0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
“To fully present their election fraud evidence”. I doubt that there is election fraud “evidence” that would qualify under the Federal Rules Of Evidence.
Everyone should read some of the "affidavits" that have been accrued. I am sure the people had the best of intentions but statements like "I saw boxes of ballots with saran wrap over them" is not credible evidence of fraud. "I saw people scanning ballots more than once" is not evidence of fraud unless supported by an audit of the computer or a hand count of the paper ballots. You, like the media, seem to mistake "evidence" for "proof". Of course that statement would be evidence. By itself, it might not be proof, but it should be heard. As said MOST states have paper ballots which were counted and recounted, with no substantial difference. Even the Heritage Foundation's examples of convicted frauds is usually ONE person voting or attempting to vote twice or using a fraudulent absentee ballot. These are ones and twos hardly "widespread" fraud. I see you have taken another page from the media. Why must it be "widespread" fraud to be heard in court? If it's fraud it should be heard. Besides, a little fraud here and a little fraud there can certainly tip a close election.I know this will not convince the faithful, but they really need to stop listening to websites and You-Tube.
