the jurisprudence around standing is just one problem.
The quality of the evidence, and the fact that it is usually stacked on multiple levels of hearsay is another.
I suspect the reason that no one (in the general sense) takes this seriously is that there is no "competent evidence" that can actually get admitted in a court of law that supports this stuff. There is also an awful lot of speculation and wilfully ignoring alternative explanations that one has to engage in, to come to this conclusion.
I would think any skeptic even without a legal education would be unpersuaded. I also think that those who are persuaded are predisposed for a variety of emotional reasons, to dislike the President. I'm not a fan of his, but until someone can show with proper evidence that these things happened, instead of speculating, hearsay from low level clerks, etc., then to me it comes across as loons and racists looking for something to do with their time.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the o