So, someone who has a bit of experience trying cases in court points out that There's a case for Sidney Powell's circumstantial evidence. That someone is former prosecutor Robert Kirk, writing today at the American ThinkerWhile every talking head on the media, including Fox News, keeps saying there is no evidence, what they have discounted is affidavits from people who have witnessed these things, and the evidence of statisticians, who can prove that the election was indeed stolen. These are the same statistical methods used by our own State Department in analyzing foreign elections.
Ms. Powell’s summary of the facts, as presented at last Thursday’s press conference and as expounded upon during the past few days, is the kind and quality of substantial evidence, which, if presented to a jury, would easily result in a unanimous verdict by all twelve jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-election of Donald J Trump was stolen through the use of the Dominion voting software systems installed in states throughout our country.
For those who want a refresher on that evidence, I recommend Joe Hoft’s excellent article published Nov. 23 in Gateway Pundit where he summarizes not only our common-sense observations regarding the national enthusiasm for Donald Trump in comparison to Basement Joe, but also provides a litany of expert and statistical analyses, including that by MIT Ph.D. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai all converging on one inescapably reasonable conclusion: the election was stolen.
Some may argue that we have no “direct” evidence such as the data from the servers. The only evidence Trump has is “circumstantial” such as the opinions of the experts.
In my work as a prosecutor, many of my cases were won solely on “circumstantial evidence.” A seminal rule of criminal law and one of which every juror in a criminal case is instructed informs the jury that “… Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence. … Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”I understand that even 30% of Democrats believe the election was stolen. Whether it changes the election results, and I hope it does, we still need to get to the bottom of this. We can not have elections where we can not trust the results. If we can not trust elections results, can we feel that the person doing things supposedly in our name really has the authority to do them? Right now, I have no such confidence.