I don’t trust any of the shyster lawyers who said they had “proof”
I saw the proof in six states. The legislatures did meet and give them a fair hearing with testimony and evidence, and we got an eyeful and an earful on You Tube. Probably no longer up, but we know what we saw. I don’t trust the crooked judges who did everything in their power to avoid being presented the evidence, including SCOTUS Chief Justice Brave Sir Roberts.
Did they say they had proof, or that they could prove it? There is a big difference.
What I remember them saying repeatedly was that the publicly reported election results exhibited statistical anomalies - raising huge red flags. That this was probable cause for further investigation.
What I remember them saying was that the very limited access they had to the machines, software and other evidence only reinforced their doubts.
What I remember them saying was IF they were given full access to the machines, software and other forensic evidence, they could prove one way or another.
Why were they blocked from getting that access at every turn?
“I don’t trust any of the shyster lawyers who said they had “proof””
It was extremely disappointing, wasn’t it?
The machines are a political figure or issue. Under our Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in NY Times vs. Sullivan, you can’t be sued merely for being wrong on a political issue; it’s protected free speech.
If they didn't have proof then they sure as hell do now.
As it's titled... "ABSOLUTE PROOF"
Both of these links take you to the SAME video.