Don't let them reverse the burden of proof.
For instance, a defendant in court is protected by the presumption of innocence. In that case, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
In the case of ballots, the burden of proof lies on those who do the issuing, collecting and counting to show that the process is above board, accurate and fair.
We have seen how observers have been systematically removed and blocked. Windows have been covered with cardboard to obscure the counting. We have learned of backdating, secret night deliveries, computer 'glitches,' the trashed and burned ballots. It all adds up to industrial scale ballot fraud!
The attitude of the Dems is "You can't prove we're cheating, so we win!"
We don't have to prove you cheated. You have to prove the ballot is valid. That is where the Burden Of Proof lies. I'll say it again: Burden Of Proof!
Don't let them reverse the burden of proof.
For instance, a defendant in court is protected by the presumption of innocence. In that case, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
In the case of ballots, the burden of proof lies on those who do the issuing, collecting and counting to show that the process is above board, accurate and fair.
We have seen how observers have been systematically removed and blocked. Windows have been covered with cardboard to obscure the counting. We have learned of backdating, secret night deliveries, computer 'glitches,' the trashed and burned ballots. It all adds up to industrial scale ballot fraud!
The attitude of the Dems is "You can't prove we're cheating, so we win!"
We don't have to prove you cheated. You have to prove the ballot is valid. That is where the Burden Of Proof lies. I'll say it again: Burden Of Proof!
This would be like Jeffrey Dahmer saying "Why no police officer, I definitely don't have corpses in my basement freezer, but I will not let you check."
Precisely! Though at this stage, the Democrat's denials have a greater resemblance to Monty Python's 'Dead Parrot Sketch.' Creepy Joe didn't cheat - he's just pining for the fjords!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo
The point is why would the police officer be there to investigate unless a claim was made. Someone says a guy has bodies in his basement freezer. Police officer goes by the house and asks the guy about it. Guy says he does not. Police officer or the someone says that because they couldn't check, that must mean there was bodies in the freezer. That is not logical. However, as the guy is innocent until proven guilty, accusations must have evidence. Someone should have said they saw a guy carry two bodies into his basement. That claim has evidence (witness) because the innocent "guy" isnt guilty yet. The evidence will be investigated. If it appears true, then the guy would need to follow up with proof of innocence unless he declare guilty?
There are (50 according to Rudy) witnesses (aka evidence) who say that they see something like bodies (the ballots) from a distance (which they were illegally kept at) but they can't be sure. This gives reason to check for the bodies (the ballots).
The burden of proof favors the accused in criminal cases. The state must prove beyond reasonable doubt, maintain a chain of custody for any evidential material and follow procedure to the letter. If they fail in any of this, and the accused has a competent lawyer, then their case fails.
In this case, the state is in the position of the electoral process. If they fail to meet given standards, their case is moot.
Is there anywhere that officially states this
There is a difference between their "poor" quality job and our backed accusations. They may have a duty to do their job right - well, they do have that duty. If someone says they did it right and you say they did it wrong, then they are innocent until proven guilty.
We make accusations regarding fraud. They are innocent until proven guilty. We have evidence to prove them guilty. They must provide explanation?
Are you starting with them as a process of validating ballots/votes etc.? To me that is an action that is claimed to be done correctly. So they are to be proven guilty?
There is a difference between their job and our accusations. Evidence of them doing a faulty job is our duty as they would be innocent until proven guilty.
Im trying to understand what your saying, but I'm totally not seeing what "burden of proof" has to so with their initial job. They are separated from one another. It's two different cases. One is court related and the other is work related.
If their boss were to say they did a poor job, he would have to show it. However, as a boss, he could say, show me evidence of your work and validity of whatever etc. They would have to do so as that's their job.
???
I understand your point. My point is that it is not about the guilt or innocence of the ballot counters, but of the legitimacy of the ballot. Two separate and parallel issues.
The accused cannot be regarded as guilty until the state has proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The ballots cannot be regarded as valid until they have been shown to be honest.
You don't have to prove the ballot counters guilty in order to invalidate the ballots. In fact, it reverses the burden of proof! You just have to demonstrate that the voting process has failed to meet the correct standards of transparency and accountability.