That is not how that works at all. You. Are. So. Bad. At. This.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. And right now they've only insinuated at a global conspiracy involving countries from 5 continents (lol) in a scheme to steal the election from Trump (and only Trump, the rest of the Republicans did fine.) I'd say the ball is firmly in their court to make the case. Which they haven't.

By the way, you still haven't detailed how this plays out. Please tell me how Trump is re-inaugurated in January. (Can't say re-elected because that wouldn't be true.)

K, thanks.

Speaking of being bad at this. I said they do have evidence. A sworn affidavit is evidence, and they have multiple of them. That amounts to evidence.

AlBizniz implied that the affidavits were not credible, I asked for evidence of that. The burden of proof for that claim is on the one making it. I merely pointed out that they in fact have evidence.

Your reading comprehension is continuing to get worse. I specifically said I do not know how it will play out. The claims being made in regards to Dominion are serious, *if* true. *If* not true, it would make a fairly easy defamation case. Dominion, to my knowledge, has not taken any legal action so far.

To claim that there is no evidence is dishonest. You not liking the evidence does not invalidate it.

If you're going to throw America into chaos and civil war, you better come with more than eye witnesses. AlBizniz is saying that their case is laughably weak for the crimes they are accusing. There's your evidence that it's all fantasy - like your debating skills.

You still haven't told me how this plays out for Trump.

*smooches*

Incorrect, AlBizniz said that affidavits were not credible, that is a different claim.

You continue to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension, or maybe you just choose to argue in bad faith.

Either way, have a good weekend Wu....GateAgent007.

GateAgent's claim was that Trump's team have not been able to provide any hard, meaningful, or credible evidence in support of their case. That is what I was supporting when I posted this:


You need to have fidelity of thought to appreciate the distinction of that vs. you constantly chirping that we're claiming that there's no evidence.

The proof that the evidence are not credible is the fact that the assertions made in the affidavits have been rejected by the courts, and the cases have been summarily thrown out.

In one example in the Philly courts, there were sworn affidavits that a truck pulled up at 4:30 in the morning with a bunch of ballots. Interestingly there times and details of those affiants didn't correspond. Conversely, there were sworn affidavits saying this did not occur, and those affiants had details that concurred. Based on that the judge ruled that the first evidence was not credible and thus threw out that court case.

I was addressing your second part, because affidavits have been dismissed previously does not prove or indicate that they are not evidence or that they are not credible. The claim that affidavits are not credible is patently false.

I had not heard of the Philly case you mention, and can’t seem to find a story on it, mind providing a link?

I can make that claim because the courts have made that determination.

Please, along with the other request, provide the link that courts have determined all affidavits are not credible and are no longer evidence.

So far, it's been a joke. Affidavits are basically a sworn statement. One person says "he did this" which is easily countered by the other party saying "no I didn't". So far, the court cases have been thrown out for lack of evidence, no specific times, names, actions, etc. If these people were observing some sort of fraud or lawbreaking, you'd need to know what time, location, who it was or some way to identify them, what part was contrary to the law, etc. If you actually had a case, then you'd then subpoena the records indicated in your affidavits that prove your case, get the people on the stand that acted contrary and show this, etc. It's one thing to make an affidavit to Fox News or a lawyer, and another to introduce it into court, so you might hear how there are "thousands of affidavits" or something, but I guarantee that thousands don't make it to court, because the lawyers know many of these will lead to perjury or incrimination of the person making the affidavit. They may use this to showboat, saying to the judge "we have thousands of affidavits", but if they have to put the money where their mouth is, it falls apart if there is no substantial information within those affidavits. If you think what you've heard so far (and has almost unilaterally been thrown out or where the administration has pulled their lawsuit back) is the basis of solid case building...I don't know what to say...It's nothing more than desperate frivolous attention getting and trying to divide people further. It's not rocket science to build a case, but it can't be based on what you want to be true, it has to be based on what is true. If you have enough money and time, you can bog the system down with what you want to be true...

None of this changes the fact that sworn affidavits are evidence. Claiming there is no evidence is patently false. They evidence may not be compelling, or enough by themselves to prove the case, but they are evidence nonetheless.

I find it amusing that suddenly people claim it’s not evidence. WutAgent007 in this very thread said that forced sterilization was taken place in ICE facilities, as if it were a fact. Yet it is based on a single sworn statement (that I have seen so far). Yet, suddenly, sworn affidavits that disagree with what he wants to be true are no longer credible evidence.