Because evidence MUST have a verified chain of possession before it can be entered into discovery in a court case. If it is just released to the public, there is no way to ensure chain of possession.
If that was the reason, then why couldn't it have been released in relation to any of the multitude of election fraud cases that have taken place already?
By released, do you mean to the public? I am not an attorney, but I have learned a few things through the decades of following lawyers and court cases. The election fraud evidence WAS submitted to many courts, but most of the courts refused to hear the case saying it was due to no legal standing. They never saw the evidence and didn't rule on the merits of the cases. The 3 or so courts that did hear it, Trump won 2 of those cases. But because this evidence is still subject to being presented as discovery in future cases, it cannot be released to the public. As you know, best practice is to not release your evidence outside of a court. Sometimes the public finds out about the evidentiary details after those details have been presented in court.or if someone leaks it (this causes problems)...in a case that is being HEARD. But If there are any pending court cases, the evidence cannot be released. Chain of custody, tainting the jury pool and other concerns about evidence being in the public. I feel that there is massive evidence that we may not even fathom. 2000 mules was an anecdotal display of how it was done and that it is known. But imagine how much evidence there is for elections across every county in the US. Massive.
The obvious question is why hasn't he shown us this evidence yet.
And the obvious answer is that it's all part of the show.
Because evidence MUST have a verified chain of possession before it can be entered into discovery in a court case. If it is just released to the public, there is no way to ensure chain of possession.
If that was the reason, then why couldn't it have been released in relation to any of the multitude of election fraud cases that have taken place already?
By released, do you mean to the public? I am not an attorney, but I have learned a few things through the decades of following lawyers and court cases. The election fraud evidence WAS submitted to many courts, but most of the courts refused to hear the case saying it was due to no legal standing. They never saw the evidence and didn't rule on the merits of the cases. The 3 or so courts that did hear it, Trump won 2 of those cases. But because this evidence is still subject to being presented as discovery in future cases, it cannot be released to the public. As you know, best practice is to not release your evidence outside of a court. Sometimes the public finds out about the evidentiary details after those details have been presented in court.or if someone leaks it (this causes problems)...in a case that is being HEARD. But If there are any pending court cases, the evidence cannot be released. Chain of custody, tainting the jury pool and other concerns about evidence being in the public. I feel that there is massive evidence that we may not even fathom. 2000 mules was an anecdotal display of how it was done and that it is known. But imagine how much evidence there is for elections across every county in the US. Massive.
What were the outcomes of the 2 cases?