No es lo mismo alejar a un observador favorable que a uno crítico. El favorable va a aceptar de buen grado cualquier cosa que le digan, tiene fe, el crítico objetará y observará. Que haga equiparación entre ambos tipos no parece equilibrado.https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf
Aqui se recogen algunas de las opiniones expresadas por un juez tras revisar una de las demandas presentadas por el equipo legal de Trump.
Agunas perlas:
This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence (...) Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice
One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption … That has not happened
This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent
None of these allegations (or the others in this section) claim that the Trump Campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers. Simply alleging that poll watchers did not have access or were denied access to some areas does not plausibly plead unequal treatment.
Plaintiffs have made multiple attempts at amending the pleadings, and have had attorneys both appear and withdraw in a matter of seventy-two hours
Flaco favor hace a la justicia este juez con esta sentencia tan ingeniosa y punzante en un momento en que las espadas, y los rifles de los rednecks están en alto.