Why don't trump supporters provide evidence of the so called mounting voter fraud in the 2020 election?

[Anonymous]

[abc3643]

In "Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar", U. S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann, a Republican, wrote the following in his order dismissing the case:

=================

... Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, 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. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

=================

Look at that:

"I... dismiss Plaintiffs’ action

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with prejudice."

What does that mean?

Dismissal with prejudice means that the plaintiff cannot refile the same claim again in that court.

It means, in lay terms, "You are so full of shit that you are not permitted to bring this issue to this court again. Stop wasting this court's time with your frivolous nonsense."

[WindAtMyBack]

I have provided LOTS of evidence. Others have provided LOTS of evidence.

We knew what would happen before the election. A panel of very high level people, including both Democrats and Republicans, and headed by an ex Democratic president, were specifically tasked with researching how to make elections better and more fair. This bipartisan group WARNED against doing things the way they were done in 2020 years before the election. Almost none of their advice was taken.

And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. But I have been watching elections for a long time. What happened in 2020 was not only predictable ahead of time, but it was obvious while it was happening.

[abc3643]

"We knew what would happen before the election."

If that was so, then THAT'S when you go to court!
You win there AND you win in the court of public opinion almost certainly guaranteeing victory in the election.

But that didn't happen.

Because there was no evidence.

But, yes, I agree that elections should be better. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn't think so which is why they created the elective system that they did in the US Constitution.

[WindAtMyBack]

@abc3643
I think they did go to court before the election. If they didn't go to court, they at least argued against it. It was predictable what would happen, but you can't win a court case by saying you think something bad will happen if it's done this way. You can't win a court case because the election went against the recommendations of the Carter-Baker Commission.

However, in general, winning or not winning in court has little to do with what happened. For example only about 2-3% of crimes end in a conviction. That doesn't mean the other 97-98% didn't happen.

The thing is that most people were not watching the election in the right way to see some things that were going on. You had to watch in real time and you had to watch at the local level. And it helped to have a pretty good feel for the geography of the country and the demographics. Most people watched the election as aggregate results at the state level. You can't see anything that way.

[Anonymous]

They don’t have real evidence, never did. Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani have admitted as much after making false claims of fraud in open court. I don’t think most Trump supporters believe it either. They’re just trying to burn the country to the ground out of spite because they didn’t get what they wanted at the ballot box.

[Opinion Owner]

A laughably bad propaganda film that provides zero evidence that could be used in a fraud case. A handful of people turning in more than one ballot and cellphones pinging near ballot boxes in busy public places proves nothing. You’ll have to do much much better than that.

[RolandCuthbert]

They don't have to. What trump teaches is that you don't have to have evidence. You just have to claim fraud. When it comes to any claim forgo objective fact. Make the argument political. Because his supporters support him because they think he is their political leader.

This nation, while it failed most of the time, did aspire to ideals like justice, fairness, etc.

Now we don't have that. What trumpturds have created is a world divided along political lines. You can break the law, murder, steal, lie, etc. . . as long as your politics is okay.

So you will never see any evidence. The don't even bother with going to court anymore, since even the judges trump appointed laugh in his face.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xo_RPtaCZV8

[John_Doesnt]

They have what they believe is evidence. If you don't explain what evidence is to people they will hand you a bunch of BS.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Because there's none. Out of the 65 lawsuits Trump filed about the election, 64 were thrown out by judges because there wasn't any evidence of Trump's BS claims.

[CloudMassacre]

(Does investigations)
(Finds more fake Republican votes than Democrat)
“Fake news!!!”

[DryGermanGuy]

And an audit result reported by FOX News. Which then again must be the newest "traitor".

[OddBeMe]

[God_of_Thunder]

'Cause there isn't any? 🤷‍♂️

[Anonymous]

Because they have none.

[Twalli]

Because they don't have any.