Does anyone here know why in a number of court cases before a judge, Trump lawyers have been forced to specifically tell the court that they are NOT alleging fraud? I know they can lose licenses, but does that mean they have no evidence, or some other technicality?
Comments (8)
sorted by:
ianal but a couple of lawsuits are about unequal application of the laws.
the lawsuit i read claimed that mail-in ballots are not held to the same standard as in-person voting.
this lawsuit wouldn't have claimed voter fraud took place, as it is not pertinent to the case.
so the judge asking legal counsel if voter fraud "took place" most likely did it for a sound bite.
There are different burdens of proof required for different allegations. For technical faults such as not following the law concerning allowing observers there is a lower standard of proof required (more likely than not) or about a 51% showing that the allegations are true. Fraud is a much higher evidentiary requirement. I believe it's "clear and convincing evidence". I don't recall what the general percentage for that burden of persuasion. It's less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and substantially more than "more likely than not".
As I recall, they did not have the seized Dominion server at the beginning of the PA litigation.
Brann was expected to rule as he did by Team Trump. Brann wrote an equally pithy (/s) decision in the CTLC decision he wrote in October.
Brann wouldn't allow any further review of the PA results even under the lowest legal standard.
Perhaps they do not want that particular court to issue any ruling on fraud at this point...
The law is funny. If you get an opinion that goes against a facet of your case it can muddy things up down the road.
Well, if we DO have a DOJ, then why aren't they actually investigating anything? Why are they leavng it to Trump to uncover?
They haven't filed their fraud cases yet.
Technicality plus activist judges.
There are multiple court cases, some of them allege fraud, others alleging multiple other forms of illegal voting. The activist judges are forcing the lawyers on the non-fraud cases to reiterate that their specific case is not a fraud case just so they can get the misleading quotes for the papers.