Comment: Again?

(See in situ)


Why again? Are you thinking it won't sound so bad if these things are pointed out again and again?

Ponder how things could have unfolded if the warnings hadn't been shouted down, the threads with the most damning evidence deleted, and people banned for telling the truth about the red flags that were so obvious. What if there hadn't been such a concerted effort to get the delegates into a doomed lawsuit without full disclosure about what they were getting into? What if they had been instead encouraged to pursue legal remedies with a competent attorney?

There *are* some very real cases of election fraud and abuse, some very solid evidence to back that up, and a competent attorney could have presented factual allegations (or if Gilbert had done so, in response to the judge's clear instructions) we would have gotten a hearing. That doesn't guarantee that we would have won but compared to the complaint and amended complaint that were written so as to virtually guarantee failure, I think that's a huge huge difference.

Another thing that changed is that the very long list of defendants now effectively have a very broad immunity. If you believe that there really were cases of fraud and abuse, then how can you not think that damage was done by making it impossible to bring a new lawsuit against so many people?

If the judge rules that a lawsuit that makes zero factual allegations is by definition a frivolous lawsuit, then the delegates who signed on may find themselves being asked to pay the legal expenses of the defendants. Hopefully that won't happen, but warnings about this shouted down way back at the beginning.

Is that enough?