Both lawyers rest in the MTG hearing...

[brooklynite]

No hard evidence of insurrection.

The Plaintiff lawyer basically presented social media posts and TV clips showing support for protesting the election, but not advocating violence or interference with the certification process.

The Judge will recommend to Raffensperger that Congresswoman Greene is eligible to run for re-election.

[cilla4progress]

1. Agree

Plaintiffs' attorney could have connected dots more effectively, IMHO

[Hoyt]

2. Unfortunately, trump, Greene, GOPers, etc., win again. But we sure showed them.

This junk is going to cost us in upcoming election.

?w=500

[Mossfern]

3. Greens attorney

is presenting concluding statements - then plaintiff attorneys is presenting theirs.

It's hard to follow. He's bringing up other opinions in other cases, which I assume is his job, but it's SO Talmudic and boring.
I can't even discern whether any of it is compelling.

[brooklynite]

4. Closing arguments do not allow for new evidence.

They're intended to tie the evidence presented to the Law the Judge/Jury will use as the basis for a ruling. That can include prior relevant judicial rulings.

[Mossfern]

6. Yes, I understand that

I was just saying that his presentation was pedantic.

[Mossfern]

5. The judge is playing with his pen

during plaintiff attorney's presentation.

[Mossfern]

8. NOw he chewing his glasses.

He's not listening.

[brooklynite]

7. Plaintiff's closing argument is not tying the insurrection to MTG...

He's basically saying she supported the protest, and the protest equated to insurrection. That's not a linkage the Judge will accept.

[Mossfern]

9. He's trying to that now.