Shelly Simonds isn't conceding after Virginia House tiebreaker vote

[onenote]

42. You are not merely disparaging the lawyers, you're lying about them.

In post number 3, you stated that the Democratic candidate's lawyer agreed to count the disputed vote for her opponent.

That is a blatantly false statement that, for reasons that remain unclear, you refuse to acknowledge as, at very least, mistaken. When you stand by a mistaken statement after you know its wrong, that statement becomes a lie.

Now you're trying to pivot to the argument that her lawyers "obviously did not do their job particularly well" because the court, made up of three Republican judges, agreed over the Democrats objections to consider a late-filed claim by the republicans arguing that the vote, which the republican recount official had agreed shouldn't be counted, should now be counted and that same panel of judges subsequently refused to reconsider their decision to count the vote.

Since you think its "obvious" that the lawyers didn't do a good job because they lost, you presumably also think that Al Gore's lawyers didn't do a good job in Bush v. Gore and that there was some compelling argument that they failed to make that would have persuaded the republicans on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Gore. I think we'd all love to know what that argument was.

And I'd like to know what argument you think Shelly Simonds lawyers should have made that would have altered the outcome of the case. (Presumably you're familiar with the arguments that were made -- you can read the brief online).
(By the way, the law firm representing Simonds in this matter is the same law firm that has won three challenges to gerrymandering at the Supreme Court -- not too shabby).

Again, it's curiouser and curiouser as to why you are attacking the attorneys for Shelly Simonds and, by association, her.