Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "WCPO 9" channel.

  1. Just look at it this way. Now all of those insurgents are locked out here with us...
    8
  2. In her case the court was presented evidence, sworn testimony, and a videotaped admission by the defendent...The same cannot be said for suits involving this election.
    1
  3. In her case, the court was presented with evidence, sworn testimony, and a videotaped admission from the defendant. Given the same now, she would be convicted.
    1
  4. No, just to find a case supported in court by actual evidence and sworn testimony.
    1
  5. SCOTUS was protecting the constitution by dismissing it as Texas had no standing under the constitution to file their suit. As for the other suits that were dismissed, the courts were not presented with the evidence necessary to warrant hearing those cases. To hear them anyway would set a precedent condoning the use of frivolous lawsuits to disrupt future elections.
    1
  6. Back then, they had evidence, court testimony under oath, and a videotaped admission from the defendant. These days, there are plenty of claims being made but no evidence or testimony has been presented in court to support them.
    1