Everything you said makes sense but it all seems like circumstantial evidence and I’m not convinced we could prove that in court beyond a shadow of a doubt purely on “it’s highly unlikely”.
What do we know about liberals? They’re shortsighted and not bright. A large contingent who don’t usually pay attention to politics have been brainwashed into thinking orange man bad and getting rid of him is all that matters. I don’t think it’s implausible that thousands of uniformed liberals did the minimum amount of work to vote for Biden only, and were like “ok I did my part. Now let me get back to my life”. It’s statistically improbable to happen in any other time but now.
You wouldn't need to prove it's beyond a shadow of a doubt ("beyond a reasonable doubt" legal standard.) That's for criminal cases. What you need here is "a preponderance of the evidence." Or in other words, is what the plaintiff saying more likely to be true.
All the math and stats show it's almost impossible for all those good breaks to happen for Biden and none to happen for Trump. Also, details on the ballots highly suggest fraud (Biden's votes violated Benford's law). We also have hundreds of people willing to swear under oath that they witnessed voter fraud, plus video evidence of Republican poll watchers being kicked out of vote tabulation rooms.
So it's more than likely that vote fraud happened here, and I think the Supreme Court will easily rule for us.
Everything you said makes sense but it all seems like circumstantial evidence and I’m not convinced we could prove that in court beyond a shadow of a doubt purely on “it’s highly unlikely”.
What do we know about liberals? They’re shortsighted and not bright. A large contingent who don’t usually pay attention to politics have been brainwashed into thinking orange man bad and getting rid of him is all that matters. I don’t think it’s implausible that thousands of uniformed liberals did the minimum amount of work to vote for Biden only, and were like “ok I did my part. Now let me get back to my life”. It’s statistically improbable to happen in any other time but now.
You wouldn't need to prove it's beyond a shadow of a doubt ("beyond a reasonable doubt" legal standard.) That's for criminal cases. What you need here is "a preponderance of the evidence." Or in other words, is what the plaintiff saying more likely to be true.
All the math and stats show it's almost impossible for all those good breaks to happen for Biden and none to happen for Trump. Also, details on the ballots highly suggest fraud (Biden's votes violated Benford's law). We also have hundreds of people willing to swear under oath that they witnessed voter fraud, plus video evidence of Republican poll watchers being kicked out of vote tabulation rooms.
So it's more than likely that vote fraud happened here, and I think the Supreme Court will easily rule for us.