*based on evidence that was to be presented in a bunch of court cases that failed because the judges refused to hear them for one bullshit reason or another.
The difference there is that if you ran that trial 60 times with different people involved in the process, he would have been convicted probably many many times.
But there was still no substantial evidence. The cases failed because they were shitty lawyers, who had no idea what they were doing, and then tried to blame the "deep state" for stopping them.
"Possible illegal votes" based on a bunch of failed court cases. I, for one, am enjoying this show. I like farces. ????
*based on evidence that was to be presented in a bunch of court cases that failed because the judges refused to hear them for one bullshit reason or another.
TIL a lack of evidence is a bullshit reason. Huh. I guess that's why you're a lawyer, and I'm not. My bad.
Courts let OJ go scot free. I guess you're still looking for the "real killer" since the courts said there was a lack of evidence.
The difference there is that if you ran that trial 60 times with different people involved in the process, he would have been convicted probably many many times.
Yes, because OJ was innocent. Also, this is different, because there is actual evidence of the opposite of your claim.
There were many reasons the cases were thrown out. None of them were for lack of evidence or unsubstantial evidence.
But there was still no substantial evidence. The cases failed because they were shitty lawyers, who had no idea what they were doing, and then tried to blame the "deep state" for stopping them.