To add your name to the growing Nevada ping list, FReepmail me...
Posted on 12/05/2020 7:53:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The headlines all say Trump lost yet another case in Nevada. He didn't. The case in Nevada involves parties other than President Donald Trump, and presumably without his resources. However, the judge's decision is a useful insight into the hurdles that Trump and his supporters face on the way to the Supreme Court. It also reveals that Perkins Coie, the law firm that paid for the Steele Dossier, is involved in the post-election legal battles.
On Friday, mainstream media headlines were exultant:
Forbes: "Trump Campaign Has 'No Credible or Reliable Evidence' Proving Voter Fraud, Nevada Court Rules."
ABC: "Biden win over Trump in Nevada made official by court."
Washington Post: "Nevada judge dismisses Trump effort to overturn the state's election results, finding campaign failed to prove fraud."
I'm sure I've mentioned before that today's pretend journalists are complete ignoramuses. If I didn't, though, let me mention it now. What none of these people responsible for purveying news to the American public understands is that neither Trump nor his campaign was a party to this litigation.
Instead, when you look at the court's order, you see that the parties are several individuals, all of whom are "candidates for presidential electors on behalf of Donald J. Trump." (And let me say that I admire all of them for their valiant effort.)
To double-check that Trump is truly not a party to this case, go to the last page of the order, entitled "Certificate of Mailing." There, you'll discover two interesting things. First, there isn't a Rudy Giuliani or Jenna Ellis to be seen on that page. Again, Trump is not a party.
Second, guess who shows up as a party to this litigation. Perkins Coie!
If that name seems familiar, it's because Perkins Coie acted as Hillary Clinton's intermediary
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Interesting fact:
Perkins Coie acted as Hillary Clinton’s intermediary in commissioning the infamous, fake Steele Dossier that led to the claimed Russia Hoax. After two years and $35 million, Mueller exonerated Trump of all collusion charges.
The firm also recruited CrowdStrike to search the DNC server after it was hacked (and as a reminder, the FBI never saw the server). Perkins Coie isn’t so much a law firm as it is a Democrat operation with lawyers attached.
The Judge's opinion is a good example of the problems that confront plaintiffs in an election challenge such as the one the Trump Campaign and surrogates have been waging over the validity of mail-in ballots — all the direct evidence rests in the hands of the opposition. The time frame allowed for an election contest in state statutes NEVER considered the circumstances where hundreds of thousands of ballots were submitted by mail, the process for validating those ballots rested with local officials — often partisan local offices — and the witnesses who might offer pertinent and admissible first-hand testimony are almost all employed by the opposing party in the case.
I highly recommend reading the entire RedState article.
It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court justices have the intelligence and imagination to understand that the Republicans' inability to get their hands on direct evidence is not a reason to reject their indirect evidence, especially when it is countered only with self-serving statements from the people being charged with overthrowing an American election.
Perkins Coie isn’t so much a law firm as it is a Democrat operation with lawyers attached.
Pretty much like the ACLU
The other problem is the JUDGE HIMSELF.
In Nevada, Judge James T. Russell, an old-school guy, actually reviewed the evidence that the contestants WHO ARE NOT ON TRUMP’s TEAM submitted. His conclusions reveal the way so many judges lack mental breadth. Mental breadth would tell him that, because the voting system is in the hands of the defendants, without serious, in-depth discovery, all that the contestants have to offer is indirect or inferential evidence.
However, inferential evidence is still evidence, as every good lawyer knows but cowardly judges forget. Indeed, it’s the rare case that has strong direct evidence. For example, few people witness a murder. Instead, the jury makes inferences about the defendant’s guilt based upon evidence such as fingerprints, gun powder residue, overheard arguments, etc.
In this case, though, the judge scathingly rejected evidence that showed patterns of voting that were irreconcilable with an honest election. Instead, he accepted only the firsthand, entirely self-serving testimony of the same foxes who savaged the election hen house.
To add your name to the growing Nevada ping list, FReepmail me...
It is a standard rule of evidence that when a party refused to produce or destroys evidence that evidence would operate against that party.
Commie law
Perkins Coie, the law firm that paid for the Steele Dossier, is involved in the post-election legal battles.
Wouldn’t the electors actually have greater standing in bringing their suit. They were the ones on the ballot. So to say that the decision is not the important one because Pres. Trump and his legal team didn’t bring it is IMO incorrect, unless they will present evidence not shown in this case.
Read the judge's decision in this case. The plaintiffs [Trump's electors] were given several days to produce their witnesses for cross-examination but, instead, they only offered written statements, which the judge therefore excluded as hearsay. The defendants produced all of their witnesses for cross-examination.
The LEFTIST media are not ignoramuses. They are evil.
Well, if they didn’t produce their witnesses, then that is that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.