> You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this

> You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this was litigated in a jury trial To get a jury trial, you have to state an actionable claim of damages backed by evidence, which plaintiffs largely failed to do. In general plaintiffs didn't ask for jury trials, but for injunctions, for which one has to make a case to a judge. Juries don't issue injunctions. > claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges In the case brought by Kari Lake, not by judges, but Arizona law, which requires that challenges to existing election procedures be brought before the election. Lake brought hers after the election. Ergo, dismissed. > hearsay, which is all this article is An official document release by the current attorney general of an investigation done by the attorney general's office. The opposite of hearsay: direct reports by the people who did the investigation. > a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. What's more empowering than being able to vote? Which the released report as well as Arizona court cases showed citizens were able to do freely and fairly. > I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues "adjudicate" = "have a judge decide". Which has happened dozens of times, all claims disproven and dismissed.