I wanted to write something about claims by the media and some posters of "no proof" or "no evidence." They are wrong. There is a lot of evidence, they just dont like it. Let us briefly cover the statistical analysis. Much of it indicates something is amiss. None of this is, of course, conclusive. This is always the point with statistics. Using stats alone you can never prove anything with any exact absolution. But you can show something with a level of confidence. So while you can never achieve 100%, you can still show something is highly probable. This is how DNA results work at trial. Here, using stats alone, you cant say "these stats show 100% proof of fraud," but you could testify to something like, "the stats indicate a 98% likelihood fraud was committed." In a trial going over numbers, the question becomes what is the evidence to otherwise explain away and/or dispute the anomalies and interpretations of them? Once the numbers and stats are introduced into evidence, the burden shifts to the other party to provide that other explanation. This is how trials work. Now let us deal with the affidavits. I think Team Trump has over 300 affidavits (maybe 400+ by now) from election observers and participants, signed under penalty of perjury. This is all "evidence." It might not be conclusive or dipositive, and it might still be subject to cross-examination, but it is eyewitness testimony, which is evidence. In fact, eyewitness testimony is among the best evidence and has high value in any trial. Here are a handful of my favorite examples, all sworn to under oath -- Jessy Jacob of Detroit stated in an affidavit she personally witnessed fraud and saw some workers instructed to backdate thousands of absentee ballots. This happened the day after the election, where workers were instructed to make the ballots appear legal even though they were not in the Qualified Voter File and had not arrived by the deadline as outlined in Michigan law. This is evidence. See Gofile Robert Cushman was a poll watcher in Detroit. His affidavit described behavior almost identical to that which the city worker Jacob said she engaged in. This is evidence. See Gofile Zachary Larsen is a lawyer who worked for the state of Michigan as an assistant AG. He swore in his affidavit he witnessed poll workers peeking at ballots to see who a voter voted for before deciding whether to put them in a pile of rejected ballots. This is evidence. See Gofile Shane Trejo was a poll monitor in Detroit. He will testify in court as to the statistical anomalies. This is evidence. This is how trials work. The burden is on the plaintiff to build a case. It's a process. It's doesnt happen with one witness but it happens witness after witness after witness. And the introduction of tangible evidence after tangible evidence. I think on this forum we have some people giving opinions about how trials work who dont actually have much, if any, trial experience. Anyway, on the issue of voter fraud in 2020, we have plenty of witnesses already going on the record, with sworn testimony, with affidavits, who claim they were eyewitnesses to fraud. So the folks claiming there is no evidence are wrong and you can safely ignore them. I dont know if they are relying upon CNN or tweets from liberals only, or maybe they have never actually been in trial in their entire lives. But, here, they are not paying attention. It's probably that they are just not willing to put in the time to actually look at what is already in the public sphere. None of this means Team Trump will win its cases. All it means is that those people saying there is "no evidence" do not know what they are talking about.