I think people are misrepresenting what constitutes “proof” and that has confused the whole debate. People act like nothing shy of a video of someone filling out 100,000 Biden votes and then adding them to the count is enough.

This is a civil case so they only need a preponderance of evidence no?

I do understand the human element, the judges will be hesitant to do anything without a smoking gun. But I’m saying if we ignore that and look only at the legal rules

I agree, that was my concern from the beginning. Imagine we had the exact same circumstances, but this was an off year race for a House seat or something, I do not believe this would even be controversial.

@Zuluzeit that fraud took place in this election

@nachik the evidence I’m talking about specifically is the poll watchers being excluded, the statistical anomalies, the affidavits of eye witnesses, etc. These elements did not occur before the election took place.

I understand some rules were changed way ahead of time

@nachik yes but again, my point was that under any other circumstances just sending poll watchers away would be plenty of evidence. I was then replying to your comment about waiting until after the election took place to complain about rules set way in advance.

@nachik for example, the talk about dominion executives and whatnot. They should have brought that stuff up pre-election.

@nachik if the law requires poll watchers to be able to observe and examine the ballots, yet they were not allowed to do that, it makes sense that they should be invalidated.

@nachik I agree the courts might be reluctant because they are scared, but legally it makes sense.

How do you reply so that it is linked to the message you are responding to?^

Powell said days ago that she isn’t paid by trump or his campaign. I think Ellis’s statement is more of a technical clarification

They are obviously working collaboratively. But Ellis and Giuliani are PAID by Trump, Powell is not.

Also Powell said she plans to sue in Georgia first. And trump is about to do a recount there. Maybe they need to make the distinction that they aren’t the same group?

https://youtu.be/746HTjhFifA

Has anyone watched this? I think it does a good job of summarizing a lot of the circumstantial evidence

https://youtu.be/nVP_60Hm4P8

My bad I scrolled up a bit to check but didn’t see any previous links

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/amp/

Plot twist^^^

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/amp/