This article was submitted exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished jurist Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)
Consider these examples from Here is the Evidence, from Detroit, Michigan, courtesy of Newsmax:
“’On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 approximately 4:00 to 5:30 p.m,’ John C. Palmer III recalled, ‘I watched 10 or more vehicles with out-of-state license plates drive up to the loading dock areas. I remember seeing Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virgina [sic] etc.’ Palmer was ‘a volunteer observer’ stationed just outside Detroit’s Department of Elections Building. ‘I was shocked to see that the ballot machines were controlled by these individuals and not Michigan and/or Detroit residents,’ Palmer continued. ‘Many of these out-of-state people carried boxes with Dominion written on them from their vehicles.’
“’Large quantities of ballots were delivered to the TCF Center in what appeared to be mail bins with open tops,’ poll challenger Daniel Gustafson affirmed. ‘These ballot bins and containers did not have lids, were not sealed, and did not have the capability of having a metal seal. The ballot bins were not marked or identified in any way to indicate their source of origin.’
“’On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Detroit election officials told us that they were going to process military ballots last,’ challenger Robert Cushman observed. ‘I was surprised to see numerous new boxes of ballots arrive at the TCF Center in the evening. I first noticed these boxes in the distribution area after many of the military ballots had been distributed and processed. I estimate these boxes contained several thousand new ballots when they appeared.’”
Affidavits are not generally admissible at trial – you cannot cross examine a sworn statement. However, providing an affidavit generally indicates the willingness of a witness to testify, under oath, to their observations. The testimony of such a witness is unequivocally evidence.
If we wish to give the left’s denials of the existence of this evidence the benefit of the doubt, there are two possible interpretations of their position. The evidence is not credible; and the evidence is not compelling.
You should consult your doctor if you think some medication taken by buy cialis pharmacy you is causing ejaculation problems. Before you buy any medication, it is always recommended to consult a psychiatrist or psychologist who will schedule the treatment plan. viagra pills price http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=115 On the other hand, kamagra tablets are available in hard and soft tabs in which the dissolving effects varies. http://raindogscine.com/tag/premio-oscar/ cialis from india tadalafil The kamagra pills actually inhibit the phosphodieterase enzyme found in the crevices of rocks, high in the Himalayan Mountains, the resin substance contains high minerals and vitamin content, derived from years of vegetative focalization. generic levitra for saleThese positions cannot be ignored. Recently, a lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania challenging the results of the election in that state was dismissed by a federal judge. As stated by Columnist Byron York, “(n)o one should be surprised that Trump lost. The suit was against the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, and seven individual counties. It relied on two plaintiffs — two Pennsylvania men who said their mail-in ballots had been canceled for technical reasons, and they were not given a chance to correct them. The judge agreed that the two men had suffered what is called an ‘injury in fact’ — that is, their votes had not counted. But the problem was, neither man lived in any of the seven counties the Trump campaign named as defendants in the case. So none of the defendant counties had had anything to do with the ballots in question. In addition, the suit did not tie the plaintiffs’ situation to Boockvar. So none of the defendants had anything to do with the plaintiffs’ complaints.”
In other words, the evidence presented to the federal court in Pennsylvania was neither credible, nor compelling.
Much has been made of the allegations of voter fraud made by former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell. In a joint press conference with President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, “they claimed to have sufficient evidence of voter fraud to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.” Yet, when asked to provide evidence of these allegations to Fox’s Tucker Carlson, Powell refused. In fact, according to Carson, “(w)hen we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either, nor did she provide any today at the press conference.”
It is very possible that Powell has chosen to play her cards very close to her vest and will provide the evidence she claims to have in a court of law. But given the dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit, it is not impossible that Powell is “blowing smoke.”
If that is the case, then the mainstream media would be emboldened to continue their claims that there is “no evidence” of voter fraud. However, given the sworn statements collected to date, this statement is, and continues to be, untrue. There is evidence.
But whether that evidence is credible and compelling enough to overturn the results of the 2020 election remains to be seen.
Photo: Pixabay