Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
"Favorable court"? Aren't the appellate judges, who keep throwing all these cases out of court, REPUBLICANS?
|
Imo, the judges aren't the barrier here. What you put in front of them is.
In a case like this you have to expect going in that every judge is looking for an easy way out.
EVERYTHING about your case better be well thought out and airtight from top to bottom.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's arguments need to prove concrete evidence of massive fraud. As in more than enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome.
Arguments from a few hundred witnesses who say they were denied meaningful overwatch when mail-in ballots were opened isn't likely to cut it.
When you are asking a judge to overturn the results of an election:
If even one of your arguments has the slightest hole in it - of course the judge is going to dismiss.
That said --
In Pennsylvania, where 1.8 million mail-in ballots are alleged to have been sent out and 2.5 million are alleged to have been received:
It shouldn't be that hard to get a judge to order all 2.5 million mail-in ballots received be examined by forensic experts:
- How many were marked/filled out in the same handwriting?
- How many were mass produced by machine?
- How many were reprinted from an original?
- How many were printed on paper different from that of official ballots?
- How many were printed using ink different from that of official ballots?
- How many were printed with a watermark different from that of official ballots?
- How many were received prior to being sent out?
- How many were received without return envelopes?
- How many were sent out to/received from the same rented UPS box?
- ...etc., etc, etc.
I'm kind of surprised nobody has filed a case where the one specific thing being asked of the judge is
that.
-jp
.