“Not if they had ten saying the same thing was going on when they were present.”
Maybe I am not communicating very well. EVEN if 10 people or a 100 people went to the HEAD person and told her what THEY saw, she would NOT be able to go into court and say 10 people TOLD ME this and this. That is called Hear-say and is not allowed in court.
Now if those 10 people had names of the people doing this and that they might be listened to because that person who they name could be subpoenaed to testify about what they did.
I think some (hopefully more, than not) of the affidavits have names (of perps), places, times and some have vid or pics, as back up.
At least that’s how I’ve understood Rudy to explain it.
I sure hope so.
I understand what you are saying.
Boy is this frustrating. It is sounding like it is the case where, unless one can name a person and specify exactly what happened to a specific ballot, one has nothing. And even if a witness could name one instance, one is not enough to change the outcome, so no case?
Pretty brilliant tactic, I guess. Prevent detailed observation and there becomes no crime. Is it truly the situation that there is no remedy if enough people conspire to disenfranchise millions of voters?