Eye witnesses and such as video tape. For example an election working pointing out stacks of ballots, unfolded as mail in ballots would be - all having the identical signature - and the supervisor saying not to worry about it run them thru anyway. Think that video is evidence?
Daniel that is just old hogwash. If you want to use Russia to detract from the real threat......the threat that has caused almost a year of peril around the world, that would be China and you do so at your own peril. Instead of objecting now....you should have objected when they were throwing out vote count observers and blocking windows. If we can't overturn this crooked election you won't hear anymore about Russia. In fact, you won't hear anything about China with Beijing Biden in control and establishment business interests!
Yep, yet another page out of Donnie''s play book of bullshit "Once X happens you wont hear about Y" But then he gets nearly every call wrong, so I guess he gets points for consistency.
By US Code yes 18 U.S. Code § 3502.Admissibility in evidence of eye witness testimony The testimony of a witness that he saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of the crime for which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution in any trial court ordained and established under article III of the Constitution of the United States. (Added Pub. L. 90–351, title II, § 701(a), June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 211.) It is evidence in an investigation, in the grand jury and at trial.
How many odd cases does it take to change the outcome of an election? How do we check it without a full investigation?
Under that theory we would not have grand juries taking testimony nor juries at trial hearing testimony. I ask them did you even listen to the hearings and evidence present? Nope they just blindly parrot "there is no evidence". I ask them if they listened to Peter Navarro yesterday recalling the evidence. Nope they just blindly parrot "there is no evidence" and make the absurd claim that witnesses are not evidence.
They always investigate, it's SOP. Virtually All cases are caught when they try to vote. That is why they are so rare. Most election fraud that gets caught later is things like school board members who don't live in the area they are required to. Even the cases of people who ballot harvest, collecting ballots in a nursing home for example, get caught before or while voting. The only way to be more secure would be to put people's names on their ballots to follow up after the election. Now while that would make votes more secure it would also end democracy. At this point, everything Team T**** is doing is an assault on the very thing they claim to be protecting. Democracy requires that as many as possible vote.
Why do you think they put cardboard up in the windows where votes were being counted? You can't address any of that. You just remain an acting shill for the global establishment.
thats your evidence of massive voter fraud? cardboard in a window for an hour means more than 7 million fraudulent votes and that trump won bigly in every swing state?
I love your question....... I am doubtful that Mr. Joe Biden will become President... he is more likely to be arrested and put in jail because the claim has been made that every single monetary transaction from China to Hunter Biden....... and then from Hunter Biden to Mr. Joe Biden......... is recorded and may be coming out shortly. Crickets From the Left 2 December 19 at 8:24 PM · https://www.facebook.com/CricketsFromTheLeft2/posts/160287759180489
Something hilarious about this is that because Mr. Jesse Morgan DID NOT RECEIVE HIS OVERTIME pay for that delivery .... he got angry and decided to come forward....... not only is the extreme political left very corrupt..... they can also be amazingly cheap and stingy in the way that they attempt to do the corruption.
Rather easy. A witness is a witness. It's not evidence. It's a witness. Them are simple 2 separate things. And it seems you want to get the label "evidence" on it, in order to claim there is evidence of voter fraud. While all there is, are a handful of witnesses who say one thing. But there is still no evidence. Go ask W. Barr.
In lay terms you are correct, but in law you are not. A simple example. The judge asked "do you have any evidence" and the reply is "yes, I have direct personal knowledge witnesses" that constitutes evidence. It doesn't take an evidence sticker to be evidence. An example of evidence that isn't a person are things a court can take judicial notice of - basic scientific and other known facts. For example, a judge can take judicial notice that the state of Ohio is in the United States without any other evidence to prove it. But it is just bandying words I suppose. A person can win a case - civil or criminal - solely on eye witnesses and circumstantial "evidence," which may not be physical evidence at all. All admissible allegations of facts are "evidence."
You know people make lies, no? A person would simply lie to get it's preferred president elected, if it's up to you. We can't be having that. You need evidence, not just a "witness". Hence we got a distinction. Verry much needed.
What is so annoying is there was NO investigations by law enforcement to interview other people present who might be afraid to say anything or not realize the relevancy of what they saw. If a woman says she was raped, should police say "unless you have any evidence just go away?" Rather than women should at least be heard and the accusation investigated, rather than a policy to never hear a woman unless she has it on video tape? In a couple Muslim countries, a woman can not even bring a rape accusation unless there are 3 witnesses - Sharia law. Were you posting the Congress shouldn't have even heard Dr. Ford against Judge Kavanaugh because she had no evidence? Deny an appointment solely on the word of a witness - so Kavanaugh shouldn't have even been asked about it nor her ever allowed to testify since her testimony is inherently worthless without back-up evidence? Law enforcement should have investigated voting/ballot fraud - or innocent major errors - witness allegations, make them sign a formal sworn statement to invoke criminal penalty for lying and then investigate. Are there any other witnesses? Where are the ballots and what do they look like? Are there security cameras to show who was and wasn't there? Anyone record anything with their phone camera? Interview those who were etc. Rather than just say "we of law enforcement never will investigate any witness allegations of voter fraud because eye witnesses are nothing." But that is what happened.
You're over exaggerating as if witnesses don't matter. Dunno how this is relevant There were public hearings about it. She said it did happen. He said it did not. Nobody else said it did happen, while some witnesses flat out disputed Fords claim. Ford also could not remember details where others could. Seems obvious what the verdict would turn out. Seems you're just keen to accept 1 witness as evidence and ignore everything that doesn't follow your story. There were numerous cases made. People were heard. Ballots recounted. And Donald lost about all cases where even his own appointed biased judges were at. That is as fair as a due process can get. You simply lost. Get over it.
You openly agree with Sharia law on rape accusations, that is the relevancy. You otherwise so misrepresented my message there is no reason to respond further.
That's just an unfounded lame personal attack that you can not quote me on. That's the only thing you were able to mutter when I noted the fact that Donalds own utterly highly biased judges had no other options to toss his nonsense out.
No they do not investigate and the calls for one are being catcalled ridiculed just read the left response to the Senate hearings. Fraud that occurs before or during the vote is simply hard to detect once the ballots are submitted and then tabulated. They only thing a recount gets you is that the original tabulation was correct, not if the ballot is a legal ballot or not. We had the Carter/Baker commission which warned directly that mass mail in voting was ripe for fraud and we should beware of it. We just had mass mail in voting and had LOTS of irregularities with who actually cast the ballot, did the ballot get counted, after the fact finding of ballots, ballots being accepted with signature verification or under a 40% match meaning the person committing fraud could be off 60% on matching the signature and the ballot would be accepted. We need either a separate commission again like the Carter/Baker or and joint congressional committee investigation into how all these thrown together mail in voting systems worked, what did and what didn't and was the integrity of the election improved or damaged. And this time actually try to implement the suggestions. And yes the persons who have sworn the depositions should be there as evidentiary witnesses.
