Could this be a potentially painful article? It all depends on your open-mindedness. It could prove to be potentially painful to the degree to which you allow formally discredited and uncomfortable facts to be considered.
Evidence and the refuting of evidence must be based on specific and verifiable facts. Specific and verifiable are the two key components to look for when judging if a statement is based on a point or just an opinion.
"The election was stolen." "The election was not stolen." are two good examples of factless opinions. Both statements are worthless as far as evidence or considering the truth of the matter.
Ask yourself the following question. If the 2020 presidential election had evidence of fraud, shouldn't the evidence be heard?
Can anyone with an ounce of integrity answer no? What does ignoring the evidence say about justice, fairness, and integrity? Not just regarding this election but any situation in opposition to particular desires? So, specific and verifiable evidence is the acid test to cut through the fog and get to the truth.
Nevada's voting records for the 2020 Presidential election show that 42 thousand people voted more than once, 19 thousand people who voted did not live in Nevada, 8 thousand people who voted did not have a current address, and 4 thousand non-citizens voted.
President Trump's legal team has publically made the above statements. Are they true, or are they a bunch of lies? If they were lies, wouldn't it be the quickest way to end Trump's Presidential election challenges by proving them as lies?
One thing is for sure; they would be considered as evidence in any honest court in the country. They are statements based on public and published information that is easily found and verifiable. And yet, the media continues to say that the President has no evidence.
Let's look at affidavits. An affidavit is a sworn statement of fact. All courts treat affidavits as a written version of a verbal swearing under oath. Witnesses who sign an affidavit that contains false information are subject to the crime of perjury just as they would if they gave their testimony in open court.
There are 1,100 sworn, signed affidavits, all of which are considered by U.S. courts to be evidence, alleging that the 2020 Presidential election was conducted fraudulently. And yet, the media continues to say that the President has not presented any evidence. Why does the media keep repeating what is so clearly a false statement?
Video proof is compelling and is accepted as evidence by any court in The United States.
Jackie Pick, an attorney with the Trump campaign, presented a two-minute long video to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee as evidence alleging election fraud in Georgia. The video contained footage of ballot counting at the State Farm Arena in Fulton County in Georgia on November 3rd and 4th.
The video shows ballot counting from several camera angles. The footage revealed four large, black bins filled with ballots being taken out from under a large blanketed table. The votes from the containers are seen being counted using the available machines for approximately two hours, absent of any media or poll watchers, which are required by Georgia election law. Why were ballots under the table, and why were they taken out immediately after poll watchers were instructed to exit the building?
How many times have you heard the media say no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election exists? Do you agree that the above election data, affidavits, and video are considered evidence? If not, why are these items considered evidence in all other courts?
Would you agree that the most reliable results occur when all information is known? Would you agree that the silencing or restraining of data can create less than reliable results? And most importantly, why would any honest person suppress information?
Americans need to come together and move the country forward under a Trump or a Biden administration. And the only way that will ever occur is if all of the facts and evidence is allowed to be presented and heard in an open and publically observed court proceeding.