I just caught a quick segment of Martha McCallum on Fox.
Sometimes it takes the form of “The Law of Convenient Doctrine”
Marc Theissen was saying how there was the claim that the election in November was stolen. He deplored the “fact’ that the press has no credibility and thus was not believed that there was “no evidence” that the election was stolen!
And this, to me seems that the Marc Theissen may be a big part of the problem.
“No evidence”!!!???
If a law enforcement authority produced a dozen “eye witnesses” who claimed they saw ‘Jonathon Doe’ shoot ‘William Moe’, would a prosecutor or a court dismiss the claims of all 12 without investigating to determine the accuracy of their sworn statements? Would they dismiss with remarks like, “but there’s no evidence”…it’s a “baseless charge”… just because Mr. Moe is in a hospital with a gunshot wound and there are photos of Mr. Doe practice- shooting the identical type of weapon used on Moe?
Would we hear, “well that is merely circumstantial, doesn’t actually prove anything. . . not real evidence” In the meantime after perhaps a perfunctory investigation but lots of stonewalling Doe destroys all he can with impunity and any subsequent investigation of course comes up “no evidence”.
Would the 12 be dismissed because they have no standing — because they were not the one shot? Would the 12 be told to pound sand because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” the discretion shown by Doe’s friendlies on the court who have no such reticence when they want to do a number on others.
Welcome to the US Supreme Court and adjudication in America!
