The stack of affidavits that Rudy and Sidney have are a good start for a thorough investigation, but are not concrete evidence of fraud in and of themselves.
How about a FReeper actually watch something before they make some snarky comment. This is amazing.
That's what I'm thinking.
These people get excited because they believe "they have the evidence" that will expose everything. However, it just turns out to be repeating the same claims.
Unless he has fresh, never reported evidence I won't get my hopes up.
Statistical analysis is admissible in federal court as proof of fraud.
Once day people will get: "This is not a fraud case" (PA case - before the Federal Judge) - When asked if there was Fraud - Goldstein (another Trump lawyer) flat out said "To my knowledge at present, no." - But THEN Jenna Ellis went right out on TV within an hour and told YOU that the judge would not hear their fraud case. In another state case in Bucks County, Pa., Trump’s attorneys signed a joint stipulation of facts that explicitly admits that they are not alleging fraud - saying "Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.”
But not today.
In court a sworn affadavit is itself evidence. Lots of people are in prison due to sworn affadavits from police.
Statistical impossibilities are admissible evidence in court, they have literally thousands of affidavits, and of course all the video recorded and otherwise seen evidence of fraud.
I’d be very interested in seeing more evidence of the foreign-interference, massive-scale electronic vote changing, but they have more than enough evidence as it is.