Are courts the wrong place to find out whether there was election fraud?
Remember, to convict somebody of a crime, a verdict has to be "beyond reasonable doubt." If the prosecutor thinks he can prove there's a 90% chance that somebody is guilty, what happens? They dismiss the case. No point in hearing the case, because there is a small amount of reasonable doubt.
So if it there is a 90% chance fraud occurred, the court is no use.
- fcas80Lv 71 month ago
If the best lawyers that Trump could hire were unable to convince a single court, many of whom were conservative, that there was election fraud, I think they are telling you something.
- StephenWeinsteinLv 71 month ago
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement applies only when you are trying to convict someone of something.
In civil court, when you are suing for money or something else, and are not trying to convict anyone of anything, the standard is much lower.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Beyond a reasonable doubt ONLY applies to criminal cases. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof in a civil suit. Regardless, where'd you get 90%? There is NO such percentage at all. And, evidence is ALWAYS entered into evidence. Regardless, the court was more interested in protecting themselves and their families - too many sudden deaths by the Left already so they refused to hear the case for their own protection and that of their families.
- Elaine MLv 71 month ago
Since no legitimate proof of wrongdoing was able to be brought forward, it's a moot point.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- ?Lv 71 month ago
i dont think so