There's a case for Sidney Powell's circumstantial evidence
There has been much speculation since Sunday as to why the Trump legal team would throw attorney Sidney Powell under the bus. The suggestion has been made, not only by left-leaning media outlets, but also those formerly seen as trusted news sources, that Powell's contention that the election was stolen largely through the manipulations of Dominion voting machines employed in battleground states are the ravings of a crazed conspiracy theorist.
...
Ms. Powell's summary of the facts, as presented at last Thursday's press conference and as expounded upon during the past few days, is the kind and quality of substantial evidence, which, if presented to a jury, would easily result in a unanimous verdict by all twelve jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-election of Donald J. Trump was stolen through the use of the Dominion voting software systems installed in states throughout our country.
...
In my work as a prosecutor, many of my cases were won solely on "circumstantial evidence." A seminal rule of criminal law and one of which every juror in a criminal case is instructed informs the jury that "[ b]oth direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence. ...
The jury is further informed that if you are presented with two interpretations of circumstantial evidence, one of which is reasonable and the other is unreasonable, "you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable."
...
Ms. Powell's summary of the facts, as presented at last Thursday's press conference and as expounded upon during the past few days, is the kind and quality of substantial evidence, which, if presented to a jury, would easily result in a unanimous verdict by all twelve jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-election of Donald J. Trump was stolen through the use of the Dominion voting software systems installed in states throughout our country.
...
In my work as a prosecutor, many of my cases were won solely on "circumstantial evidence." A seminal rule of criminal law and one of which every juror in a criminal case is instructed informs the jury that "[ b]oth direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence. ...
The jury is further informed that if you are presented with two interpretations of circumstantial evidence, one of which is reasonable and the other is unreasonable, "you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable."
Last edited:
