“Election officials do not get to decide whether there was fraud or not“– Paul Ebeling
Here is how this works
You have an election, vote totals come in and are reported, the MSM get them and make projections based on them. Then at some point, the MSM decide that there are so many votes in favor of 1 candidate, that it is likely the race is over.
Often, based on those MSM projections, 1 candidate will concede, thus forfeiting any election challenges at least in terms of public perception.
Notice that none of this stuff is official.
Some time later, each state will certify the votes or refuse to and decide who has officially won.
If it is a Presidential election, the state legislature certifies it and dispatches the electors to the Electoral College for the final vote.
The US House and Senate then meet to sign off on the results.
Now, in this process, the Republic is currently at the “MSM projection part.” No candidate has conceded, litigation is pending. There is no President-elect.
The conventional wisdom says that recounts and litigation will not reverse the current result of the election.
The Big Q: Since when has conventional wisdom ever applied to Donald Trump?
The affidavits that are being compiled now are enough to give rise to a case or controversy for a court to hear.
A legal complaint is generated with nothing more than allegations. The court agrees to hear it, and the suit can proceed.
Once the suit commences, the parties are able to conduct discovery to find evidence.
The plaintiffs are not required to have evidence before the lawsuit. Saying there is no evidence of allegations at the beginning of a lawsuit is nothing more than a smokescreen intended to dupe people who do not know any better.
There is an analogy in the criminal law that may be useful.
The Founders did not want the government to be empowered to go fishing through your personal papers for a crime without any good reason, and thus, we have the Fourth Amendment.
The police need a search warrant to try to find evidence. To get a warrant, an officer must sign an affidavit saying that there is probable cause to believe that some crime was committed, and there is a likelihood that there is evidence of the crime in a certain place. The judge must then determine whether the burden of probable cause has been met. What is not required to get a search warrant is evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to obtain evidence.
Now applied that to the election, you can see that the civil suits proceed in much the same way.
The judge in a civil suit will order discovery to find evidence. When these “election officials” say there is no evidence, they are lying.
It might turn out that there is little to no evidence, but as the subject of litigation, you do not get to declare there is no evidence and demand that the matter be ended.
Similarly, someone subject to a search warrant does not get to scream “there is no evidence here” from behind the door of their meth lab and expect the matter to be concluded.
The law does not work this way, and yet, the Democrats and their MSM collaborators are hoping most of The People are dumb enough to think it does.
The hard truth of this may be that the election was stolen, but that it may have been done in a way that The People (voters) will never be able to know about it.
The process must play out.
It is Donald Trump’s right as a candidate to demand it, and it is our right as Americans to know whether our elections can be trusted or not.
“Election crimes usually happen in public, they leave a paper trail, resolute prosecutors at the federal and state levels can but often do not prosecute them. However in this case I believe they will to the full extent of the law” — economist Bruce WD Barren
Have a healthy day, Keep the Faith!