Posted on 11/08/2020 6:27:45 PM PST by CivilWarBrewing
( SORRY... STILL LOOKING !!!!!!! )
The number of FRAUDULENT votes benefiting Traitor Joe versus those benefiting Trump would be SHOCKING to anyone involved in the postmortem of the 2020 election. SUCH TOTALS MUST BE PRESENTED BY TEAM TRUMP AS EVIDENCE IN COURTS OF LAW IN EVERY STATE BEING LITIGATED!
DEMOCRATS CHEAT!
This kind of information will have no effect on the SCOTUS’ rulings.
Statistics is a great field.
It will not be taken into account.
Hard Evidence would.
This is hard evidence to you.
In court, it will be far from.
That fact remains that the Biden team will never be able in a court of law produce one piece of evidence that even one illegal vote was cast for President Trump. That fact will make the Biden lawyers look really dumb in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada courtrooms.
I am not aware of any “fraudulent votes for Trump.”
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
I think you missed the point.
Ah, I didn’t catch this was not a thread to collect them, but to ahow we know of none.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Humor? Hmm...okay.
“Sheldon” ... I think it’s “Sarcasm.” “Bazinga!”
Ps: From “The Big Bang Theory.”
If you watched Mark Levin tonight or listen to his radio show, he has gone over this a lot: Democrats all year have been in courts all across the country overturning election laws which is completely unconstitutional because only state legislatures can do that.
All these laws they have been overturning are invalid, they are unconstitutional. So any ballot that disregards the original laws put in place by the legislature must be declared invalid, illegal. If it is not and Biden takes office, he will be in fact an invalid POTUS, one who was unconstitutionally elected.
If they can still discount EVERYTHING that we have seen, heard, and people have reported, etc, and they still don’t see it, then they, their kids, grandkids, etc, and we had all better start learning Chinese.
Ok in individual tax case. The burden of admissible evidence is, I suspect, much higher in a national election.
“In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ‘circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence.’”
https://law.jrank.org/pages/5218/Circumstantial-Evidence.html
Charles Manson was convicted of murder based only on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and helps to portray the facts to the court.
Hard evidence is added to complete the picture.
Think of it as the court’s access to common sense.
..
“This kind of information will have no effect on the SCOTUS’ rulings.”
Wait a minute. (I’m posting like a madman.)
What specific information were you talking about?
Well, off the top of my head, it makes little sense that the top of the ballot would go one way, while the remainder of the races go another. It’s not proof but evidence to warrant suspicion and further investigation.
It’s called being https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/facetious
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.