I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
Its called “running the clock out”. The court challenge gives false hopium to us. We think we have a chance and like lucy, they pull the ball when we try to kick. I read the complaint and found the evidence light and lacking. The judge dismissed 8/10 and kicked her to the curb after two days. Her lawyers were disorganized and amateurish. If they were serious, they would have the best lawyers in the nation drill down. The left has meticulously studied and orchestrated theft of the voting system nationwide and their multiple angled offenses, election timelines and court speed just don’t jive to successfully challenge doctorate level thievery. We need our game upped to the same level to win our country back. Down voting reality gets nowhere. Sorry.