What happened with his Supreme Court case? Why isn’t it stickied? I thought it would be huge news? I am suspended on X so can’t get in. We have a link to the video?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
The original case was dismissed based on what the courts [wrongly] assumed was factual defense testimony that the machines were safe, and properly certified. The case was dismissed on standing, not merit.
This is a separate case from the original filing. The new evidence appears to flatly refute the defense testimony, thus allowing the original case to move forward. The original case is where the rigging evidence comes into play, not this particular case.
I’m very logical person so please read my response from the logical point of view and leave your emotions aside.
If it’s true (assumption) that the original case was dismissed based on standing then presenting additional evidence related to machines doesn’t make sense because … it doesn’t change anything to the lack of standing. He should be presenting the evidence of standing, e.g. adding Trump campaign to the case, or so.
Assuming that an irrefutable evidence of rigging can come into play (meaning: is available) - there is no need for any other case to “unblock” that one and there is no need to present any extra evidence that the rigging is possible because we’ve assumed that there is an evidence of rigging itself.
What Lindell is doing with his new evidence is proving the possibility, e.g. like proving that one day people will be able to go to the Moon.
If the evidence of rigging is available (as you said: it can come to play) - it’s like a video of people already on the Moon. At that point proving that “it’s possible to get there” is pointless.
Unfortunately, that is simply not how legal standing works.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing
Take note of point 3; speculative claims.
From what I have been able to gather, the defense asserted that the case should be dismissed because the claims that Lindell's team made- accusing the machines of being faulty (and subject to rigging) were "speculative claims."
Basically, the defense said "look, these machines are tested, and certified, they cannot be rigged impossible! Therefore Lindell is only speculating that rigging happened." The judge agreed with the defense, case dismissed. Evidence of the actual rigging was deemed too "speculative" before it even went to trial.
This new evidence proves that it is not a "speculation" to believe that the machines are in fact vulnerable. And, the machines are now proven vulnerable in specific ways that are contrary to what the defense had [erroneously/falsely] stated in the previous case.
Lindell's team was appealing the standing ruling only with this case, and it appears that they now have irrefutable proof to meet the legal standing criteria.
I like your explanation above.
It really makes now.
Interesting learning. Thank you!