[Dusty Road]

I’m still a little surprised at how so many people think these attorneys are suppose to explain everything to the general public. Now I certainly would love to be privy to all the evidence but that’s not how it works. This is a case before the courts, not the media. We just went through almost 4 years of that with the House and Trump and none of the info/evidence bantered about was true.

[Adder]

This is a case before the courts,

I haven’t heard much from the courts, beside rejecting claims for a multitude of reasons.

If there is going to be evidence given in court, it needs to happen pdq.

[Fido969]

We’re on the appeals stage with most of these cases, which means the evidence for court has already been presented.

As far as “explaining to the public,” some of these characters have spent more time giving interviews to the public then they seem to have spent proofing their filings.

[TigerLikesRoosterNew]

We don't need to know court proceedings. If there is a real smoking gun on the level of Kraken, we have at least heard about its existence by now, along the line of:

“Sidney Powell team reportedly has an explosive evidence to conclusively show that vote fraud happened.”

There were indeed widespread frauds. But Sidney's Kraken is supposed to be something which will eclipse them all.

[Bigg Red]

Exactly

[Bigg Red]

Exactly

[McBuff]

And another thing. . .the initial phase of the process usually involves bringing evidence to a grand jury, in secret. The standard for "evidence" at that point is lower. It's not set at "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard for an indictment is "probable cause," not to convict, but to indict and bring to trial. Also, to bring an indictment, a grand jury only needs a majority in some states or two thirds vote in others.

If there was time to assemble a grand jury, there is enough evidence to establish probable cause to bring indictments raining down like the monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. The time constraints is what makes this case and process so different. Also, no lower court wants this. . .not because there isn't enough evidence to establish probable cause. . .it is about ruling on what shall be the remedy. That will take some big stones and I'm not confident that even the Supreme Court possess them. The "lack of evidence" is not the problem.