The MSM secretly distributes talking points, which often come from the DNC, instructing its reporters to include statements in articles about voter disenfranchisement and suppression of Republicans declaring that there has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. If you’re not a lawyer, you might buy it. But if you know just the tiniest bit about the law, it’s frankly embarrassing to see non-lawyer journalists repeatedly writing this, pretending to be authoritative and objective.
First-year law students learn the federal rules of evidence, which have state versions. There are 68 rules of evidence under mostly five broad categories, and one of those categories is “testimonial evidence.” This usually is presented in the form of sworn witness statements and can come from eyewitnesses or experts. It’s admissible with a proper foundation. For an eyewitness, their “opinion is reasonably based on their perception,” and it’s “helpful in understanding the facts of the case or the witness's testimony.” For an expert witness, the foundation is the person “is classified as an expert witness who has specialized knowledge of the evidence presented at the trial.” So it’s easy to get admitted into evidence.
Detractors point out that witness testimony isn’t admissible if it’s hearsay, which is defined as someone discussing what someone else said. But there are several exceptions to this rule that allow the testimony to be admitted, such as if it’s an “admission against interest.” So if a Maricopa County Elections employee testifies about wrongful statements by another employee, since it’s a type of whistleblowing it’s considered an admission against interest.
Previous election lawsuits in 2020 challenging voter disenfranchisement and suppression were stymied due to other reasons, not lack of evidence. It’s dishonest for the MSM to pretend otherwise. Judges found vague technicalities to throw them out, afraid of having their careers destroyed since the left dominates much of the legal system.
It’s a poorly kept secret within the legal system that federal district court judges in particular deliberately look for reasons to throw cases out. Popular reasons that judges can make work in most circumstances include lack of standing, wrong jurisdiction, and untimely. These were almost exclusively used as reasons to dismiss the 2020 election lawsuits. Judges found the strangest, narrowest, or most distorted interpretations of state statutes to throw lawsuits out as untimely, which is bizarre when you consider serious election fraud constitutes felonies; that kind of crime should not have the equivalent of short statutes of limitations.
Witness testimony alone is used to send people to the death penalty. After Troy Davis was executed in 2011 based on only witness testimony, Al Sharpton and his National Action Network tried to get the laws changed to forbid prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty in cases where there was no physical or scientific evidence, but so far this movement appears to have little success.
If we’re OK with executing people based on just witness testimony, why is it ignored in voter fraud cases, which are often only misdemeanors and civil infractions? Why are thousands of affidavits from people with a lot to lose — getting doxxed, fired, and death threats — ignored as if they aren’t even real? Does anyone believe thousands of people are making these reports? The statistical odds of it merely being a coincidence are mind-numbing.
Trump-endorsed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake filed a lengthy lawsuit on Friday challenging the results of the state’s botched election, where thousands of Republicans on Election Day in Maricopa County ran into complications voting, and based on what they saw doubt their votes were counted. The complaint cited extensive witness testimony regarding wrongdoing, including 90% of mismatched signatures just swept under the rug and approved instead of being “cured” to ensure they were legitimate. Other witness testimony cited a lack of chain of custody for 298,942 ballots that were delivered to a third-party voter signature verification service. That is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Just because a judge comes up with a bogus technical reason to throw out a lawsuit doesn’t mean there was never any evidence produced. Some of the reasons the 2020 lawsuits went nowhere were because the election attorneys were targeted with disciplinary actions, as in Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence. The attorneys were only too grateful to drop the case to avoid worse discipline. They weren’t just any attorneys either, but part of the respected Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project. The judge who scared them into withdrawing the case was appointed by President Barack Obama, James Boasberg. The 65 Project, which appears to exist to drive conservative attorneys out of the practice of law, has preemptively submitted bar complaints against many of the election attorneys filing lawsuits over this election.
Does anyone believe that the top conservative election attorneys in the country continue to file cases in the wrong jurisdictions, that are untimely, and lack standing? Of course not. But it’s easy to fool the general public which isn't attorneys.
It’s going to take a brave judge to withstand the pressure to make up a technicality and instead address the evidence. Judges operate mostly out of the public eye and so one major decision could seal their reputation and career for the rest of their life, putting them and their families in financial jeopardy. Who wants to be known until their deathbed as the judge who ignored technical legal violations and enabled J6, as the MSM would spin it? The election lawsuits in 2020 ended up with almost exclusively Democrat and RINO judges, making their outcomes inevitable. In most jurisdictions, the presiding judge of the court gets to choose which judge hears a case, and with the legal system dominated by the left, that presiding judge usually leans left.
All eyes are on Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, who was assigned to Lake’s lawsuit. Will he withstand the immense pressure and acknowledge the massive statutory violations, or will he succumb to the bullies on the left and their comrades in the MSM?