*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

What I infer is not the same as what can be proven in a court.

It only has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. That means a reasonable person would think that in all likelihood he was up to no good. That's the question. Now maybe you can convince 1/12 jurors that actually he was just hoping they'd find the exact number of votes he needed behind the couch cushions, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

[OngBonga]

It only has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. That means a reasonable person would think that in all likelihood he was up to no good. That's the question. Now maybe you can convince 1/12 jurors that actually he was just hoping they'd find the exact number of votes he needed behind the couch cushions, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

I think we disagree what "reasonable doubt" means. The comment "find x votes" is not incriminating enough on its own. It doesn't look good, but if that's all he's said, and with no other evidence to suggest an attempt to overturn the election, then it's plausible it was just a dumb comment. Plausible is reasonable doubt.

It's not about what a juror thinks is more likely, that would imply a 50% probability threshold, it's about whether the defence is plausible enough to create enough doubt as to call it "reasonable". If 51%+ certainty is enough for you to convict someone, good for you, but it's not for me, nowhere near enough.