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)
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)