Refusal to prove you didn't cheat is a good indicator you cheated....

Except the orange has already been meticulously examined and scrutinized in a myriad of ways, and it was determined to be real by literally everyone who knows the anatomy of an orange. Despite that, imbeciles like you keep insisting it's fake.

Rejecting 59 (or whatever the count is) lawsuits isn't cutting the orange in half. Lmao. It's refusing to.

I mean, it kind of is. I feel like you're pretending every allegation of voter fraud ever is automatically true and everyone else has to prove otherwise. That's not how it works.

Refusal to give them the opportunity to prove it - but NOT allowing them their day in court is NOT cutting the orange in half.

Lets say the court cases were reversed. 59 or some odd count now... Were heard by the courts.

If they were heard and courts still ruled against them - then yes, the orange was cut in half & shown to be a real orange. Or - they ruled in favor bc fraud was uncovered & then yes - the orange was cut in half & shown to be a fake orange.

Since these people didn't get their day in court - the orange has never been cut in half.

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together… This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."
-Judge Matthew Brann

"This ‘supplemental evidence’ is inadmissible as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence."
-Judge Cynthia Stephens

"Perhaps if plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the Oct. 29, 2020, walk-through of the TCF Center ballot-counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day. Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, plaintiffs’ affiants did not have a full understanding” of the absentee ballot tabulation process."
-Judge Timothy M. Kenny

"Although Wood generally claims fundamental unfairness, and the declarations and testimony submitted in support of his motion speculate as to widespread impropriety, the actual harm alleged by Wood concerns merely a “garden variety” election dispute. Wood does not allege unfairness in counting the ballots; instead, he alleges that select non-party, partisan monitors were not permitted to observe the Audit in an ideal manner. Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing."
-Judge Steven D. Grimberg

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations
and then proof. We have neither here."
-Judge Stephanos Bibas

These are just some rulings btw, there are many more.

If you'd bother to read your own quotes, they rejected actual eye witness testimony and dismissed the cases. Where in any other court (say a murder trial) it would allow subpoenas to be issued.

Hearsay, conjecture, and fundamental misunderstandings on how election laws work are not evidence.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2020/12/04/evidence-hearsay-voter-fraud-claims-in-affidavits-explained/

Nope, actually affidavits, video, voter validity and statistical data are, which is what we have.

Lets say you witnessed a judge make a backend deal with a known criminal entity. You bring this up to the courts & the courts dismiss it. So you take it up the chain - its dismissed, so again you take it further & its dismissed.

Does it mean that nothing bad happened with that judge? Or does it mean they refused to listen to you?

You're conjuring a completely different scenario and extrapolating it to election fraud cases? Yeah of course, if a court is being corrupt, then their ruling is invalid. But you have to actually PROVE that, and I know you can't, because I know you have absolutely evidence.

So if it happened to you in that scenario - you could see where courts are looking to be corrupt & their rulings invalid.

If you, as someone in judicial power, knew of corruption you & others partook in (election fraud or otherwise) - you would refuse to hear the case or get a buddy internally to do so.

All it takes is a hand full of corrupt people in 5 cities & their results would look similar to what we have seen - dismissal after dismissal after etc.

1. Again, you have zero proof, and thus your claims have zero merit whatsoever.

2. A lot of the judges who ruled against Trump were Republicans, and some were even Trump appointees. Why would Trump appointees snub their own preferred president if there was credible evidence of election fraud?

There is a paper trail of who made changes (illegally) to election laws. People who didn't have the authority to do so. Law changes that lightened the rules for voter ID's, signature verifications, and such. Laws that have to be set by a different group of people.

Well in 2015 - when Trump gained steam & started killing the Republican big wigs in the primaries - it was alllllll Trump this that & the other - they tried to destroy him. Small hands & such...

But AMERICA was tired of Big Washington's crap & got behind him. Knowing this wave of people behind Trump would vote their asses out - they got behind Trump.

Since 2015 - the plan was to give him 4 years & try for 2024.

Also Trumps appointed judges came from suggestions made by people in government.... Pence, Cruz, etc... So yeah. He appointed judges - at the recommendations of Big Washington.

You realize that this is a sign that you're in a cult...right? You're so invested into Trump that even his own appointees are wrong by default. Only Trump is right.

And AGAIN, you have ZERO proof of any corruption whatsoever.

Of course I don't - I wasn't involved. But you know, video evidence, poll workers after hours counting ballots with no return address, driver wondering why ballots came in from another state - where did his trailer go? PA confirming they received 200K more mail in ballots than what they sent out. County data spikes that are impossible for the machines to count. Multiple poll workers not being allowed to witness ballot adjudication processes. Live feeds where Trump total votes dropped by thousands. Poll workers boarding up windows to conceal processes. Fake water main breaks. Shutting down counting for hours due to glitches. Voter registration that surpasses population growth. Dead people voting.

Yep.....no evidence. Nothing to see here folks.

How's the sand your head is buried in?

Too bad the courts rigorously examined the evidence and found it to be invalid. Are you gonna cry about it?

Most of the cases were dismissed for procedural reasons - barely any were given specific information state invalidity of claims. Do your research.

Oh wait, you did your research and watched CNN right?

I did my research and examined the actual court rulings.

Then you should know most of them were dismissed for procedural reasons & didn't specify particular information regarding the validity or invalidity of the claims themselves.

"This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together… This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more."
-Judge Matthew Brann

"This ‘supplemental evidence’ is inadmissible as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence."
-Judge Cynthia Stephens

"Perhaps if plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the Oct. 29, 2020, walk-through of the TCF Center ballot-counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day. Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, plaintiffs’ affiants did not have a full understanding” of the absentee ballot tabulation process."
-Judge Timothy M. Kenny

"Although Wood generally claims fundamental unfairness, and the declarations and testimony submitted in support of his motion speculate as to widespread impropriety, the actual harm alleged by Wood concerns merely a “garden variety” election dispute. Wood does not allege unfairness in counting the ballots; instead, he alleges that select non-party, partisan monitors were not permitted to observe the Audit in an ideal manner. Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing."
-Judge Steven D. Grimberg

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations
and then proof. We have neither here."
-Judge Stephanos Bibas

These are just some rulings btw, there are many more.

But I'll upvote you for engaging in debate.

One of the best one's I've seen so far.
💯💯💯