Tag: law

Wow! At least 17 States have joined Texas in the extraordinary case against the greatest Election Fraud in the history of the United States. Thank you!

– President Donald Trump

You can’t tell me he doesn’t know perfectly well what he’s doing. In the meantime, here is the contact information for 7 6 AGs who might be amenable to joining the Texas suit if they hear from enough of their residents. Alaska was on the original list at The Donald, but has since joined the suit.

• Kentucky: Daniel Cameron | Phone: (502) 696-5300 | Main Fax: (502) 564-2894 | Email: https://ag.ky.gov/Contact-Us/Pages/default.aspx
• Iowa: Tom Miller | Phone: 515-281-5164 | Fax: 515-281-4209 | Email: webteam@ag.iowa.gov (If you seek a reply, please include your full name, mailing address, and daytime telephone number.)
• Idaho: Lawrence Wasden | Phone: 208-334-2400 | Wasden@lawrencewasden.com
• New Hampshire: Gordon MacDonald | Phone: 603-271-3658 | Attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov
• Ohio: Dave Yost | Phone: 800-282-0515 | Web form: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About-AG/Contact
• Wyoming: Bridgett Hill | 307-777-7841 or 307-777-7886 or 307-777-7977 | Web form: http://ag.wyo.gov/contact-us

I received this email from a lawyer with a background in Canadian constitutional law, which I would not consider particularly relevant, but it’s never a bad idea to get the outsider’s perspective, especially that of a well-informed outsider, as this gentleman obviously is. I note that as of this writing, 9 States have already signed onto the Texas lawsuit.

I’m writing this email with the proviso that it’s been several years since I last practiced law in a professional capacity, and that my Con Law training was in Canadian Con Law, but on the face of it, the Lawsuit by Texas (and now Louisiana and apparently a bunch of other states) in the Supreme Court probably opens the way to a Trump win.  You’ll probably have other correspondents on this issue with more relevant legal experience but here’s my tuppence worth.   I’m viewing this strictly through a legal lens although politics inevitably creeps into it.  I take no view of or make any predictions concerning the likelihood of Trump crossing the Rubicon.  I’m just laying out why this case matters, and why it may succeed.

This is the case that SCOTUS has been waiting for.   There’s nothing the Court would be more loathe to do than to wade directly into disputed factual allegations of fraud when time is of the essence and the election hangs in the balance.  As the court of ultimate appeal SCOTUS’ role is primarily to decide questions of law, not of fact and in the usual course of events, they would hear the appeals of the Trump campaign and others of the dismissal by various judicial hacks of their election Fraud cases and if they had merit return them to the lower courts with an order that they be heard.   What they would not do is weigh the evidence, make a finding of fact and a dispositive order in favour of one side or the other.   That’s now how it’s supposed to work and given that the majority of the Court now is now comprised of originalists, or those with originalist leanings, it would go against everything they supposedly stand for to wade into what is a very political controversy and start busting heads right or left where their authority to do so is questionable.   The ordinary course of these cases would be to appeal up through the appellate court system to SCOTUS if necessary until their case was returned to a lower court with an order to that court to hear it.  No doubt the various low level judicial hacks would then make adverse judgements even after hearing the evidence and the whole process would begin again until the SCOTUS was forced to issue a dispositive ruling.  But that process could take months, if not years.

But there’s one big exception to this SCOTUS’s appellate role – the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction for disputes between State governments – it can hear evidence and determine questions of fact. And in the current dispute there probably won’t even be much of that – few, if any of the facts that the Plaintiffs will rely upon are going to be seriously disputed and the substance of the case will revolve around the application of those facts to the election framework set out in the Constitution.   So not only is this a case that the Supreme Court is almost REQUIRED to hear, it’s going to be about the interpretation of very clear, straightforward clauses of the Constitution, and their application to the present circumstances.  It’s an Originalist’s legal wet dream.

 This case also presents the best opportunity of the court to deal with the matter cleanly and without appearing partisan (who am I kidding – the court will be labelled partisan by the media if it gives anything but a full-throated endorsement of Joe Biden).  The answers to the questions presented by the Plaintiffs are simple and set out very clearly in the Constitution.   The likely best-case scenario for the Plaintiffs is that the Court agrees that the election was irrevocably flawed and throws out the results in some or all of the four states in question, leaving neither candidate with a majority of electoral college votes and passing the matter to Congress to decide.  Even if the court declines to take that step, simply reiterating that how electors are selected is solely at the discretion of state legislatures (A state legislature is entirely within its rights to get rid of presidential elections and simply appoint electors as it sees fit and indeed in the early years of the Republic several did just that), it would give authoritative legal cover to the legislatures in the impugned states to nullify the results and select their own electors.

My view is that what path the Court takes will largely depend upon how many States formally support Texas.  If it’s only Texas, Louisiana and one or two others then the court may be inclined to take a minimalist approach.  But if 15 or 20 States sign on then SCOTUS may see this as evidence that vast swathes of the country have no confidence in the fairness of the recent election and it will be more inclined to nullify election results and put this squarely in the lap of Congress.  The fact that there are a half-dozen or so other states apparently joining, including Florida (so 2 of the 3 most populous states in the Union) gives credence to the view that the legitimacy of this election is seriously in doubt and the Court must act.  

Lastly there’s no way GEOTUS did not know that this lawsuit was in the pipeline, nor that states other than  Texas would be signing on.   The fact that he recently appeared at a Rally in Georgia confirms this in my view.   The more Americans get fired up and bombard there state and congressional politicians with demands that they honour the will of the voter, the more likely additional states will sign on to Texas’ lawsuit, and the more GOP state legislators and congresscritters will find enough backbone to do the right thing.  Of course even if SCOTUS puts this in the lap of Congress or State legislatures this does not guarantee Donald Trump will be returned as President.  There’s nothing as feckless as a GOP politico being promised by Immigration lobbyists, big tech, and the Chamber of Commerce that the Benjamins will flow and that he’s got a great future as a Senator/Governor/President if he takes the statesman-like approach and ignores the yokels who voted for him.  That said from a legal perspective, the outcome of the election looks a lot less certain than it did 24 hours ago.

While I obviously welcome the idea of President Trump winning through the courts, don’t forget that this is only the second of his three primary options, and it may not even be his preferred one. Then again, as Sun Tzu teaches, the best victories are those that don’t require taking the field.

UPDATE: 17 States have signed on. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

UPDATE: Arizona and Alaska too. Looks like we’re at the lawyer’s magic 20 States.

The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case concerning Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional state law:

The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to stop Pennsylvania from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state despite allegations from allies of President Donald Trump that the expansion of mail-in voting was illegal .

The action by the nation’s highest court, which includes three justices named by Trump, came as states across the country are locking in the results that will lead to next week’s Electoral College vote. It represented the latest in a string of stinging judicial opinions that have left the president defeated both politically and legally. 

By their one-sentence denial, the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late. New Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to have participated in the case; no dissents or recusals were noted.

It’s the usual Catch-22. Challenge in a timely manner and you have no standing or cause. Challenge when you actually have standing and cause and you’re told it is too late. I wouldn’t worry about it, though. I have never believed President Trump was counting on either the courts or the legislatures to do their duty to uphold the Constitution and defend the legitimacy of the electoral system.

Meanwhile, Timmy in the comments has no idea.

Supreme Court finally ruled against PA lawsuit. This is what you’ve been waiting for.

No, that’s not what we’re waiting for. That’s not even close to what we’re waiting for. When the media is shrieking in terror, people in masks are screaming in shock and horror about dictators and fascists and Hitler, and black smoke fills the skies, then you’ll know what we’ve been waiting for has arrived.

Seen on Twitter:

17,327 people who voted in Michigan have OBITUARIES.

Speaking only for myself, I would say that an obituary is conclusive evidence of vote fraud. And over 17 thousand obituaries qualify as “widespread” vote fraud. Especially in light of how more than 14,000 dead people are reported to have voted in Wayne County alone.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona, and KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Arizona Secretary of State, Defendants.

District of Arizona admission scheduled for 12/9/2020

It won’t do any good, even though it absolutely should. But it, and many other similar legal actions, will retroactively justify the actions that the God-Emperor appears on the verge of taking. Once it is sufficiently clear that the courts and the legislatures have completely failed to perform their constitutional duties, the President will perform his.

Or so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rebuffed a long-shot election challenge Saturday from one of President Trump’s top boosters in Congress, balking at his suggestion that it throw out every ballot cast by mail or designate the state’s legislature to decide who won the state.

In a unanimous decision, the justices declared that U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Butler) and the seven Republican plaintiffs in the suit had waited too long to bring their lawsuit alleging that the 2019 law, passed by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, which created no-excuse mail voting in the state for the first time was unconstitutional and “illegally implemented.”

Instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute, they waited until their candidate lost to challenge the mechanism by which some 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted this year, the court wrote in a terse, three-page order.

I very, very much doubt that this is a surprise to the Trump team. Remember, wait two days…. It’s a bit strange, though. If the law flies in the face of the state constitution, then it presumably continues to do so regardless of when it is formally challenged. Does unconstitutionality really have a time limit?

There will be no rapid certification of the PA election results and the attempt of the Governor and the Secretary of State to ram through the election fraud there will not be permitted. From the ruling issued by Judge Patricia McCullough:

In careful consideration of the exigencies and time constraints in this matter of statewide and national import, and the longstanding constitutional mandate that every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot. Inasmuch as the Secretary had not certified the remaining results of the 2020 general election, it was also necessary to enjoin, on an emergency and preliminary basis, any attempt to certify these results as well….

 There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C. §5 does not expire until December 8, 2020,and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. 11 Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

Notice, in particular, that the petitioners, who are a proxy for the Trump campaign, have been officially ruled to have “a likelihood of success on the merits” because the corrupt elected politicians, described here as “Executive Respondents” violated the Pennsylvania constitution by illegally applying the unconstitutional expansion of mail-in ballot procedures.

Translation: many, if not all, of those mail-in ballots for Biden are illegal and will not count. #bidenlost

There shouldn’t be much doubt about how the PA legislature is going to vote, now that the Republican legislators have been shown at least an amount of the true extent of the fraud:

President Donald Trump on Wednesday summoned Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House after a GOP hearing in Gettysburg in which Trump phoned in to reassert his false claim that he “won Pennsylvania by a lot.”

But on Thursday, no one wanted to talk about the meeting.

The White House did not issue a public statement about the visit, and lawmakers who made the trip to Washington were silent.

 Don’t forget that the Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election is currently in play:

Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Based on the evidence being presented in the two Powell filings, it appears that an assessment will be delivered that will require the block of certain interests in property presently possessed by various individuals. Meanwhile, one thing that has largely passed uncommented in light of last Friday’s canceled hearing in PA is that Dominion Voting Systems has publicly stated that it is “under litigation“.

A roundtable discussion with Dominion Voting Systems was canceled overnight. Dominion says it is under litigation and can not answer questions at this time.

Interesting. By whom are they being sued? 

UPDATE: The conclusion below is from the exhibit supporting paragraph 14. This exhibit, which is testimonial evidence in the form of an affadavit from an expert witness, proves a lot of the information released prior to the court filing was accurate, right down to the identities of the Serbian programmers working for Dominion.

In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber security. This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results. 

UPDATE: The President is excising the Deep State from defense policy:

Several high profile members of the Defense Policy Board were removed on Wednesday by the Trump administration, in yet another purge of longstanding foreign policy experts and national security establishment figures in the final days of the Trump era, according to three defense officials.

Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.

The Defense Policy Board is an outside advisory group of former high profile national security officials who “provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent, informed advice and opinions concerning matters of defense policy in response to specific tasks from the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,” according to their website.

“As part of long-considered changes, we can confirm that several members of the Department’s Defense Policy Board have been removed. We are extremely grateful for their dedicated service, commitment, and contributions to our national security. Future announcements for new members of the board will be made soon,” the third official said.

The first two officials said the members removed also included former Chief of Naval Operations, retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief operating officer at the Pentagon Rudy De Leon and former Bush deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II. 

However, these are not the final days of the Trump era. That’s why he’s making the changes. He should invite William S. Lind as one of the replacements.

 A second lawyer writes of his initial impression of Powell’s GA lawsuit.

1. This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they’ve grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I’ve not even completed reading it, I’m taking it slow.
2. It’s now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she’s representing here, she’s representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight.  Like with Roger Stone, she’s outside the system. 
3. This suit is a big reason why General Flynn was pardoned this week. Now, the corrupt Flynn trial judge can’t waste time or resources by demanding Powell file extra briefs or come to court and distract her from this. That great Dem delay tactic has been neutralized; Powell is all in on this. 
4. Page 9, Paragraph 14. Holy shit. 
5. For about 7 days now, the SJW defense rhetoric I’ve heard was, in part, “Oh yeah? When they going to prove this in court? Put up or shut up.” Now, after Rudy’s hearings yesterday and Powell’s filing last night, they’ve put up—-they put it on the line. Big time. 
6. The Democratic party lawyers just shit their pants. Biden did as well, but he does that every morning. Their Thanksgiving is officially ruined; they are all going to be working all holiday weekend to file a response.

An experienced attorney analyzes Sidney Powell’s legal filing in GA concerning the electoral fraud aided and abetted by GA politicians and election officials. The 104-page PDF complaint can be found here. Note that she also filed a lawsuit in MI, which is not analyzed here.

I have been a practicing attorney for 25+ years. The last 15 years I have spent mainly federal court representing persons accused of crimes, so I am quite familiar with federal court, federal procedure and other matters. Here is my take on Ms. Powell’s complaint. I aim to be dispassionate, not because I do not care but because we should be honest. I am not going to smooth over issues just because I hope Ms. Powell wins.

My point is to give background and overview and to advise on what to watch in the future. I have tried to make this post generally neutral and informative. I could not locate exhibits, which are crucial, but they are cited many times in the complaint. So, here are my few observations as an attorney with decades’ in federal court:

1. In early October, 2020, a federal district judge in this same district (Northern District of Georgia) ruled after several years of litigation that the Dominion software used to monitor this election has substantial issues and it will affect an election. The Plaintiffs were Democrats who filed suit in response to the 2016 election. They sought an order forcing Georgia to use different software. They conducted discovery and hearings over years, including 3 days of expert testimony about how these very voting machines work. The court ultimately denied the request because it was simply too late to change the voting machines since the election at that time was roughly a month away. New cases are supposed to be assigned to judges randomly but I would not be surprised if this case were given to that particular judge since she spent so much time reviewing the litigation and conducting evidentiary hearings. Her findings of fact could be incorporated into this hearing under the legal theory of res judicata.

2. The complaint was clearly rushed. At times it was rough and unpolished. There were numerous grammatical errors. But the gist is quite clear and it is clear that the lawyers drafting the complaint certainly knew what they were doing. They dotted the ‘I’s and crossed the ‘T’s so the complaint is not likely to be kicked on a procedural or jurisdictional claim such as standing (a legal doctrine that says that someone who brings a lawsuit must have skin in the game), but I would expect a more polished product if they had more time. However, the copy I have does not have the blue ECF ‘filed’ stamp, so this may not be the final complaint that gets filed. That becomes really important below.

3. The complaint makes good use of a wide variety of legal sources from both political parties (specifically naming a statement from Democratic Senators Warren, Klobuchar and Wyden from 2019) regarding Dominion software, including evidence from the previous litigation. Essentially the plaintiffs say, among other things, “Look, for the past 15+ years, Republicans, Democrats and a wide variety of international media groups have pointed out the problems with Dominion software so it shouldn’t be a surprise we are here. And the very problems they have pointed out are problems we see in this election.”

4. The complaint relies upon a variety of evidence to support its claim. One is an examination of the history of Dominion software. another is expert testimony regarding the voting patterns seen in this election. Another is eyewitness testimony of ballot switching. Another is evidence of votes being case by ineligible persons. Another is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct in several high population counties. Viewed together, Plaintiffs make a strong case. But it’s one thing to say something and another to prove it.

5. One area where plaintiffs do a good job is in pointing out the number of votes affected by the alleged fraud. One reason this is crucial is that Biden’s certified margin of victory in Georgia was only about 12,000 votes. And the complaint does a good job of laying out substantial procedural and constitutional irregularities with roughly 96,000 votes and further problems with additional votes. The problematic votes far outnumber Biden’s margin of victory, which is hugely significant. Put another way, if Biden wins by 500,000 and they claim that there are problems with 100,000 votes, even if those 100,000 votes are gone, Biden still wins. If the problem votes are gone, Biden’s victory may be gone as well. The complaint does a good job of pointing out not just the alleged problems but the number of votes affected by those problems.

6. What now? The plaintiffs are asking for an evidentiary hearing. That would allow them to present evidence in the form of witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits that would support their claim. Because it is a civil case, they only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, they only have to prove that it was more likely than not that there was fraud and that the fraud influenced the election. They do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The court may refuse an evidentiary hearing, in which case Plaintiffs would appeal and argue that they should be given hearing. Given the evidence laid out, I expect that the court will at least order an evidentiary hearing that will be conducted on an expedited scale. (it helps that there’s an evidentiary hearing set in Nevada). After the evidentiary hearing, the court can grant their request, which would be to de-certify the election and force a manual re-count/audit overseen by independent auditors to verify each vote. Or the court could deny it. Realistically this case is likely to be appealed, which is one reason that the District (trial) court is likely to hold an evidentiary hearing. Because an appeal is almost certain no matter who wins the case, the judge’s legal decision in this case is likely not nearly as important as the judge’s factual decisions. The judge’s factual decisions will likely be relied upon by appellate judges even if they disagree with the judge’s legal conclusions. If there is an evidentiary hearing, pay careful attention to the judge’s factual findings, especially as described below.

7. What to look for. There are a few things to watch for if there is a hearing. For one, federal (NOT state, and this is hugely important for federal jurisdiction) law requires that all records related to the election of a President, VP and senators be kept for at least 22 months after an election. If the court sets a hearing, watch for a request for that evidence. If the court orders an evidentiary hearing, I would expect the court would order that evidence provided to the Plaintiffs and to the court. If that evidence is not provided, that is, if the Georgia Division of Elections does not have the data that is required by the federal statutes, there will be hell to pay. I cannot imagine that anybody would be so monumentally stupid as to either erase such information or to not keep such information. However, Plaintiffs specifically allege that the voting machines do not keep copies of original paper ballots and are designed to avoid this audit trail. See ¶98 of the complaint. This is one area where the complaint’s rushed nature is an issue, although the complaint does not appear to be filed because it’s missing the blue ECF numbers showing it has been filed. Maybe the copy I got is just a leaked rough draft. 

In making this allegation, the complaint quotes some findings and includes a footnote that should have the citation for what was quoted. That particular footnote, number 14, is missing. Having worked with Word to include footnotes, it would not surprise me if it were deleted accidentally during formatting. If this is the complaint that gets filed, I expect that given the time constraints Plaintiffs counsel will soon seek to file an amended complaint and include footnote 14. If that footnote is still missing, it looks really bad for Plaintiffs. If that footnote is included and their allegations about the lack of a paper trial in Dominion machines is true, that single factual finding alone is enough to derail any certified election results from states relying upon Dominion machine. I am not joking. The statute that requires election officials to keep records is a criminal statute, meaning that election officials who willfully do not keep such records can go to prison. Whether they will or not is not the issue. The issue is that this will be a crucial matter to look at because if nothing else, Plaintiffs can say, “Here are major voter irregularities and if the defendants had followed the law, this court would have had the evidence to determine whether these irregularities are just an odd statistical coincidence or based on fraud. But defendants deprived the court of the ability to do its job despite their clear legal obligation to do so.” That’s not really where the defendants want to be. 

The plaintiffs will also seek to compare votes cast with voter registration, specifically people that have moved from Georgia and are no longer eligible to vote. Plaintiffs allege that over 20,000 votes were cast by people who had moved out of Georgia and were no longer eligible to vote. Strike those 20,000 votes as illegitimate and who knows what happens to Biden’s lead. These two issues are huge because they are black and white. There can be no reasonable dispute. Either they have the records or they don’t. Either 20,000 votes were cast by non-residents or they weren’t. If Plaintiffs can prove these two points, the court is likely to give them wider latitude about other matters. If they can’t prove these two points, Plaintiffs will find their case is much harder than anticipated.

8. After that, there are other evidentiary issues on which the court may or may not take evidence. Plaintiffs make a big deal about how the ‘water leak’ at election headquarters was fraudulent and resulted in only a few people being along with voting machines for several hours. I anticipate the court will take some evidence on that but it won’t be enough for Plaintiffs to prove that the voting machines were unsecured on election night through the defendants’ fraud. Plaintiffs will have to prove that during that time votes were actually altered in some way, that is, deleted or switched from one candidate to another or added or something and they must prove that the number of altered votes would be within the margin of error for the Biden victory margin. This ties in with the audit trail. Put another way, if Plaintiffs can show that: 1) the water leak was non-existent; 2) that as a result of the ‘water leak,’ the machines were in the hands of just a few people for several hours; 3) that in those hours the voting pattern changed dramatically and unpredictably, then Georgia better have those machines and those machines better have an audit trail or some judges are not going to be happy.

There are similar lawsuits pending in several other states and issues dovetail with this one. A judge in Nevada has ordered an evidentiary hearing on December 3. That hearing focuses upon fraud in mail-in ballots, which is not so much the focus here. The focus here is more on problems with Dominion software, which will be harder to prove, although the lack of an audit trail will be crucial for this issue. Plaintiffs will catch a big break if the judge who did the litigation on Dominion software gets this case because the judge will know the issues with Dominion and have the background to get up to speed quickly. If the judge who handled the Dominion litigation handles this one, she would be able to get an opinion out fairly quickly because she already wrote a 150 page opinion about the problems with Dominion. If she gets an opinion out while litigation about Dominion is pending in other states or appellate courts, look for Plaintiffs/Trump to use the decision to try to influence the other cases involving Dominion, especially if she makes a factual finding that the machines do not have an audit trail and this is by design.

I have no idea about the likelihood of success. Plaintiffs make an excellent argument. That is, what they allege is indeed serious. It’s not a complaint that you read and wonder “What the hell were these lawyers smoking when they filed this?” Maybe Plaintiffs are wrong. Maybe they can’t prove what they allege. But that is different than “what were they smoking?” If they can prove what they allege, the court has the power to grant their request to de-certify the election and audit the votes. But courts are generally loathe to overturn elections. If the Plaintiffs’ evidence (key word is evidence, not allegations) ultimately comes down to really improbable voting patterns, Plaintiffs are not likely to win. Plaintiffs need to be able to say, “Here is how voter fraud occurred and here are the number of fraudulent votes cast/changed/deleted/added because of that fraud.” If they can’t do both, or at least do both in sufficient numbers to cast Biden’s margin of victory into doubt in Georgia, they won’t win. If they can do both, this case will get real interesting real fast. If this court finds that Dominion voting machines do not keep records that allow an audit of votes in a Presidential election despite a clear federal statute to do so, then I truly have no idea where this ends up. In that case, I am truly glad that RBG is not on the court any longer.

On one last note in an already too-long email, it will be irony of ironies if the Dominion software litigation in Georgia turns out to be the key to this whole thing when it was Democrats themselves who started that litigation in response to the 2017 election. 

UPDATE: the shill response to the GA filing is “LOL, spelling errors!”

The one things judges hate, even the most conservatives ones, is when you start making a mockery of the court. Going to court unprepared and will spelling errors is just going to get on the judges bad side.

Oh, the irony…. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one. 

UPDATE: This subsequent post by the original poster, made prior to the Powell filing, appears to be accurate:

We haven’t heard from the higher ups in hours. I haven’t been told to worry yet, but the shift around here is palpable. The suit is…comprehensive. A lot of it talks about the Dominion software and the pay-to-play implications of having it installed in Georgia, the modifications to the system and the alleged money that changed hands between officials at dominion and state officials in Georgia. There’s a lot of discussion about some executive for Dominion that made a bunch of red flag modifications to the system right before the election that were against protocols or something. Then there is a lot from whistleblowers who testify to taking part in vote switching and ballot adding.

There are 8 references to Dominion CEO Eric Coomer across 4 pages of the filing. There is also an amount of testimony from whistleblowers.