Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3469932" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>While they are evidence, affidavits are not always viewed as proof. For example (again), judges in different locations have already ruled that one person's affidavit saying 'oh i saw a truck with an out of state plate delivering ballots' can simply be that the person did not understand what they saw. Why? Because it was viewed against another affidavit from the election official to pointed out that they used a rental truck to deliver the official ballots and that yes, it did have an out of a state tag. </p><p></p><p>What the first person attested to was true as they saw it, but lacked context and was not 'proof' of what they thought they saw. </p><p></p><p>One reason to 'let it out in the court of public opinion' is because the evidence they keep presenting in court is being held to a high standard, which groups like lawmakers do not seemingly need. Presenting the 'evidence', without the chance that anyone would question the material, offer alternative explanations, or require evidence that a court might scrutinize makes perfect sense as a strategy. </p><p></p><p>So far almost everything presented in court has come up short, and recounts are proving fruitless (even helping Biden), so why not take a new approach and do an end run around the courts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3469932, member: 277"] While they are evidence, affidavits are not always viewed as proof. For example (again), judges in different locations have already ruled that one person's affidavit saying 'oh i saw a truck with an out of state plate delivering ballots' can simply be that the person did not understand what they saw. Why? Because it was viewed against another affidavit from the election official to pointed out that they used a rental truck to deliver the official ballots and that yes, it did have an out of a state tag. What the first person attested to was true as they saw it, but lacked context and was not 'proof' of what they thought they saw. One reason to 'let it out in the court of public opinion' is because the evidence they keep presenting in court is being held to a high standard, which groups like lawmakers do not seemingly need. Presenting the 'evidence', without the chance that anyone would question the material, offer alternative explanations, or require evidence that a court might scrutinize makes perfect sense as a strategy. So far almost everything presented in court has come up short, and recounts are proving fruitless (even helping Biden), so why not take a new approach and do an end run around the courts. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom