That's true in a political argument but not in a legal one.
There are plenty of cases where you can find some 10 Republicans who side with the Democrats.
Also remember that in cases like the one against the DNC where they rigged the primary, their legal argument in court was "we can rig it if we want to"
That's true in a political argument but not in a legal one.
There are plenty of cases where you can find some 10 Republicans who side with the Democrats.
Also remember that in cases like the one against the DNC where they rigged the primary, their legal argument in court was "we can rig it if we want to"
Agreed. I am not a legal scholar, but since this is a civil lawsuit, could the primary goal be discovery?
If the person is accused of fraud, the discovery process can also become fraudulent, no?
DNC is a private org and can decide their nominee in the primaries any way they like, including cheating/ignoring the votes.
This was a Federal election - they sure as shit are not supposed to game that.
I'm not saying they will make the same argument. I'm saying legal and political arguments are different.
You can't argue "even democrats agree with us therefore the facts can't be challenged by opposing counsel". That's not a legal argument.