This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G
King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL
Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF
Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
Law v. Whitmer (Nevada case backed by the Trump Campaign)

Literally the last four pages just show the utter lack of evidence of fraud of any kind. No point in highlighting everything!

/6
Constantio v. Detroit

This is another good one showing that the people being accused of fraud sign affidavits too. And they are far more trustworthy than rumors and innuendo. If the accusers had just shown up to training!

/7

https://t.co/Ci4ESGIN45
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes

"A theory for which no evidence exists"

"the real issue" was not fraud, but "the outcome of the election"

Damn.

/8
https://t.co/5aTdtXbcrv
Ward v. Jackson (Arizona)

"the challenge fails to present any evidence of misconduct [or] illegal votes”

/9
https://t.co/w16Cmnga9G
I will definently add to this thread as I come across new cases. Please feel free to suggest them!

Also, I will probably do a thread that goes over the courts finding that the States did NOT break their own election laws, so let me know if you will find that useful!

More from Law

We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.


The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.

It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.

The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.

Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.

You May Also Like