re: What happens when what happened in 2020 transpires in 2024?

quote:

---

I don’t pretend anything. It’s a fact not enough evidence was found to overturn the results in any state.

You’re pretending like that’s not a fact.

---

I'm generally sympathetic to your point of view. However, this rebuttal doesn't sway me much.

It's my understanding that there are strict time limits on presenting evidence to challenge an election. In this case I think there was compelling evidence, but it wasn't gathered until 6 months or more after the election.

The problem is that I think those time limits are in place to reduce the degree of disruption caused if an election ever is overturned, and I get the reasoning on that. If something like that is going to happen you want to deal with it preferably before the candidate is sworn in.

However, the cost of that thinking is that if it takes some time to gather compelling evidence, you're SOL.

It seems at some point our country decided that we preferred to err on the side of reducing instability rather than seeking the truth of an election. We'd rather have a stable but stolen election than the truth producing an unstable situation.

In any case, I view the, "Well, all the courts struck down the legal attempts to throw out votes" not as necessarily being proof that it didn't happen. I view it like a piece of evidence that the rules of evidence don't allow to be presented that, if it were presented, would likely change the outcome of the ruling.

Just like the recent Danny Masterson re-trial.