Replies

I like what you’re saying, but it doesn’t take into account “legal fact” (where an event took place or a condition exists and nobody disputes it.

Arguing a procedural point serves a legal fact purpose as the argument is there’s a process (which nobody disputes), and it is in progress (again, nobody disputes). The argument is on elements of the process.

In 2016 there were two states with uncannily close percentages:

Michigan: Trump 47.6%, Clinton 47.3%
New Hampshire: Clinton 47.6%, Trump 47.2%

Trump could’ve argued then that it’s so implausible for two states to get the exact same percentages that the voting system itself must be flawed in some way. It would’ve been difficult for Clinton to argue against that possibility, as the margins were so tight she could’ve been disadvantaged by the system - so it would’ve been to her advantage to look into it.

Trump took the view that since he’d won by EC without officially winning the popular vote, it didn’t matter that the system looked like it might’ve given Clinton a few more votes than she should’ve gotten. He knew that discrediting the system would just as likely have resulted in him losing votes elsewhere so it wasn’t worth the risk.

Now, what he and his team are trying to do is argue that voter fraud or electoral fraud or counting fraud or mail ballot fraud is behind almost every instance where Trump lost - and we’re not talking 500 votes here and there, we’re talking hundreds of thousands of votes.

Per the film “A Few Good Men”, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove.

And if Trump and his team keep arguing in effect that MILLIONS of votes were fraudulent, it doesn’t matter that they have evidence proving that this guy here and that guy there diddled 50 votes. The scale of what they can prove is nowhere near close to proving the scale of the fraud they’re alleging.

Lots of allegations piled one on top of each other create a massive legal risk for Trump. If even one of those allegations is so comprehensively debunked then it calls the rest of the allegations into question - this is why so many cases so far have been chucked out. The rhetoric on Twitter and in press conferences suggests that every time a judge is expecting to see a Kraken in the courtroom, they get presented with a bag of sea monkeys.

Lawyers can prove one thing, maybe two. But not the whole barrel of conspiracies. Even if every state that flipped from Trump to Biden after the count of votes in person did so thanks to millions of fraudulent postal ballots AND a compromised electronic system AND collusion between RINOS and ‘crats, that combination is a tough argument to prove and it doesn’t help if you’ve got a bunch of space cadets throwing Hugo Chavez (a long time dead dude) into the ring as if that’s ever gonna help.