Thread debunking "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense about election lawsuits

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jonathan Casey
@JonathanTCasey
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/
7:56 PM · Dec 24, 2020

Unrolled thread here (best viewed at link for documents)
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1342303141975515136.html

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/

democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
Image
Image

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/

democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
Image

Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

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

4/

democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image

Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
Image
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
Image
Image
Image
Image

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

democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
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
democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
Image
Image
Ward v. Jackson (Arizona)

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

/9
democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Image
Image
Image

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!
I've had several commenters say the "statistical anomalies" weren't heard by judges. So I will prove that judges heard that "evidence". This is from the filing for the defense in Feehan v WEC (Wisconsin), this will be a two part tweet

10a/
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Image
Image
Image
Image
The previous tweet shows that the "experts" are no such thing, and this tweet will address the "statistical anomalies" they thought they had found. I will actually have a third tweet to put the final nail in the "statistical anomalies" coffin.

Feehan v WEC (Wisconsin)cont.

10b/
Image
Image
Image
Image
Third tweet proving that judges did see the "statistical anomalies" claims, and utter debunking them.

It's just a joy to read rational thought! When reading Sidney Powells claims, you forget what a blessing having
a rational brain is.

Feehan v WEC (Wisconsin)cont.
10c/
Image
Image
Image
Image


Just started a thread on the latest court rulings regarding States violating their own laws, or the Constitution.

The Judges are pretty clear: it did not happen.

Unroll available on Thread Reader

Also going to post this here in case someone is worried about what might happen on Jan 6th

Hint: the election is over.

One last thing! Screenshot the reactions you get to this thread and I'll repost them here for the lolz.

We've had 4 years of them trolling us, let's at least get some souvenirs over the next 25 days...
• • •

[Arkansas Granny]

1. I wasn't aware that they had presented any evidence.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. I Read The Rolled Version

They didn't.
The entire thread doesn't debunk the evidence, it says the judges reviewed everything and couldn't find what could be reasonably called evidence.
The judges consistently say claims are not credible, plaintiffs offer no evidence, that evidence is "hearsay within hearsay", the "experts" are nothing of the sort, and so on.
What evidence that was included was consistently wild speculation & conjecture.
One judge mentions that the hearsay doesn't rise to the standard that would allow consideration of hearsay. I think that's judge speak for "You made this up!"
A couple of judges specifically say no evidence was provided. That seems even dumber than offering dumb evidence.
One also said that no harm was claimed, and the one in Detroit was plaintiff's confusion over procedures because they failed to attend the training session.
It's pretty damning & I wonder how many attorneys will get sanctioned over their involvement.

[yellowcanine]

3. Kind of hard to look at nonexistent evidence.

[gratuitous]

4. So some election worker giving an observer a dirty look doesn't merit overturning an election?

Huh. I would have thought such a blatant display of something would be specifically addressed in the Constitution. Is it Trump's fault he doesn't have anything better than this to bring to a lawsuit? Which should be enough to overturn the election results.

[Nevilledog]

5. And it WAS in an "after david"