Seems like a fair question to ask, considering that this is how COVID deaths are counted; if you die will having it, or having had it recently, then it counts. It may also be fair to say that it's more complicated than that. But that should apply to both statistics then.
Well, I only care about these suits in how they might change my opinion on whether the election was fair. In that regard there is no missing evidence. The only thing that is mentioned as missing is, proof that Boockvar is guilty of coordinating the notice-and-cure-cheat. But I don't care exactly who did it, only that it was obviously done, since it was aligned against Trump. That, and the nullification of poll watchers, doesn't read as being in dispute.
Yes, any countries that sign onto it can just choose their own level of committment, which makes it useless as a treaty. Pakistan's committment is "maybe at some point we'll think about doing something".
The part that the US was committed to earlier, had a <1% impact on climate change - and this is not in dispute, it's just that "scientists" thought that politically it would lead to more committments elsewhere.
You need evidence of the injury to demonstrate it
No, this is in the discussion of standing, which takes place on the presumption that the claims are true.
Generally, I agree that the courts were never going to be the solution with the evidence available. But not because it wasn't an obvious fraud election - which is the only sane conclusion when the electoral process doesn't in itself constitute evidence of the stated outcome - but because courts aren't looking at whether the election is fair and uncheatable; as this document clearly shows.
Not a single sentence of this drivel (the court's, not you) analyses the integrity and fairness of the election. It says that, sure maybe certain counties adopted notice-and-cure and others did not, but we're not going to do anything about it. For the individuals who had their votes thrown out - unfairly in comparison to other counties - this trash actually states that invalidating the election wouldn't redress their grievence. As if voting is something you just do because it feels good. Just because it was unfair that your right was denied doesn't mean that others should have it denied. Mindnumbing fuckery.
It then goes on to say that it's unclear how the Trump campaign suffered any injury... I e, nobody ever has standing when it comes to the election being a fraud.
It continues in saying that if Trump and Biden poll watchers were thrown out in equal measure, well that's perfectly fair then - what's the problem?
If you read this and think it concludes the election was fair - your brain is broken.
"Storming" in the military sense of the word would have to do with insurrection. But there's also a civil disobedience style action with the same name, where you get inside of somewhere symbolic and shout a bit - like what happened in 2017. (I didn't see either here).
Next election, let's do this: I (meaning me the poster) will call people and ask them who they vote for, and then I'll announce the tallies publically. The only valid objections to this now, is if this method previously has led to convictions for voter fraud that changed the outcome of an election. And afterwards, it's if you have proof that you can take to court. So, we all agree, right?
How many did even force their way in? I've seen videos where people were allowed to enter, while it was still relatively peaceful outside. Then there's clashes outside, but I can't tell anyone was aiming to get inside then?
How could he have been removed under the 25th? Same answer: just ignore that parts of the law that make it inapplicable. If you're not held to account for that, you succeed.