I have now read the claim that there is "no evidence" of election fraud from every so-called news story by any source - and that there is "no evidence" against Hunter Biden. Yet for both, there are direct eye witnesses who have signed sworn statements and spoken publicly. Is that accurate? If 6 people witness a murder and can identify the murderer there is no evidence against the murderer because eye witnesses are nothing so should be fully ignored? Should this be the new legal standard for civil and criminal cases too? All witnesses should be ignored because eye witnesses - even if dozens - equates to "no evidence" whatsoever.
~ If there are a large number of unrelated people reporting the same thing I believe that will weigh very heavily as reliable evidence.
How many? How many people have to swear "I saw the defendant shoot the victim" for a conviction? But it is not even that. How many people have to say "I saw (the shooter) shoot "the victim" are necessary for the police to investigate what they claim they saw? What is interest about the election, is that every witness I heard all said no one from law enforcement at any level even spoke to them about crimes or illegalities they claim they saw. Why no investigation by the authorities? Rather, it is just declaring "there is no evidence" regardless of what anyone or how many claim they saw unlawful election activity including on a massive scale by some. For example, the USPS driver who said he brought a truckload of ballots from New York to another state to be counted in that other state. But that is not worth interviewing people at the New York post office he claimed they came from?
Jesse Morgan - post office, not FedEx USPS subcontracting truck driver from New York Jesse Morgan, who works as a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) subcontracting truck driver, said he transported nearly 300,000 completed mail-in ballots across state lines. “I can tell you, I took 24 pallets,” Morgan said. ”This happened on Oct. 21, and I picked them up in Bethpage, N.Y. and drove them to Harrisburg [Pa.] and from Harrisburg, I drove them to Lancaster, dropped the trailer in Lancaster, dropped my truck off, and went home.” https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/20...rgan-usps-truck-driver-missing-ballots-ghosts
This makes no sense. You have to investigate the claim to find out if it's true. By this non-logic, if a person claims they saw a certain someone commit murder, it wouldn't be investigated because they don't know whether it's true.
There have been lots of claims on the court house steps that seem to disappear once the lawyers get inside and are subject to sanctions and disbarment for knowingly stating lies. Funny how that happens.
So far none of these folks have shown up in a courtroom, taken an oath in a courtroom, and been cross examined under penalty of perjury. The nature of the interaction between the witness and the criminal conduct, and the nature of the interaction between the witness and any system of judicial vetting, determine the value of the 'evidence' they provide. It's hard to know if a witness 'statement' represents credible evidence, if nobody can challenge either the person, or the statement. Its a piece of paper. Judges are not likely to put much weight at all in a statement when he cannot look that piece of paper in the eye, cannot watch its demeanor, or challenge or question it. Physical evidence supporting the veracity of these eye witness accounts, can provide credibility. If, for example, the 'eye witness' claims to know that there are bank documents that he saw, in the lower left drawer of Biden's office which verify what he claims to have heard, and voila, investigators look in that drawer and see those bank documents then this eyewitness statement gains some credibility, even if there is no physical presence in the courtroom to challenge and vet.
What is written on a piece of paper is what creates all litigation - civil and criminal. A mere written allegation is sufficient for any civil suit - even if not a sworn petition - and if sworn is enough to justify an arrest warrant and criminal trial. Yet every state and federal court has refused to allow any witnesses to testify - while almost sadistically declaring there is no evidence - due to the court refusing to allow presenting any evidence. I should respond to every newspaper article, on TV or the Internet I don't like with "there is no proof and no evidence" - regardless of what anyone says. No matter what the person or article says, I should rant and sneer "there is no proof." The reason there has been no evidence presented in court is because every court - state and federal - made their decision before any any evidence or witnesses allowed. Every judge is terrified of the MSM of the mega billionaire plutocrats and/or made partisan decisions - not legal decisions.
What is written on a piece of paper is what what creates litigation, and litigation started all over this country in this election cycle with a bunch of these pieces of paper. And it can just as quickly be crushed with another piece of paper on which a motion to dismiss is laid before the court alleging an absence of evidence, standing or jurisdiction. Soooo you can believe in this universal terror on the part of every single jurist ,in every single jurisdiction, in every single state, and every single appellate court right up to the highest in the land, regardless of party affiliation, ideology, or jurist philosophy, that has heard all of these cases if you want to. Or maybe these were all frivolous, meritless cases because Donald Trump cannot handle losing this election and will not accept losing this election, because he literally said that there was no way he could lose this election without massive fraud. And because the Trump campaign and the GOP have created a cottage industry out of syphoning off millions of dollars of sucker GOP voter donations for this 'legal fund' to pay off campaign debt and replenish the RNC slush funds for 2022 elections. I know which I believe is more plausible, but I have not been buried neck deep in cultist propaganda for the last four years. Trump lost because he did not have the votes to win, in the states it mattered. Sorta like Hillary lost in 2016.
That is not their reason. There are two reasons. One is fear of the plutocrats and kleptocrats who have infinite amounts of money and control of all newspapers, television and the Internet. The second reason is the reason the SCOTUS gave for stopping the 2000 Florida recount giving W. Bush the president. It was not based upon law or evidence. Rather, they claimed the reputation of American democracy was more important as an illusion of democracy rather than accurate election outcomes. You may see my view as partisan, but I have no problem stating that Gore may well have been the winner and I think Clinton did win the legitimate vote. However, she was so volatile a personality so was seen by the establishment as too uncontrollable. I have no doubt that Trump won the electoral vote and by a larger margin. Only because of California did he not win the popular vote - if he actually had not. I have often questions if voters actually pick presidents. Once elections became by computer that allow allowed simple ways to have the outcome be whatever the establishment wants it to be. The power now is no longer the Intelligence community, military or even domestic corporations. Rather, now the establishment are the ultra billionaire Big Tech internationalists, who control virtually all "news" in the USA. Increasingly I am reading foreign sources for American news as American news is nothing but endless corporate and super rich Internationalists propaganda for their own profit and power goals.
If we can we just drop the political sparring for a second. At law an eye witness is a person who can provide direct evidence of events they heard, saw or otherwise detected with their own senses. This is as opposed to an expert witness who has specialized knowledge in a filed of evidence relevant to the case in question and whose credentials as an 'expert' are recognized by the courts. So in the case of the recent election; As far as Expert Witnesses go people with recognized technical expertise of the various State electoral systems and in the processes and devices used to count votes. None have come forward to offer any evidence that significant fraud occurred. That's literally thousands of potential expert witnesses who have given the election a clean bill of health. Which brings us to the vast majority of alleged 'eye witnesses'. To date these have fallen into two camps. Firstly they have either reported hearsay evidence (2nd hand information told to them by someone else) or in the case of direct evidence (events they saw personally) appear to have completely misinterpreted (innocently or not) what they saw or heard as being evidence of fraud. Except for a very rare/strict exceptions hearsay is not legally admissible evidence. Never has been, never will be so forget it. In the case of the second instance their evidence is fully admissible but is only valid if there is other independent evidence that a crime has been committed. Put another way for someone to make an accusation of theft against another person there has to be additional evidence that the theft occurred. So a person could say I saw person X walk into a room & pick up up a pile of cash from person Y's desk then leave. To the extent they report what they saw accurately and truthfully that is evidence that the events they saw occurred as described. It is NOT however evidence of theft unless Y (or someone else) can corroborate the theft of the cash. If instead when questioned Y states that he left the cash there for X to collect no theft has occurred. Even though X is being truthful in his observations. These are the issues that have plagued ALL allegations of the fraud in the election. (1) - there is no forensic evidence that it occurred & (2) people who are prepared to state they personally witnessed fraud occurring are reporting events that don't in and of themselves prove it occurred in the absence of any other evidence. They may well be truthful in their observations but they are are also mistaken about the implications that can be drawn from their observations. Which leaves us back where this started. Until someone, anyone comes forward with legally admissible evidence that fraud occurred no court in the country will touch it. And those who allege fraud occurred should be grateful for this state of affairs. Because it means they and every other citizen of the US have the exact same protections in the event someone ever decides to accuse them of a crime. Change the rule of the election and you change it for each and every one of you. Prosecution on the basis of hearsay.
In fact, expert witnesses have said mathematically the election results are so unlikely as to constitute a trillion to one odds against the result being accurate. Your second claim about eye witnesses is outright wrong. There does NOT have to "collaborating" evidence to justify a trial. Someone runs into you while driving alone and it is their fault. You claim they ran the red light but have no collaborating evidence. In your opinion, you can't even file a lawsuit because you have no "collaborating evidence." That's nonsense. Rather, there WILL be a trial. Whether you testimony is enough to win or not is a trial finding of facts question, not a conclusion of law. In fact, one witness is not only enough to win a civil case, a person can be found guilty of a crime and sentenced to prison for life upon one witness. Defendants in rape cases would love you legal viewpoint as you claim the rapist couldn't be arrested and even there should be no investigation because she has "no collaborating evidence" other than what she says she was raped. My other point is the shocking aspect that despite such eye witnesses, no investigation has been done by any law enforcement agency. In your example, your claim is that no one in law enforcement should even talk to "Y." Rather, law enforcement should just declare "there is no evidence" and refuse to investigation. However, it the election litigation the Plaintiffs and Trump are "Y" who do claim the election theft occurred.
That claim is Total BS, and it has been Debunked 1000x over. It was hard to believe anyone would even reference such a thoroughly discredited claim. You have got to be kidding. Dr. Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/ Yup. "Eyewitnesses". Like this guy who saw the Roswell Aliens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Haut And, her: "Eyewitnesses". Sure thing. Apparently, the SCOTUS (and dozens of other judges) had a different opinion. The Electors Vote later today. IT IS OVER.
OK. Ten who exactly are these 'experts'? Are they recognized as such by Courts in the jurisdiction concerned and where/what specifically is their evidence? Finally is it in admissible form and is their evidence of sufficient weight to override the entirety of ALL the other expert opinions stating there was not fraud? No your WRONG. You've completely missed my point. Re-read my post carefully. Especially the example I gave. In that example further basic inquiries determine there was no theft. How many recounts do you want done before that process constitutes evidentially valid inquiries? In the case of your first example there is glaring corroborating evidence in the form of damage to your car! Even if it was the the case that it was a near miss there would still be other witnesses and/or cameras etc that could confirm the person ran a red light. In the case of sexual assault the original complaint is more than enough to have the person arrested and questioned but not necessarily charged. There would also be corroborating physical/forensic or eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene of the offense. Failing that admissions to that effect by the accused was with the victim at the time is evidential. Police build the case based on corroborating evidence as well as the initial complaint. The rare exception to this process are historical allegations of sexual assault which are extremely difficult to persecute. And there you still have to track down the movement of all parties involved including other potential evidence to confirm opportunity and physical co-location. Plus you usually end up relying on evidence of other similar historical conduct by the same perpetrator which tends to support commonalities in conduct. Again you have completely misinterpreted what I am saying. It is not enough for someone to sate you have committed a crime. There has to have been a crime committed. There has to be evidence other than the accusation that a crime occurred. (If you cant understand this watch 'Rear Window' sometime. It illustrates the point nicely.) So the FBI's investigation into allegations of electoral fraud is what? As directed the the Trump Administration is what? A Nasty Rumor? Or the fact Homeland Security was monitoring the election for attempted hacks and found ??? (Hint nothing) And that's ignoring State re-counts.
Eyewitnesses have to have seen a crime committed. Using some of the examples in this thread. You claim a car ran a red light and hit your car. Sure there's only one witness but there is also physical evidence of an accident that occurred. It then is up to the trial who to believe but that an accident did in fact occur. In a rape case where the only witness is the woman provided she went to a doctor and a rape can be determined then it is up to the trial to determine guilt of a rape that did occur. If there are no other witnesses and the woman did not seek medical treatment then it likely won't go to trial because it can't even be proven that a crime had been committed, we have a Supreme Court Justice and a President that can attest to the veracity of that. In the case of these fraud accusations if an eyewitness comes forward to report a crime but there is no evidence that a crime had even been committed then there is no actionable trial. If you see someone eat a grape in the produce section and the grocer can't identify any grapes are missing they are not going to do anything more than keep an eye on whom you've accused. If someone says ballots were mishandled but they can't find any physical evidence of that the most that can be done is to keep an eye out for it next time. There needs to be some proof that a crime had been committed for action against the accused. Unfortunately today we are seeing a lot of imagined crimes that upon investigation were not crimes at all. Take all the hullabaloo over dead people voting. When the lists of claimed dead people voting are checked they find dead people but they didn't vote or people who were alive and voted or alive and didn't vote. The only exception to that was a guy who used his mother's ballot and voted for Trump. He's been charged and faces court action. Or the experts who say a lot of 120 year olds voted which is highly unlikely. Databases often have fields that cannot be left blank and they chose to use Jan. 1st 1900 as a clearly imaginary date as a placeholder that would require going back and correcting. By using the same date it takes literally a second to pull up all the votes that need the date verified and corrected. That is why the Team Trump switched from fraud to "other" in their cases. No witnesses needed, the only question was is there a crime and court after court has rejected them. All that is being accomplished now is to create doubt in democracy itself, that democratic elections can't be held. What's the alternative? The past? Ask the people of Chicago, Philadelphia, New York...etc if they've had more fraud in the past or now?
~ For the most part local police are under the control of city councils and mayors and they are under compliance of the state governors. Obviously law enforcement was told not to get involved with the election. There are more than enough witnesses in several states to warrent a DOJ investigation. This is typical double standard of justice that we see repeatedly in governments. The "Russian conspiracy" debacle is an example. Hillary Clinton acid-washed hard drives and smashing smartphones with a hammer is another. James Comey questioning General Flynn purposely to set him up for indictment is the latest abuse of the "justice" system. The more people see this being exposed the more distrustful and unhappy with government they become.
