Reply #33: Thank you. Do you think when Kerry came out with the statement

[Amaryllis]

"Not enought evidence to change the outcome" in the letter he sent a few days before Jan. 6, he meant "not enough admissable in court as evidence" ? People seem often not to make this distinction. If after assessing the situation he came to this conclusion, then conceding was really the only option, right? Even as more and more "evidence" was uncovered and many were pushing him to unconcede, if there still was not enough evidence that would stand up in court that could be put together in time, unconceding would not have been an option.

Arnebeck seemed to think he had enough hard evidence that was sufficient to change the outcome. Thoughts? It seemed like Kerry and Arnebeck were working at odds with each other at times.