Quote:
Originally Posted by hobart
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's not evidence because you read it on Facebook. It's evidence when it's presented in a court of law. So why doesn't the crack Trump legal team introduce into evidence in an actual proceeding the evidence that is showing up on your Facebook feed? Because knowingly misrepresenting facts on tv or social media isn't against the law, but doing so in an actual court or filing will get you disbarred or worse. Even Rudy knows this.
|
It has literally been introduced in legal hearings in multiple states. What are you talking about?
I mean, do you think people who are signing sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury do not constitute evidence? Why would they do this otherwise? Have you watched any of the hearings? Are you aware that many of these legal challenges are being presented by constitutionalists who don't even like trump, but are concerned about election integrity writ large? How do you reconcile this broad pushback to any notion that the election was compromised by people who had a seething irrational hate for orange man to the democrats doing literally the exact same thing after losing in 2016?