"A Judge Just Shot Down 25 of the Trump Campaign's Conspiracy Theories in Nevada"
Shooting down their baseless claims, the Nevada judge wrote the challengers “did not prove under any standard of proof" — 25 times.
A breakdown.
lawandcrime.com/2020-election/… via @lawcrimenews
Shooting down their baseless claims, the Nevada judge wrote the challengers “did not prove under any standard of proof" — 25 times.
A breakdown.
lawandcrime.com/2020-election/… via @lawcrimenews
"Contest[ant]s did not prove under any standard of proof that the Agilis machine malfunctioned."
That's the automated counting machine vilified in many a pro-Trump election-conspiracy suit.
That's the automated counting machine vilified in many a pro-Trump election-conspiracy suit.
Three of the iterations of "did not prove under any standard of proof" had to do with claims about Agilis machines.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" any problems with electronic voting machines.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that illegal votes occurred, or legal votes weren't counted, let alone in large enough numbers to overcome POTUS-elect Biden's 33,596-vote victory.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" any shenanigans with provisional ballots, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" any funny business with the signature verification process, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" any problems with in-person voting technology, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" ineligible voters voted, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that ballots with irregularities were accepted, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that dead people voted, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that any voter other than an intended voter voted, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that ballots were illegal accepted after deadlines, let alone at sufficient margins.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that illegal votes of any kind were cast and accepted, let alone at sufficient margins.
"Reasonable doubt is one based on reason, not mere possibility."
"Reasonable doubt is one based on reason, not mere possibility."
They ""did not prove under any standard of proof" that Nevada election officials committed any malfeasance.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that any Nevada official violated any right to observe ballot-counting.
Nor did they "prove under any standard of proof" that any Clark County official knowingly did so.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that the Biden-Harris campaign gave or offered anything of value in exchange for an election benefit.
Like for example, a bottle of Dom Perignon, to choose one out of thin air.
Like for example, a bottle of Dom Perignon, to choose one out of thin air.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" those smears Trump supporters may have read in "The Federalist" about the Nevada Native Vote Project.
They "did not prove under any standard of proof" that an anonymous "Doe 3" had anything meaningful to say that would show this to have been anything other than a free and fair election that has come under bad-faith attack by discontents in the democratic process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
