Findings of fraud in Nevada

No fraud?  Here's what they've found in Nevada:

• 42,000 people voted more than once 
• 1,500 votes supposedly cast by people who had died before ballots were sent
  
• 19,000 votes from people who didn't live in the state
  
• 8,000 votes from people claiming to live at an address that doesn't exist
  
• 15,000 votes from people claiming to live at a business address 
• 4,000 votes from non-citizens (who aren't legally allowed to vote in federal races) 
  

Last report I read was that the margin of Harris/Biden's alleged "win" in Nevada was about 12,000 votes.

And if you have a bit of legal expertise, here's a 39-page order from a Nevada judge DISMISSING a lawsuit filed the day after the election, claiming fraud.  It's a joke--a whitewash clearly intended to ignore evidence to arrive at the desired rejection.  The pro-Democrat bias absolutely drips off the pages.  For example, while hearsay is a valid objection to a witness's testimony, an affidavit from someone claiming to be an eyewitness to X isn't hearsay, yet the judge rejected all such sworn affidavits by people claiming to be eyewitnesses to fraud on the basis of "hearsay."

Another evidence of brazen judicial bias to avoid hearing the suit is that the judge rejected eyewitness affidavits alleging fraud on the ground that the witness didn't show that accepting a ballot with a signature that clearly didn't match the one on file was unlawful!  But that's the whole point of the legal, statutory requirement to confirm that signatures match!  Take a look:

Again, for my liberal attorney friends, Nevada LAW requires that signatures match.  While failure of a signature match can be cured, it's absurd to demand that a witness "provide evidence" to the court that a counting a ballot that didn't have a signature match would be illegal.  The judge has no business adding that requirement in order to consider the witness testimony.  It's utter bullshit. 

By stark contrast, the judge accepted without question self-serving claims by election officials that all was well, "because they are experts and unbiased."  The second part is totally subjective.  Legal nonsense, i.e. bullshit.

When I have time I'll try to post all the errors in the judge's order.  But you should take a look before it's taken down.