Okay, here's what bothers me: Our side keeps on turning up obvious fuckery like this. It (presumably) gets passed on to the Trump legal team. So far so good.
My question is: Does any of this stuff amount to actual, hard, legally-admissible evidence in a court of law? Taken together, all these incidents certainly paint a clear picture of complex and deep-seated, centrally-planned election manipulation and fraud. But do they prove it? Because courts are all about proof, in a strict legal framework.
No, I'm not a "doomer," and yes, I'm sure there are things going on behind the scenes that I can't even imagine. But it does seem to me that a great many of the "it's happening; hugely" posts lately don't rise to a legal definition of "proof."
Okay, here's what bothers me: Our side keeps on turning up obvious fuckery like this. It (presumably) gets passed on to the Trump legal team. So far so good.
My question is: Does any of this stuff amount to actual, hard, legally-admissible evidence in a court of law? Taken together, all these incidents certainly paint a clear picture of complex and deep-seated, centrally-planned election manipulation and fraud. But do they prove it? Because courts are all about proof, in a strict legal framework.
No, I'm not a "doomer," and yes, I'm sure there are things going on behind the scenes that I can't even imagine. But it does seem to me that a great many of the "it's happening; hugely" posts lately don't rise to a legal definition of "proof."
Anyone care to comment?