[stack]

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

[Tom Bishop]

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Sure, claims are evidence. And then it would then be my job to show that I'm not on the list such as by working with the court to find an approved third party expert to analyze the data, or by showing that I had an alibi like not having a passport or something of that nature. The judge or jury then weighs the evidence at the end of the back and fourth by both sides.

The assertion that claims are just disregarded must be clearly incorrect if judges instruct juries to treat a claim by a witness as sufficient to establish a fact.

[stack]

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Sure, claims are evidence. And then it would then be my job to show that I'm not on the list such as by working with the court to find an approved third party expert to analyze the data, or by showing that I had an alibi like not having a passport or something of that nature. The judge or jury then weighs the evidence at the end of the back and fourth by both sides.

The assertion that claims are just disregarded must be clearly incorrect if judges instruct juries to treat a claim by a witness as sufficient to establish a fact.

So for you, the only evidence you need is that some guy made a list of celebrity names on his blog and said they all went to an island. That's the level of legitimacy you consider as evidence? Says a lot about where you set the bar for all of your claims. Got it, duly noted.

[Tom Bishop]

So for you, the only evidence you need is that some guy made a list of celebrity names on his blog and said they all went to an island. That's the level of legitimacy you consider as evidence? Says a lot about where you set the bar for all of your claims. Got it, duly noted.

I don't care if wife beater Bill Murray is on there somewhere or not. If someone was claiming that they found his name it would be evidence though. Claims are considered to be evidence.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

Philly man's wrongful conviction overturned after 22 years behind bars

"John Miller was in his 20s when he was convicted for the 1996 robbery and murder of a Philadelphia parking attendant. The key piece of evidence to his conviction was the testimony of a witness who claimed Miller told him he committed the crime. However, that testimony was false. The witness even wrote to the victim's family to admit to his lie."

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

[AATW]

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

[Tom Bishop]

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

[AATW]

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken.

It's certainly their job to cast doubt on it in some way but what happened to the burden of proof is on the claimant?
Yes, someone claiming something is a form of evidence but the burden of proof is on them to show the claim is correct.

From what I understand a witness's statement is admissible in court if it's direct but not if it's hearsay.
So "I saw Tom storming the Capitol Building" is admissible, "I heard someone say they saw Tom storming the Capitol Building" is not.

I've lost track of what you're arguing here. So claims are evidence. OK. So what?
Not all evidence is created equal. That's why Trump's cohorts kept failing in court. There were loads of people making claims but a lot was hearsay or people making vague claims they couldn't substantiate.

[Rama Set]

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

[Lord Dave]

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/rachel-chandler-still-working-w-epsteins-modeling-agency-mc2-accused-in-court-of-procuring-children-for-elites/

Rachel Chandler Still Working W/ Epstein’s Modeling Agency MC2 Accused In Court of Procuring Children For Elites

Rachel Chandler: Epstein victim, turned skeezy famous photographer, photographed with Bill Clinton

High fashion W Magazine article “16 Models to Watch According to Rachel Chandler”

Picture #4/16 and 13/16 Says the models are from MC2

MC2 modeling agency is all wrapped up in Epstein’s scandals…and now its connected to none other than Rachel Chandler.

Article #1

2015 “The boss of a hot New York modeling agency supplied Jeffery Epstein with underage girls for an orgy with Prince Andrew, court documents claim.
There, the fashion-industry honcho staged a topless photo shoot with young models from Russia, Roberts told the Daily Mail.

Brunel scored US passports for girls as young as 12 — then passed the minors off to pervy pals like Epstein, according to court documents.

Roberts claims Epstein forced her to have sex with Brunel, co-founder of MC2 Model Management, at his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., in New York, California and several other spots.

READ  The party of the working people: Newsom defends his economy; says its richest people are “doing pretty damn well”
https://pagesix.com/2015/01/09/modeling-honcho-allegedly-gave-epstein-young-models-for-orgy/

Article #2

Two sources familiar with Epstein’s finances tell The Daily Beast they believe Epstein dropped as much as $2 million into MC2 to get it started. (Brunel has denied that Epstein funded the agency.) “Jeff put his money up for this guy to get Jeffrey these young girls. That’s a front for Jeffrey’s securing more and more young girls,” one longtime Epstein confidant said.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Epstein used the agency to lure underage prey. In those court documents, one alleged victim accused the billionaire of “deliberately engag[ing] in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through MC2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.

READ  Condemned by elites for Capitol Hill riot, half of Americans still approve of President Trump
The offices for MC2 in New York are smack in the middle of prime real estate at the northern edge of Manhattan’s tony Greenwich Village neighborhood. The agency also claims to have international offices in Miami and as far away as Tel Aviv.
www.thedailybeast.com/the-dead-model-and-the-dirty-billionaire

Just published a few days ago

“Among those potentially on the list: Ghislaine Maxwell, a 57-year-old British socialite and publishing heir who has been accused of working as Epstein’s madam; and Jean-Luc Brunel, who, according to court records, was partners with Epstein in an international modeling company.

Giuffre claims that Epstein used the modeling agency, Mc2, to lure underage girls and in court papers said Epstein “deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through Mc2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.”

www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232385422.html

Chandler also apparently associated with Epstein's friend and visitor spirit cooker Marina Abramovic.

http://thedivinegoddessblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/rachel-chandler-eminem-and-sex.html?m=1

One thing you guys have missed is that she has a much deeper connection to the occult artist Marina Abramovic than I've seen documented so far.

Some links you might find interesting:

- Rachel is the primary photographer for an artist named Terence Koh, who frequently collaborates with Abramovic. Here, he's in a death pose on a piece of hers: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-a-collectors-house-east/Another photo of the same set: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-the-collectors-house-east/

- A video from a MoMA party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60 YouTube List of attendees: "Those in attendance included Madonna, Mary-Kate Olsen, Yoko Ono, James Franco, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Chloe Sevigny, Penn Badgely, Padma Lakshmi, Rose Byrne, Kim Cattrall, Lucy Liu, Marina Abramovic, Daphne Guinness, Terence Koh, Andrej Pejic, Leelee Sobieski, Cindy Sherman, Agnes Gund, Katharina Sieverding, Rachel Chandler, Michelle Harper, David Rockefeller, Jr., MoMA's Director Glenn Lowry, Volkswagen's Martin Winterkorn, and Director of MoMA PS1 and MoMA's Chief Curator at Large Klaus Biesenbach."

- Rachel was a photographer/attendee at Marina Abramovic's 2010 "The Artist is Present" performance at the MoMAhttp://www.patrickmcmullan.com/site/event_detail.aspx?eid=32454 (look for her name on the left-hand list of Featured People and use the filter function)

- This is the one I think you might find the most interesting, and I'm surprised this hasn't been delved into before. Abramovic gave a very controversial performance at the LA MoCA that involved a kind of pseudo/ritualized cannibalism of a female body, and Rachel was present as well. https://www.artforum.com/diary/id=29517

-- Abramovic cutting the fake female dead body: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article07.jpgJPG -- A Black woman's head lying in front of dinner eaters: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article08.jpgJPG -- A body being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article16.jpgJPG -- Body after many parts being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article05.jpgJPG -- Rachel Chandler posing at the party with Dasha Zhukova, who is the wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article13.jpgJPG

There's a lot more of a connection between these two (Chandler and Abramovic) but that's all I could find with Google.

Oh good.  Here I thought you actually verified the list you posted by reading all 100+ pages to find the names.  But it seems you just trusted some random blogger because he said something you liked.  Because that would mean the hour and a half I spent reading every frikken name was in vein.

Btw: did you know Trump appears twice in that log book?

[Pete Svarrior]

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

As a big Ace Attorney fan, I can confirm that this is exactly how this works. Also, when you pester a witness enough about their evidence, they go insane and turn out to be the real perpetrator of the crime. This is how every court case in existence goes, except for like 2.

[garygreen]

yo t. bish, fyi juries are not obligated to consider any testimony as fact. jurors are free to consider part, or all, of any witness testimony to be unreliable and/or false, regardless of whether or not specific rebuttal of that testimony has taken place. they're instructed to use their best judgement to determine the facts of the case based on the evidence presented. that's the whole point of a jury.

[Tom Bishop]

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

[Lord Dave]

Guys, read between the lines:
Tom means that a single person lying is easily believed by many without any further evidence.  Like when Trump lies about winning the election.

[Rama Set]

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

I’m asking what you think, no events that happened in a court.

[garygreen]

i hate myself for engaging in this dumb argument (what was the point of it again?), but lmao bad legal takes.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf

As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness.  You must decide whether  a  witness  told  the  truth  and  was  accurate,  or  instead, testified  falsely  or  was  mistaken[...]If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact,  you may disregard that witness's entire testimony.  Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful,  and  accept  so  much  of  it  as  you  find  to  have  been truthful and accurate.[...]There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony.

http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/Judging_Credibility_LITMAG_Spring07_kane.pdf

There  is  no  law  on  judging  credibility.  Judges  and jurors receive guidelines and elementary observations in the form of stock instructions but are essentially free to decide for themselves. Because the entire trial process rests on persuasion,determining credibility is more than evaluating testimony.

boilerplate jury instructions from some random nerd case https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions#9

You, as jurors, are the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of each of the witnesses called to testify in this case and only you determine the importance or the weight that their testimony deserves. After making your assessment concerning the credibility of a witness, you may decide to believe all of that witness' testimony, only a portion of it, or none of it.

the idea that anything anyone says in court is automatically considered true is asinine. if that were the case, why would we need juries at all?

also srsly wtf does this have to do with anything.

[Tom Bishop]

I wasn't arguing that the juries can't decide on the testimony of the witness and judge evidence. That is their purpose. It is also the purpose of the defense to come up with a defense when evidence is presented. Jury decides in the end.

Stack said that Bill Murray's wife would need to provide supporting evidence for her claim:

Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Iceman thinks that claims are not evidence:

Claims are evidence /s

Rama Set thinks that someone saying something is

mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter.

Incorrect. The claim of a witness is evidence. People have been convicted and sent to jail based on the claim of a single person.


From https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0020.htm on rape accusations:

"'[T]he testimony of a single witness [can be enough] to support a conviction'" (People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005] quoting People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]). Although corroboration is not necessary in support of a rape prosecution, the underage victim's testimony was bolstered by her prompt outcry the morning after the first rape occurred...

From https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions on jury instructions:

Similarly, the government is not required to prove the essential elements of the offense by any particular number of witnesses, or by every witness. The testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of an essential element of the offense charged if you believe that the witness was truthful.

All it takes is for a single claim and for the jury to think that they are truthful.

If the jury believes that Bill Murray's wife is truthful then he's toast.

[Lord Dave]

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

[Tom Bishop]

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

[AATW]

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court. Because as I’ve said not all evidence is created equal.
Trump claimed in the Georgia call that 5,000 dead people voted. Obviously that was something he’d seen on some conspiracy site or other. He was calmly told that they’d looked into that and found only 2 instances and...he just repeated the claim.
So yeah, him keep repeating it is “evidence”, I suppose. Doesn’t make it true.
What exactly is your point here?

[Rama Set]

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Hey, seems like Dave was exactly right!