Okay stupid. No need to for kid gloves. Here it is, more plainly for you. Legal theories are theories based on fact AND law. Exactly what I wrote. Not "theories" of fact, unconnected to law. You lack even rudimentary reading comprehension.
Further, I haven't said what I think the ultimate disposition of these cases should be, or will be. Not even once. Again, you don't know that only because you are either a troll (best guess) or you literally cannot read and comprehend English (which your posts uniformly disclose).
Back to my shorthand.
Name calling will get you banned, S.
Including using shorthand.
You say you argued 'based on theories of fact and law that appear rational to you'.
When pressed you, like Rudy and his team of crack investigators (some now awaiting trial), cannot come up with evidence.
The closest you have are 'theories of fact (and law) that appear rational to you'.
Without evidence its just your feelings.
But when your star witness' drunk testimony is: “I think Chinese all look alike. How can you tell? If some Chow shows up, you can be anybody and you can vote.”
Nobody else is going to say that appears rational to them.
Nor plausible or probable.
Just wacko.
Without evidence and only your hunches you are throwing it all into a pot where it becomes impossible to define where science ended and magical powers took over, at best, renders legal decision making immune from outside criticism and, at worst, makes legal decision making a total crap shoot unworthy of its protection as a separate branch of government.
That's why 39 cases have failed and even Barr says their isn't proof of enough problems to overturn the election.
And James Fields is still in jail.
