Maybe our idea of plenty of evidence and the courts idea of plenty of evidence are different. Because the court cases yesterday were the Kraken's opportunity to present said evidence. She did.
The court determined it wasn't enough to move forward with the case.
So two separate judges looked at Powells evidence in two separate states and ruled separately that there wasn't enough evidence to move forward in either case.
The Kraken promised us all that there was enough evidence to prove the election was stolen, that Trump won in a landslide by MILIIONS of votes, that voter fraud was rampant in all the swing states (not to mention the rest of the country, but we will focus on the swing states for now) She stated that she had signed affidavits to prove all of this, witnesses to every type of voter fraud you can think of....
blah blah blah...
she had her day in court
Powell failed to provide enough evidence for the judge to even move forward with her case, not once, but twice, in two states, with two separate judges, that both came to the same conclusion.
Did she forget her evidence at home? Did her dog eat her evidence? Or is possible that the evidence she promised she had was not as strong and convincing as she made us all believe it was?
This is taken from an article on the court ruling and speaks directly to the evidence presented.
"U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker also pointed out that Trump voters who claim to have witnessed vote-switching or counting of improper ballots by poll workers and whose affidavits Powell submitted as evidence used words like “believe” and “may” to equivocate.
“A belief is not evidence,” the judge said."
Blah....blah...blah is right. When I hear these things from judges, I just write it off. There's plenty of evidence, from poll workers being kicked out of the battleground election venues to veteran poll workers providing statements to what they witnessed. You should be so lucky to have a case where 1000 plus witnesses give you a statement.
In addition, I read what judges write and come to my own conclusions. I don't rely solely on Politico or anyone else. When a judge makes the following statement, it's absurd in and of itself. In other words, the elections are concluded so you have no standing:
"This case represents well the phrase: “this ship has sailed.” The time has passed to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this
matter is moot."
In addition:
"C. Laches
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they waited too long to knock on the Court’s door. (ECF No. 31 at Pg ID 2175-79; ECF No. 39 at Pg ID 2844.) The Court agrees."
"If Plaintiffs had legitimate claims regarding whether the treatment of election challengers complied with state law, they could have brought their claims well in advance of or on Election Day—but they did not........"
"If Plaintiffs had legitimate concerns about the election machines and software, they could have filed this lawsuit well before the 2020 General Election—yet they sat back and did nothing."
In other words, you should have filed your challenge before the fraud occurred and had no evidence. A proverbial catch 22.
"Plaintiffs could have lodged their constitutional challenges much sooner than they did, and certainly not three weeks after Election Day and one week after certification of almost three million votes. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’
delay results in their claims being barred by laches."
In other words, you have no time to collect evidence, interview witnesses and conduct any sort of investigation. Three (3) weeks is just too long. This reasoning is just absurd.
You can rely on politically appointed judges to do your thinking, I'll believe what my eyes tell me.
www.politico.com
www.breitbart.com
justthenews.com
