Trump Election Results Lawsuits Don't Have a lot of Good Evidence

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Almost from the moment the election ended, President Trump and his allies have relentlessly attacked the integrity of both the voting and vote counting, a narrative they have sought to advance in nearly 20 lawsuits filed in the past eight days.

While these suits have alleged systemic fraud in at least five states, the evidence they have offered has been different. At least so far, it has been limited, narrow and, according to several judges and experts, unlikely to affect — let alone to overturn — the outcome of the race.

“The level of evidence they’ve produced is actually very low,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “It has a sort of conspiracy theory feeling to it. There are sweeping claims that don’t have a lot of evidence at all and evidence that turns out to be irrelevant.”

Even if you take what is presented as proof in the suits at face value, it speaks to claims made by individual voters and poll observers in a few scattered voting locations across the country. None of the evidence presented so far has the breadth or scope to reverse the relatively large leads amassed by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in any of the key swing states.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-election-results-lawsuits-dont-have-a-lot-of-good-evidence/ar-BB1aXiCX?li=BBnb7Kz

It appears that Kermit Roosevelt III is the great great grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. Also the son of Kermit Roosevelt II who authored the 1953 coup in Iran. FWIW

[Amishman]

1. affidavits are pretty meaningless without anything to back them up

Plenty of useful idiots around who will say anything their 'leader' tells them to.

I'd say they're a dime a dozen, but even that's too much. We've seen in the past four years they'll do it for free and give thanks for the privilege.