Yeah I think the SCOTUS arbitration of the election will be like a civil lawsuit type case where the preponderance of evidence is what matters i.e. whichever side has the most evidence wins.
But when it comes to the criminal case against the people who rigged the election, you'll need the evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this individual committed this crime, and that's where they'll probably manage to cover their tracks.
But they have nothing to lose election-wise by at least trying. So long as they cover their tracks sufficiently to avoid criminal liability.
I feel like statistical evidence alone is sufficient in some instances. More evidence the better though and there’s quite a bit online already
Yeah I think the SCOTUS arbitration of the election will be like a civil lawsuit type case where the preponderance of evidence is what matters i.e. whichever side has the most evidence wins.
But when it comes to the criminal case against the people who rigged the election, you'll need the evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this individual committed this crime, and that's where they'll probably manage to cover their tracks.
But they have nothing to lose election-wise by at least trying. So long as they cover their tracks sufficiently to avoid criminal liability.
I still don't know if you're a total moron or just a low IQ troll. GG