We need some special elections to clean up the mess

Mr. PONCE >>[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

Yes! Please new elections without cheating. 75 million voters have seen the evidence even tho no liberal court will look at it. When a blind person's house is on fire they won't see it but it will be destroyed. Hiding truth is the MSM main purpose but the truth is there anyway.

“ voters that the Democrats and the Courts actively rebuffed efforts of the electorate to be heard. ” you mean the bipartisan electoral boards, Trump appointed judges, Republican Attorney General, and Republican governors who declared the election fair and free of significant fraud. The seditious invaders of the Capital and their enablers need to be arrested, tried, and imprisoned.

Amen Brother Braeking! You did not fool around with it, Naw, Naw ..You slapped this one over the proverbial fence! Keep posting brother,..I love it!

what's the proof?

...and Hunter was not selling influence and the Russian Hoax was real! [wink]

Jeff> Eye witness evidence has always been the strongest kind of evidence. 923 eye witnesses signed sworn affidavits they personally saw illegal conduct.

because it didn't meet the threshold of being evidence.

You can search for and review the individual cases as well as I can, but some of responses from the judges were:

".....strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations … unsupported by evidence.” , "

Judge Bass in Georgia - “The court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7pm on election day,”,

Judge Stephens in Michigan - “This evidence is inadmissable as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissable hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay,”

Judge Brann in Pennsylvania - “Plaintiffs merely assert in their complaint, ‘Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic Party inspectors and then counted.’ Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation.

Judge Kenny in Michigan - “The motion is based upon speculation and conjecture. Absent any evidence of an improper practice, the court cannot identify if this alleged violation occurred and, if it did, the frequency of such violations. Plaintiffs have made only a claim but have offered no evidence to support their assertions. Plaintiffs rely on numerous affidavits from election challengers who paint a picture of sinister, fraudulent activities occurring both openly in the TCF Centre and under the cloak of darkness,” he said.

“Perhaps if plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the October 29 walk-through of the TCF Centre ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of election day. Regrettably, they did not, and therefore plaintiff’s affiants did not have a full understanding of the TCF absent ballot tabulation process. No formal challenges were filed. However, sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the City of Detroit. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.”

“Ms Carone, a Republican, indicated that she ‘witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place’ during her time at the TCF Centre. Offering generalised statements, Ms Carone described illegal activity that included counter tabulating machines that would get jammed four to five times per hour, as well as alleged cover-up of loss of vast amounts of data. Ms Carone indicated she reported her observations to the FBI. Ms Carone’s description of the events at the TCF Centre does not square with any of the other affidavits. There are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count. Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events. The allegations simply are not credible.”

Judge Bibas in Pennsylvania - “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. The Trump campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the campaign ‘doesn’t plead fraud … this is not a fraud case’. Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s secretary of state and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.”

Judge Russell in Nevada said he had “reviewed the full evidentiary record” and “considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the court” First, Judge Russell took issue with the testimony of Mr Trump’s witnesses, which was submitted in the form of affidavits, meaning none of them could be cross-examined while the declarations “also constitute hearsay”. “Most of these declarations were self-serving statements of little or no evidentiary value,” he said. “The court nonetheless considers the totality of the evidence provided by contestants in reaching and ruling upon the merits of their claims.” “Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted,” he concluded.

The plural of anecdote is not data