I hear this from people on the left quite a bit -- "I'm open to the evidence. I just haven't heard any."gil wrote:I'm certainly open to the evidence (and I think any patriotic congressperson - this includes democrats by the way - should be as well). But why hasn't what people are calling evidence been presented in a court in a manner that judge has accepted it? Why hasn't this evidence of fraud been accepted by Republican election officials, Secretaries of State, and Governors? Quite frankly, I think there is an echo chamber (on the right) of "Fraud! Fraud! Fraud!" that has a lot in common with the echo chamber (on the left) of "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
That's a dead give away that they either A) haven't bothered to inspect for themselves or B) they've decided to ignore a tidal wave of fraud evidence.
Why haven't the judges done anything?
That question is used to suggest that if the evidence of fraud was strong enough a judge would rule, or at least hear the case. But that's the thing, right? If evidence isn't heard, if it's struck down via a procedural method like standing, does that evidence exist?
Yes, of course the evidence exists. It's not going away. The judges, including SCOTUS, do not want to decide the election. That's fair enough. Imagine being a small time federal judge in Georgia over turning the election results so that he can invite BLM to his house... and the house of all his family and friends. It's not all that appealing.
The governors and secretaries of each of the battle ground states are guilty of collusion. They orchestrated the fraud. If they had nothing to hide they would allow material audits of the ballots and Dominion machines. Why wont they do that? Audits would restore public confidence. Then again, they would also uncover the fraud even more than we've seen thus far.
