Actually, according to the statutory guidance on classification, it is NOT allowed for the purpose of concealing criminal activity or mitigation of embarrassment. But I agree with your insistence on evidence; it is no less than a criminal conviction would demand. A Q-proof is nice, but means nothing in a real trial, against a real person, for a real crime, against a real victim.
In other words, the evidence for criminal conviction and punishment is more stringent than for a lynch mob.
Well, I don't understand your reasoning at all. Kindly explain. The Judges dismissed the cases about election rigging for "lack of standing" (a bogus reason), not anything to do with the elements of a case or lack of evidence.
But more to the point, where do you disagree? Or are you with the lynch mob?
The Judges dismissed the cases about election rigging for "lack of standing" (a bogus reason), not anything to do with the elements of a case or lack of evidence.
I think this may be a distinction without a difference. That may be the source of our/my misunderstanding. Lynch mob? No. Historically they aren't about evidence and conviction.
"Lack of standing" is supposed to reflect whether the person bringing the case has standing to bring a case (legal justification for appearing before the court). It has nothing to do with the case itself or the evidence.
Actually, according to the statutory guidance on classification, it is NOT allowed for the purpose of concealing criminal activity or mitigation of embarrassment. But I agree with your insistence on evidence; it is no less than a criminal conviction would demand. A Q-proof is nice, but means nothing in a real trial, against a real person, for a real crime, against a real victim.
In other words, the evidence for criminal conviction and punishment is more stringent than for a lynch mob.
That's the kind of reasonimg the judges dismissed rigging claims with.
Well, I don't understand your reasoning at all. Kindly explain. The Judges dismissed the cases about election rigging for "lack of standing" (a bogus reason), not anything to do with the elements of a case or lack of evidence.
But more to the point, where do you disagree? Or are you with the lynch mob?
The Judges dismissed the cases about election rigging for "lack of standing" (a bogus reason), not anything to do with the elements of a case or lack of evidence.
I think this may be a distinction without a difference. That may be the source of our/my misunderstanding. Lynch mob? No. Historically they aren't about evidence and conviction.
"Lack of standing" is supposed to reflect whether the person bringing the case has standing to bring a case (legal justification for appearing before the court). It has nothing to do with the case itself or the evidence.