Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas1999
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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?
|
So no offense but you just keep displaying how little you know about how the justice system works. Affidavits don’t mean shit (speaking as a lawyer). You know why? Because you’d need direct evidence that the person knowingly lied. In this instance, that’s essentially impossible to obtain because the person is just saying “Um well uhhh I saw X happen.” So someone can make something up in this circumstance and it’s virtually impossible to ding them on it. You’re not going to find direct evidence that they lied because it’s all just made up in their head (and absence of evidence proving their claim isn’t sufficient to get a perjury charge in this type of context).
That’s why in court proceedings affidavits aren’t considered important from an evidentiary perspective.