Yes, she does know this. I think this is to drive the MSM and the Democrats crazy, so they start yelling and screaming that there was no cheating and that there is no evidence of cheating and then in court, she brings out the real evidence. IMO
That is most likely, it'd make sense, because as it stands, this kind of picture, legally speaking, is not proof of anything. There's no timeframe for this, there's no context or reference, there's no nothing.
We know they cheated, but this as it stands, as a singular, poor resolution picture, doesn't prove anything.
I know it's not what people HERE want to hear, but if you're going to go out claiming something, realistically you need something more solid. I just personally don't like it when people make claims on something so flimsy. It makes the whole argument look really silly.
Yes, she does know this. I think this is to drive the MSM and the Democrats crazy, so they start yelling and screaming that there was no cheating and that there is no evidence of cheating and then in court, she brings out the real evidence. IMO
That is most likely, it'd make sense, because as it stands, this kind of picture, legally speaking, is not proof of anything. There's no timeframe for this, there's no context or reference, there's no nothing.
We know they cheated, but this as it stands, as a singular, poor resolution picture, doesn't prove anything.
I know it's not what people HERE want to hear, but if you're going to go out claiming something, realistically you need something more solid. I just personally don't like it when people make claims on something so flimsy. It makes the whole argument look really silly.
I came here for this comment specifically. Thank you!