The Stolen Election of 2020 :: Biggest Crime in American History

[pjmret]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1603056245266595845

well, morons claimed that was what was happening.

and yet not a single credible independent person agrees. I mean..why didn't fox run with this 24x7 if it was so clearly fraud? lol

just showing that trump morons see what they want to see. lol

 

[pjmret]

all you morons need is credible proof. lol.

over 60 judges knew you had none

 

[Boris Norris]

all you morons need is credible proof. lol.

over 60 judges knew you had none

The sad part is not that didn't happened, it's the fervence which they believe it did without a sceric of evidence.
Some have based they lives now in believing it. Regularly Trump bellows the lie again and like soldiers they stand to attention and sing his song. It's amazing to witness such stupidity without a reason. It says more about republicans sanity than anything else.

 

[Real News Links]

 

[Real News Links]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602696363967397890

 

[Real News Links]

https://terryobrien.online/stolen_election.htm

On television and in the movies, circumstantial evidence is usually 'blown off' as near nothing. While direct evidence is portrayed as damning. Inference is the key as circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. In effect, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one interpretation and explanation of fact. All forensic evidence supplied on testimony by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence.

Cases Won on Circumstantial Evidence

It requires the totality of circumstances to construct an inference, not the obviousness of the conclusion to establish circumstantial evidence. So, the majority of those convicted have been by a majority if not entirely by circumstantial evidence. Guilt or innocence is established by circumstantial evidence through reasoning. In most cases those who commit criminal acts tend to avoid conditions that would provide direct evidence. Criminal activities are generally done in secret, not openly. In the submission of circumstantial evidence, it depends on the attorney of either side to weave various bits and pieces into an understandable whole, or if defending to punch holes into the logical inference. If reasoning is the rational for establishing circumstantial evidence it is logical to expect reasoning to be used to refute it as well.

2020 Election

The totality of circumstances regarding the 2020 Election construct an inference that there was overwhelming fraud, and through reasoning, in a court of law, a prosecutor could convince a jury that the election was stolen.

Evidence

Throughout this website (CLICK HERE) I will post various evidence, videos, documentaries, etc. Some are supportive, and some could prove all by themselves that the election was stolen. The totality of circumstantial evidence will allow us to come to the reasonable conclusion that the election was stolen

GO TO: https://terryobrien.online/stolen_election.htm

Once again, in case there are any new visitors:

On television and in the movies, circumstantial evidence is usually 'blown off' as near nothing. While direct evidence is portrayed as damning. Inference is the key as circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. In effect, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one interpretation and explanation of fact. All forensic evidence supplied on testimony by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence.

Cases Won on Circumstantial Evidence

It requires the totality of circumstances to construct an inference, not the obviousness of the conclusion to establish circumstantial evidence. So, the majority of those convicted have been by a majority if not entirely by circumstantial evidence. Guilt or innocence is established by circumstantial evidence through reasoning. In most cases those who commit criminal acts tend to avoid conditions that would provide direct evidence. Criminal activities are generally done in secret, not openly. In the submission of circumstantial evidence, it depends on the attorney of either side to weave various bits and pieces into an understandable whole, or if defending to punch holes into the logical inference. If reasoning is the rational for establishing circumstantial evidence it is logical to expect reasoning to be used to refute it as well.

2020 Election

The totality of circumstances regarding the 2020 Election construct an inference that there was overwhelming fraud, and through reasoning, in a court of law, a prosecutor could convince a jury that the election was stolen.

My website provides such overwhelming evidence:
https://terryobrien.online/stolen_election.htm

 

[Real News Links]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601042000173621249