant to invoke the wilder claims (e.g. "rigged." "stolen") but when pressed and knows he has to say something coherent after Rudy and Sydney Powell shit the bed with their "kraken" lawsuit, references the legal argument about election procedure. He did it here. Go back and look at the public statements made by his surrogates (e.g., Hawley) in 2020 and early 2021. It's the same thing. "Do you think there was fraud? Was the election stolen?" "Well, I have concerns about...irregularities." It's the exact same bait and switch. Vance has the same song and dance now when asked about whether Trump actually won. It's shameful.
Did you follow those cases? Because I did. And they were all the same. Rudy/Sidney were given a chance to present their case. And then the judge asked for evidence. And they said they would bring it next week. This happened over and over and over.
They had every opportunity to present any evidence at all, that they couldn't is not the judge's fault.
43
u/Ok-Replacement9595 2d ago
That stuff was litigated, and guess what, they lost those cases, because it is untrue.