Lawyers Lie, News at 11
The Democratic lawyers in WA moved to have the case to nullify the governor's race dimissed, because they said the Republicans did not meet the burden of proof, which was, in their words, to "prove that the mistakes made changed the outcome of the election."
But that is not the burden of proof they are required to meet, and not the case they are trying to make. They are trying to show the result cannot be trusted, not that the outcome was changed.
You cannot prove the outcome was changed, it's not possible, because that requires knowing what the disputed ballots contained, and we can't know that. Of course, the Democrats tried to have the case thrown out from the beginning, exactly for this reason, but have been consistently rebuffed, which itself tells us what the judge thinks of this line of argument.
Of course, the judge did not find for the Democrats on the motion, but said it was because he wants all the evidence in the record, which I think some would read as a tacit admission that the Democrats were right on the motion's merits, but that the case was allowed to move forward at all, in the beginning, given that this claim was known up front, disputes that analysis.
The judge is not showing his hand very much, but I think it is fair to say he is not willing to hold the Republicans up to the standard of proof the Democrats claim, simply because the judge knew from the start that they would never be able to meet that burden, and they never even tried to.
But that is not the burden of proof they are required to meet, and not the case they are trying to make. They are trying to show the result cannot be trusted, not that the outcome was changed.
You cannot prove the outcome was changed, it's not possible, because that requires knowing what the disputed ballots contained, and we can't know that. Of course, the Democrats tried to have the case thrown out from the beginning, exactly for this reason, but have been consistently rebuffed, which itself tells us what the judge thinks of this line of argument.
Of course, the judge did not find for the Democrats on the motion, but said it was because he wants all the evidence in the record, which I think some would read as a tacit admission that the Democrats were right on the motion's merits, but that the case was allowed to move forward at all, in the beginning, given that this claim was known up front, disputes that analysis.
The judge is not showing his hand very much, but I think it is fair to say he is not willing to hold the Republicans up to the standard of proof the Democrats claim, simply because the judge knew from the start that they would never be able to meet that burden, and they never even tried to.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment