Clear and convincing evidence will never be found.
That’s because no judge wants to be responsible for undoing an election and causing chaos, even if there is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that would undo an election.
That’s because no judge wants to be responsible for undoing an election and causing chaos, even if there is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that would undo an election.It's more likely that this judge was told he didn't "want to be responsible for undoing an election and causing chaos..."
She is a fighter. A real fighter, not a pretend one. This will either be landmark, or nothing. The future of our Republic sort of depends on it, so I am hoping landmark.
causing chaos ?
/\
The only chaos
would be in the criminal circles of
the District of Cartels.
The health of our country would snap back faster than a trump one liner nasty tweet.
In a case like this, is clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence the standard?
If there was even a HINT of "tabulation errors" where a republican won over a democrat, you can be damned sure that a re-do would be ordered in the blink of an eye.
At this point it wouldn’t be overturned if Hobbs came out and said, “Yeah, we fixed the election. What are you going to do about it?”
Clear and convincing e wide CS is “…evidence sufficiently strong so as to command the unhesitatingly consent of every reasonable mind.”
Though I desperately want Lake to win I don’t know if she can meet that standard.
What I can say is that the assertion that the results were emailed to the judge is just fever swamp BS. Even if the judge were a corrupt partisan, there’s no fault in him lifting passages right out of Hobbs’ briefs. And of course it’s ghostwritten. The court has a research attorney who drafted the decision. Judges may edit to a large or a small extent, but does anyone actually think Clarence Thomas, or any other judge, sits down and writes these lengthy decisions from scratch?