(11-20-2020, 01:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-20-2020, 12:37 PM)BushCheney2000 Wrote: I was watching Tucker Carlson last night and he said there's no proof of voter fraud but there is proof of UFOs ?! What's going on around here ?!

People are conflating proof and evidence. Evidence is suggestive and proof is concrete. There's also the idea that the court makes decisions only when something is proven. This just isn't true. Sometimes, the court of law looks at the total body of evidence, which is suggestive, and if all of it points in a direction, they may make a decision without anything concrete. 

I think a good way to explain this is thinking of OJ's glove. You guys remember that? They found a bloody glove at the scene. The glove is evidence. It doesn't prove anything. They asked OJ to try it on, which was a mistake by the prosecutor, because the only thing that it would prove was that the glove would fit OJ's hand. It still wouldn't prove that Simpson killed Nicole. OJ made a spectacle of the process, which left some people believing he didn't try it on properly, and other people believing the glove didn't fit, which ended up being key to the trial. Trump's team has the task of presenting the evidence in such a way that it is consistent and points to massive fraud that changed the outcome of the election, which is a huge burden. 

Currently, there is proof of some fraud, but not enough to suggest the election outcome should be changed. This is not abnormal, but the fraud that has been proven so far is outpacing that of previous elections, which could be used as evidence. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests there was massive voter fraud, at least compared to previous elections, but again, there is no proof. The only thing that comes close to that, if true, are the statistics that are coming out of Wisconsin. There is a claim, that I haven't bothered to verify (so take it for what it is), that every batch of votes that came after they shut down voting in Wisconsin had a fixed ratio. If that's true, that would definitely prove that massive voter fraud happened in Wisconsin at the machine level, which opens up the rest of the elections in the state. There are strange numbers in Michigan, too, but not nearly at the same level. 

Trump's team is making an accusation, and they have plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud, but, as of yet, have not provided any proof to the public. Powell says she can prove her claims, but hasn't. However, that doesn't mean they haven't provided any evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statistical anomalies are evidence. Whistleblower testimony is evidence. When a court only has evidence, the burden gets a bit tougher, but not impossible. 

TLDR: I get frustrated when I hear people say they have no evidence. That's false. They have evidence. They haven't proven anything with it, though. Furthermore, they claim they have evidence they don't want to report until they are at the evidentiary stage in trial. That will have to wait until court. I think it's a bad look for their public image, but it could keep the defense on it's toes. It's their prerogative on how they should proceed.