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:
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.