>I do think that Trump has collected a preponderance of evidence that election laws were broken
If so, but he has demonstrated zero fraud, then there is no reason to change a single vote. In each case he is asking for votes to be changed, so such cases are not granted.
The majority of places his team has claimed laws were broken have been shown to be false. There's ample places judges have called his team out on this.
That is the point.
>Below is one such piece of evidence:
That claim was pretty thoroughly demolished in the case and in the replies to that comment. This is not evidence. Again you mistake hearsay for evidence.
It's easy to find people willing to claim all sorts of nonsense. Courts demand evidence to prove a fact, and the standard is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt".
> their claims and the people who give them voice, are dismissed with outright hostility & vitriol
No, in every case I followed, the people with these "voices" were shills brought up to sow confusion. Case after case the voices were shown to not have standing, to not be reliable, several recanted before going to trial, and on and on. This is not an honest enterprise of honest people with legit concerns.
The evidence to this is the sheer brutality of the case outcomes - last I looked it was around 58-1 against Trump and co.
This is why there is hostility and vitriol. It's not an honest set of lawsuits being brought (again, just look how idiotic the cases are being run, and how much money has been raised on these cases, and that the money is going to Trump's pockets, not to cases, and you'll see how this machine works).
> If I'm understanding your position correctly, its basically that the people providing testimony are all liars?
Yes? You seem to be pushing the line that this is all sincere and done in good faith, and ignoring the easily noticeable conclusion that it is a performance from bad actors for obvious selfish ends. So much so that your own good faith is questionable. Creating alt accounts to continue the spam doesn't help.
> cases being dismissed is likewise not evidence of that.
I disagree. I put it to you that it is closely related.
If so, but he has demonstrated zero fraud, then there is no reason to change a single vote. In each case he is asking for votes to be changed, so such cases are not granted.
The majority of places his team has claimed laws were broken have been shown to be false. There's ample places judges have called his team out on this.
That is the point.
>Below is one such piece of evidence:
That claim was pretty thoroughly demolished in the case and in the replies to that comment. This is not evidence. Again you mistake hearsay for evidence.
It's easy to find people willing to claim all sorts of nonsense. Courts demand evidence to prove a fact, and the standard is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt".
> their claims and the people who give them voice, are dismissed with outright hostility & vitriol
No, in every case I followed, the people with these "voices" were shills brought up to sow confusion. Case after case the voices were shown to not have standing, to not be reliable, several recanted before going to trial, and on and on. This is not an honest enterprise of honest people with legit concerns.
The evidence to this is the sheer brutality of the case outcomes - last I looked it was around 58-1 against Trump and co.
This is why there is hostility and vitriol. It's not an honest set of lawsuits being brought (again, just look how idiotic the cases are being run, and how much money has been raised on these cases, and that the money is going to Trump's pockets, not to cases, and you'll see how this machine works).