Her whole argument is based on J. Alex Halderman who said that Trump could not have won. So if they find the machines were hacked and you can not attribute who got the votes I say they will disqualify the vote or Trump in particular. I mean if you have no paper trail but you say there is fraud what can you do but throw the whole thing out.
They are actually using “Polling” data that had Hillary in the lead as their argument that Trump should not have won.
The whole thing stinks.
Polling data has never been accepted in an American court of law. I very much doubt it will be accepted in this or any other case. They are trying to create a precedent, and it won’t work.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has made any rulings based on that argument.
In Wisconsin, apparently, if you can pony up the money needed to fund it, then they'll do a recount.
In the absence of actual evidence of vote fraud, it seems to me that a recount should only proceed if the candidate requesting it can reasonably claim that the outcome could be changed.
So if they find the machines were hacked and you can not attribute who got the votes I say they will disqualify the vote or Trump in particular.
If there were some evidence of "hacking" to emerge, then who knows what would happen next; it would be unprecedented.
They are actually using “Polling” data that had Hillary in the lead as their argument that Trump should not have won.
That's a seriously lame argument, given the evidence of all the other states.
The whole thing stinks.
On that we agree...