Should Trump call PA Willis as a witness?

There’s no point in arguing about it here. The legal process will play out and the court will decide.

Feel free to ignore my question  then. 

A bit late for that now, isn’t it?

The phone call is one piece of evidence out of 161 pieces of evidence - not the entire case. Trump's campaign spent $2M on two separate investigations and found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Trump knew that when he made the call.

There is evidence in GA, in AZ, in WI, in MI, in NV. GA was only decided by less than 12K. The evidence shows more than that many votes were effected by fraud. That is wide enough. This will have to look at it.  As it is part of the case.  (It will not change the result...but it will expose the tactics used and cause laws and regulations to be fixed)

I guess you have evidence that no one else has then. 

Evidence that the courts have refused to examine....instead claiming things like no standing, etc. 
Cases that have been decided on evidence majority the MAGA side has won. 

It's going on three years and there's still no case. He lost. Get over it and move on already.

And if he actually won, he wouldn't be eligible to run in 2024, but he is running.

How do you explain that, doctor?

No, that is not the case because he was not sworn in for the 2nd term.  So he has not served the maximum amount of years as POTUS. This post was edited by my2cents at August 29, 2023 1:19 PM MDT

Here is the definition of "standing."

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Therefore, if an action is brought before the court and the court decides that the person bringing the lawsuit does not have enough connection to, or is harmed from what is challenged, that party has no right to being the lawsuit.  

I don't believe I asked for the definition. 
Given that Trump was the candidate not sure how they can claim he had no standing on any election case.  

Again on cases that examined evidence, MAGA won majority. 

You may not have asked for the definition, but your question begged for it.

If a court ruled that he had no legal standing, then he didn’t. Why do you have such a hard time accepting the rule of law?

I believe it's because she doesn't actually understand that particular rule of law, which is why I provided the definition.  

No, you didn't ask for the definition, but I provided it for your edification.  Apparently, the courts don't agree with your judgment on the matters brought before them.  This was not one case - it was many.  So, you think ALL the judges were wrong? 

She can’t or won’t accept reality and the rule of law. Kind of like Trump.

Which is why it's so easy for her to defend his every action.

If he is filing a case claiming election fraud and he is the candidate in that election, how can a judge rule he as the candidate was not a victim of the claimed election fraud?  No standing would/could apply if I or another citizen filed the case, but the candidate in the election certainly has standing.  

Yes, it was many cases. Not all were ruled no standing.
But I think any judge that rules the candidate in an election case has no standing is wrong. 

Was Trump the plaintiff in those cases or was some other person or group litigating on his behalf?  If it wasn't Trump, apparently the others had no standing.