Their argument shouldn't be required to provide evidence of voter fraud; that's a fool's errand and the Ds know it. They should argue (with overwhelming support in the law) that once the vote counting was stopped in MI, WI, GA, and PA--FOR NO REASON THAT I'VE HEARD--that the presumption of a fair election is NO LONGER in force!
The presumption is now on the Ds to demonstrate that the election in those jurisdictions WAS fair! Because there is ample prima facie reason (in law both here and internationally) that a delay in the vote count is evidence of fraud.
They don't need to argue voter fraud--the Ds need to argue for fairness!
They'll lean on "innocent unless proven guilty" there, ironically. I think the pause and not allowing Republican poll watchers is the evidence needed. Then it's 1988 Mexico all over again.
Someone get this to the lawyers for Team Trump:
Their argument shouldn't be required to provide evidence of voter fraud; that's a fool's errand and the Ds know it. They should argue (with overwhelming support in the law) that once the vote counting was stopped in MI, WI, GA, and PA--FOR NO REASON THAT I'VE HEARD--that the presumption of a fair election is NO LONGER in force!
The presumption is now on the Ds to demonstrate that the election in those jurisdictions WAS fair! Because there is ample prima facie reason (in law both here and internationally) that a delay in the vote count is evidence of fraud.
They don't need to argue voter fraud--the Ds need to argue for fairness!
Let's see them do that!
They'll lean on "innocent unless proven guilty" there, ironically. I think the pause and not allowing Republican poll watchers is the evidence needed. Then it's 1988 Mexico all over again.