This may be a flimsy theory but I was just thinking, what if "standing" is just a red herring?
Is it possible that due to the influence of a foreign power in this case, the issue isn't that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing, but that the courts themselves lack jurisdiction?
Q always said the military was the only way--is it possible that military courts are the only way too when election fraud involves foreign actors?
Don't you just wish they would have said it in court?
So I’m no lawyer, but there are major differences between criminal cases and civil cases. A criminal case requires a much higher burden of evidence, and it requires a much more lengthy amount of time to process... I think the reason you saw the lawyers back off when asked specifically if they are alleging fraud is because then they would need to specifically get into the details of exactly who did what and this it would turn into a criminal case.
The goal was to quickly get through the courts and the only possible way to do this was to try the cases as civil cases in the small amount of time they had. They probably didn’t care if the cases got thrown out at lower levels because the quicker they could get them to the SC the better, at least they thought that would be the case.
I think they likely thought the constitutional arguments (states violating their own constitutions by unilaterally changing election law without state legislatures) were more of a slam-dunk as they were very black and white (law says this, state did this).
True, honestly that’s all they should have ever needed. Anything else was just icing on the cake. But alas, fucked up system with no hope in sight.
It was a guten morgen indeed!
Only a single witness statement is needed for a criminal conviction.
See the following:
From https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0020.htm on rape accusations:
From https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions on jury instructions:
All it takes is for a single claim and for the jury to think that they are truthful.
Ask a lawyer: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html
https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/the-state-only-has-one-witness-isn-t-that-hearsay.html
https://splinternews.com/people-are-convicted-based-on-one-witness-all-the-time-1829367479
But it must still be "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a much higher standard than most civil cases.
Sure all it takes for one criminal is one witness, but still think about what took place. One criminal wouldn’t be enough to overturn an election. You would have to go after all of them, or at least enough of them to make a difference. That of course would be a massive amount of time and investigation that would be required.
Juries can basically decide whatever they want based on how little they want. The main problem for this situation is just getting in front of a jury.
That doesn’t make any sense....how were they going to “get through it quickly” without showing their actual evidence if they had it? Weather it be a criminal infraction or not?
By get through it quickly, they had a very small window between when the election took place and when inaugurated took place. They had to move fast. Part of the strategy seemed to be to try to get to the Supreme Court where if the Supreme Court actually did their job, it would have been more meaningful than a lower level court ruling, plus conservatives should at least expect to not have a court that’s extremely biased against them at the Supreme Court level. That turned out to be false.
That would give the game away?
This is a much funner game we're playing right now?
Agreed.
I think we may be looking at that too simply though. If they had stated there evidence at the time then the cases might have gone to trial based on those facts.
However, Q has always said that it is bigger than this. We need to trust that Giuliani and the lawyers were simply keeping their powder dry for the next level events.
I think you may be looking at that too simply though. If they had stated there evidence at the time then the cases might have gone to trial based on those facts.
However, Q has always said that it is bigger than this. We need to trust that Giuliani and the lawyers were simply keeping their powder dry for the next level events.
The next level events that we're still waiting for?
Seriously - WTAF is up with those remarks???
Are we being misled??
I mean; there WAS serious, systemic and verifiable fraud, right???
OR is this just a case of yet MORE people with zero balls and backbone to do and say what needs to be said & done?
Yes, there is massive fraud, it just hasn't been exposed in court yet.
Right but what I mean is why did those attorneys even make statements like that at all???
Doesn't make any sense.....
His other point was that they didn’t care about getting lower court arguments thrown out in order to rush it to SC...which makes ZERO sense because SC considers what was presented at the ACTUAL CASE when deciding to take an appeal of a case or not.