comment: >
  
  Right, this is a nicer version of "she's an idiot for believing this because there's no evidence, but she's just an idiot, not a liar."
  Though I feel like saying her claims aren't groundless while also saying there isn't any clear/convincing evidence seems odd. Pick one, but you can't have both.
context: What an annoying sack of skin. Please go home, nobody likes you Kerri. >
  
  Qari! >
  
  Qoward >
  
  That would be because Lake is beginning to experience the second step of the two-step process beginning with “Fuck around”. >
  
  
  The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required for each element of (the law) does not equate to finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith
  
  OK. Fine, those two things don't equate. But you saying that two things don't equate doesn't mean that her claims weren't groundless and presented in bad faith.
  Trump failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence in all his election fraud lawsuits, and that doesn't equate either. Except, you know, for the part where he presented those groundless claims in bad faith.