It can be submitted. But I think I should have went a little deeper with my thought: We need to be able to submit evidence that is going to get a judge to rule in our favor. Unfortunately, that's a high bar. Most judges are normies or bought and paid off... all the more reason why the evidence needs to be clear, concise, and convincing enough to establish the fact that a crime and/or conspiracy has occurred, the likes of which our Country has never seen.
That's the thing a ton of people on TD aren't getting. We are not here to convince each other what happened. We all know what happened. Again, our evidence needs to be bullet proof enough to convince people who strictly think in evidentiary procedure to rule in our favor.
All in all, what I take issue with most is people on TD who go around, don't contribute, and fling insults to others in the community because they are trying to have an honest discourse. Sometimes there is info and situations in life we don't like; that's life. Hearing something you don't like doesn't mean you automatically divert to ad hominems... as far as I'm concerned, that's what the left does, and I won't participate in that no matter which side it comes from. If I won't tolerate it from one side, I'm not going to tolerate it on the other. I'm a strong Conservative first and foremost and this means I generally try to suppress my emotional response, and leave my thinking to fact and reason.
That’s not really my point though: the evidence we present still needs to be convincing enough that the court will rule in our favor. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff (vs. a criminal where it lies with the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt) and in layman’s terms the plaintiff must prove and meet the preponderance of evidence threshold, e.g., 51% of the evidence shows something occurred.
Here’s the thing I want to reiterate from my previous comments: no matter the evidentiary threshold difference between a civil vs. criminal case, it is up to the judge to make a favorable judgement for our side. In reality, this is still an astonishingly hard thing to do, and even more so in an election case where we are looking to throw out / disqualify voters. Judges, whether it’s right or not, are extremely careful in these cases because they don’t want to be seen as apolitical. I’m not saying I agree with that, but that’s what the situation is right now.
Again, I know when I discuss what I think went on regarding voter fraud here on TD, I am more likely than not preaching to the choir. We don’t need to convince each other what happened, you and I are already on the same side and agreeable. We have to convince judges who “grew up” in the system, and even though they want to seem apolitical, are actually political and still carry bias. It’s very unfortunate and I wish I had an easy solution we can argue about back and forth. Our Country is fucking corrupt and it’s a gigantic hill to climb. (Not saying it can’t happen, but look at what Steve Bannon has been saying; we are trying to throw a Hail Mary, and luckily for us we have Doug Flutie as QB1–but it’s still a Hail Mary)
It can be submitted. But I think I should have went a little deeper with my thought: We need to be able to submit evidence that is going to get a judge to rule in our favor. Unfortunately, that's a high bar. Most judges are normies or bought and paid off... all the more reason why the evidence needs to be clear, concise, and convincing enough to establish the fact that a crime and/or conspiracy has occurred, the likes of which our Country has never seen.
That's the thing a ton of people on TD aren't getting. We are not here to convince each other what happened. We all know what happened. Again, our evidence needs to be bullet proof enough to convince people who strictly think in evidentiary procedure to rule in our favor.
All in all, what I take issue with most is people on TD who go around, don't contribute, and fling insults to others in the community because they are trying to have an honest discourse. Sometimes there is info and situations in life we don't like; that's life. Hearing something you don't like doesn't mean you automatically divert to ad hominems... as far as I'm concerned, that's what the left does, and I won't participate in that no matter which side it comes from. If I won't tolerate it from one side, I'm not going to tolerate it on the other. I'm a strong Conservative first and foremost and this means I generally try to suppress my emotional response, and leave my thinking to fact and reason.
That’s not really my point though: the evidence we present still needs to be convincing enough that the court will rule in our favor. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff (vs. a criminal where it lies with the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt) and in layman’s terms the plaintiff must prove and meet the preponderance of evidence threshold, e.g., 51% of the evidence shows something occurred.
Here’s the thing I want to reiterate from my previous comments: no matter the evidentiary threshold difference between a civil vs. criminal case, it is up to the judge to make a favorable judgement for our side. In reality, this is still an astonishingly hard thing to do, and even more so in an election case where we are looking to throw out / disqualify voters. Judges, whether it’s right or not, are extremely careful in these cases because they don’t want to be seen as apolitical. I’m not saying I agree with that, but that’s what the situation is right now.
Again, I know when I discuss what I think went on regarding voter fraud here on TD, I am more likely than not preaching to the choir. We don’t need to convince each other what happened, you and I are already on the same side and agreeable. We have to convince judges who “grew up” in the system, and even though they want to seem apolitical, are actually political and still carry bias. It’s very unfortunate and I wish I had an easy solution we can argue about back and forth. Our Country is fucking corrupt and it’s a gigantic hill to climb. (Not saying it can’t happen, but look at what Steve Bannon has been saying; we are trying to throw a Hail Mary, and luckily for us we have Doug Flutie as QB1–but it’s still a Hail Mary)