[ProtectOurFreedom]

“But to do so when there is no such evidence...” — Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Professor Vladeck is not very well read on the scores or hundreds of substantial pieces of evidence of wholesale corruption of the election by Democrats. To be THAT ignorant can only mean one thing — he’s a Democrat.

[Freee-dame]

Democrats and their supporters are back to using the legal definition of the word “evidence”. This requires a document, item etc. to have been accepted by a judge into a court case in a court of law.

It’s the definition that the Clintons must have been using when they said repeatedly “there is no evidence”. You see, if there isn’t a court case yet, there can be no evidence using this definition.