Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.
Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.