I'd call it the shot gun approach except it's afforded by the whole thing already being full of holes.
The one problem with the suit is that it bundles in together what really should be several separate issues and lines of investigation.
In the interests of time however and how crucial the result might be it is forgivable.
It is also still valid to focus all on the one key overall issue. The term kraken really does explain the legal approach. Some of the tentacles will likely get through.
Not every tentacle is as long or strong as any other though which is inevitable given the small time window.
What I've seen is already sufficient to open around half a dozen to a dozen serious investigations and inquiries at least. There is probably cause to believe in a significant potential for fraud, irregularities, mistake and various unequal treatment of ballots to have swung the result.
Pedes ignore this comment. As Sidney says in the first page
As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence” to show, as the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that, “[i] was not incumbent upon [Plaintiff] to show how the [] voters would have voted if their [absentee] ballots had been regular. [Plaintiff] only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result
I'd call it the shot gun approach except it's afforded by the whole thing already being full of holes.
The one problem with the suit is that it bundles in together what really should be several separate issues and lines of investigation.
In the interests of time however and how crucial the result might be it is forgivable.
It is also still valid to focus all on the one key overall issue. The term kraken really does explain the legal approach. Some of the tentacles will likely get through.
Not every tentacle is as long or strong as any other though which is inevitable given the small time window.
What I've seen is already sufficient to open around half a dozen to a dozen serious investigations and inquiries at least. There is probably cause to believe in a significant potential for fraud, irregularities, mistake and various unequal treatment of ballots to have swung the result.
Pedes ignore this comment. As Sidney says in the first page
As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence” to show, as the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that, “[i] was not incumbent upon [Plaintiff] to show how the [] voters would have voted if their [absentee] ballots had been regular. [Plaintiff] only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result