Originally Posted by
Niall_Quinn
That's the strategy, isn't it? Give up. Don't look. Don't speak.
Sorry, no can do.
I'm not familiar with the case from which those snippets appear, but based on other cases I have followed it's more than simple to follow along. In the first snippet the attorney makes it clear his case does not allege fraud because all cases in which such allegations have been made have been thrown out on grounds of standing. Basically the court summarily rules the Trump Campaign itself cannot bring such claims because they cannot be an aggrieved party in that particular jurisdiction, the argument being the campaign is not a voter and therefore can not suffer harm due to fraud, whether proven or not. It's a bullshit argument but technically legal. That's why the attorney is specific about the case not being about fraud.
In the second snippet, the judge (who is clearly political), concocts a procedural argument that penalises the plaintiff for practicing due diligence before entering affidavits into evidence. Essentially the argument goes, because you tossed some affidavits on grounds of them being unsound you have therefore cast doubt on those presented as sound, therefore the entire procedure in gathering the affidavits is unsound. A classic procedural dismissal and the law being tortured for political ends.
The net result is the case being dismissed without the evidence being presented, which is the entire point from the court's perspective.
Now if you want to step beyond your TDS and have a discussion, fine. Otherwise follow your own advice and poke your nose out. Or at least bring something that isn't culled straight from the front pages of the fake news media.