Why can't both be true? The "other guy" said this: Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. [emphasis mine] There have been so many cou

Why can't both be true? The "other guy" said this: Affidavits are not evidence until they're presented to a court. [emphasis mine] There have been so many court cases tossed out (50+ if some accounts are to be believed, but that's just hearsay) , one of two things has to be happening: 1) The affidavits never made their way into court as evidence, likely because the plaintiff lawyers didn't want to put them forward as such, or 2) The affidavits were presented in court as evidence and got discounted because they're too weak as evidence But the common thread appears to be that these "affidavits" don't stand up to any strong scrutiny, and amount to "random person alleges they saw fraud happen", which then quickly changes to "random person alleges they believe they saw fraud, but couldn't state for sure" when under penalty of perjury.