Oh man.... That is all they need, one win... see there, that is PROOF that the LEFT cheated, if the right won one court case it is anarchy, People need to march on the streets and DEMAND a Revote... One where only friends of Trump and Trump supporters can vote. That is the way an American Democracy should work
What was presented yesterday has not yet gone to a judge and what was presented was substantial. Hundreds of Republican poll watchers said they were not allowed to watch. The 2004 Ukraine election was declared fraudulent by international observers for that same offense.
I don't know. I went to run an errand after the press conference and Rush Limbaugh was on the radio. He made a statement that Rudy told a bunch of lies that he can't back up. That's pretty serious, coming from Limbaugh. The time to put up legal "proof" of allegations was yesterday. The next best time is today. If they can prove the allegations, then it is past due. They are running out of time and runway. If they have no "hard evidence", it's over...
You misunderstood Rush. "Rudy made a strong case that the fraud is big enough to change the result and that the evidence is clear. Jenna Ellis said, “This is our opening statement. We’re not taking questions now. This is a legal case. It’s gonna take time. These things don’t happen like Law & Order where you get it all wrapped up inside of 60 minutes.” Sidney Powell with the evidence of fraud from the machines. She detailed evidence of communist money from China, from Russia." Rush Limbaugh
~ Being that certain "anonymous" Democrats have threatened several lawyers and witnesses working this investigation Team Rudy should not reveal too much information before it's time. Obviously someone is getting very nervous .
The point that people like Limbaugh, Shapiro and Turley are making is that there is almost no time left. "These things take time," does not work here. They can prove allegations or they can't. Once the states certify votes it's too late. Yes, if Republicans had won control of the House, then they could investigate the multiple irregularities in this election, including potential fraud and cheating. That would still be after all the votes are certified and Trump is "out". The clock is going to run out before Trump's team can "prove" damages. Normally, as widespread as this is, this type of investigation would take a year or two. Legally there is no time to do anything about the election due to constitutional voting deadlines to certify votes. It may make America look like a total Banana Republic now, but there isn't anything to be done about states moving forward to certify votes this week and next week, regardless of evidence of massive irregularities.
Everyone who could go to jail for election fraud is saying "There is no fraud" to save their own butts. Unless the Trump team can "prove" they are liars, then our laws protect the innocent until "proven guilty". Even if the DNC doesn't respect that ideology, the GOP should respect it, even if it means that the election was thrown to the non-winner. Shame to see the country go down like this, but people are innocent until proven guilty. They're probably going to get away with it.
Death threats have expiration dates? What date does Team Rudy see as safe to release this game-changing evidence? And of course someone is nervous. Not only are the lawyers and witnesses lying, they're getting death threats too. Who wouldn't be scared? (I have an anonymous source that says those anonymous Democrats are actually Team Trump.)
Certified or not if certain "irregularities" get to SCOTUS the election or certain parts of it can be declared illegitimate. If only real votes are counted Trump wins hands down.
I'm waiting for someone to explain how this mass corruption is possible. Tens of thousands of votes across numerous states. Incredible. Why is it hard to believe that this was a rejection of Trump, and not republicans? Even in states where Biden had no chance, Biden got more votes than democrats typically get, while republicans down ticket did just fine.
"Is a affidavit evidence?" It depends. Affidavits can be submitted as evidence in court, but they aren't always admissible. In our present context, we'd need to determine what specific, fraudulent activities are alleged. Then, perhaps we'd see that the affidavits credibly support the allegation. Credibility entails things like: do they report events personally observed? Did the person understand what s/he was seeing/hearing? Or do they merely reflect speculation and suspicions? Do the affidavits corroborate one another? How were the affidavits collected? Are the submitters available for cross examination? Is there contrary evidence that contradicts the claims in the affidavit?
Search Results noun LAW plural noun: affidavits a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. Definitions from Oxford Languages People also ask What do you mean by the term affidavit? What is an affidavit legal definition? A voluntarily sworn declaration of written facts. Affidavits are commonly used to present evidence in court. Cornell University › law › Wex Affidavit | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute More results Description An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings. Wikipedia › wiki › Affidavit Affidavit - Wikipedia ~ Let the Affidavits be presented .
That's well and good, but without supporting evidence, affidavits are meaningless. They do not hold the weight of cross examination. People have signed affidavits swearing they witnessed UFO's. They honestly believe they witnessed UFO's; no perjury. Here we have people thinking they witnessed voter fraud; I'm guessing most don't really care about perjuring themselves. The affidavits are obviously politically driven, without one shred of supporting evidence. If you've charged someone with voter fraud, and one witness can't make it to trial, you have her sign an affidavit, and that substitutes for her testimony, which can be argued but not cross examined. That's how you use an affidavit. People thinking they see fraud does not legally translate to fraud occurring. It doesn't matter how many signed statements you manage to produce.
