Trump did not lose Nevada decision

The headlines all say Trump lost yet another case in Nevada. He did not. 

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 current pretend journalists are complete ignoramuses
If I did not, 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 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.

So let me say again that any "journalist" who says this lawsuit represented a Trump loss is, perhaps, too dumb to be charged with conveying information to the American public.

What is interesting about the order is that it's the first order that shows a judge looking at the evidence. In all the other cases, when shown stacks of evidence (eyewitness and expert witness declarations), the judges did the legal equivalent of waving the papers away and announcing, "Nope, there's no way you can prove fraud through that type of evidence
Take it away. You lose!"

In Nevada, Judge James T. Russell, an old-school guy, actually reviewed the evidence that the contestants who are not Donald 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. Intead, he accepted only the firsthand, entirely self-serving, testimony of the same foxes who savaged the election hen house.

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 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.

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.

Democrats' defense of Georgia election fraud video doesn't hold water

Immediately after the story broke about the video showing workers at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta counting ballots after poll observers had apparently been asked to leave, a purported news site sprang into action to "fact-check" the report. 

While the "fact check" gave room to Democrat operatives to cover their derrières, the counter-narrative was ludicrous. 

Additionally, new evidence about vote spikes and two of the vote-counters behaving suspiciously gave even more credence to Republicans' take on the surveillance video.

The video that galvanized so many people showed a large room in which poll observers were completely cordoned off from any meaningful observation. 

Shortly before 10 P.M., one of the poll workers — a black woman with eye-catching long, blond braids — approached the observers, and, not long after that, with apparent reluctance, the observers filed away, vacating the room a little before 11 P.M.

At eleven pm, with the room ostensibly shut down and the observers gone, the remaining poll workers suddenly sprang into action, dragging rolling suitcases out from under a table. They took ballots out of those suitcases and spent the next two hours scanning them, at a rate of about 3,000 ballots per hour per scanner.

If you go here, you can see several sharpened photographs showing what was going on.

By Friday, a site called Lead Stories had its fact check ready, denying the allegations. These are the contentions:

1. Nobody told the observers to leave; they just voluntarily traipsed after workers and could have returned whenever they wanted.

2. What the Republicans called "suitcases" were in fact empty "regular ballot containers" that were placed under the table to save floor space.

3. The ballots inside had already been removed from their envelopes and processed while observers were present.

The only one of those points that holds water is the contention that the ballots were in "ballot containers," not suitcases. Everthing else is factually or logically wrong.

First, the poll-watchers who left stated that the workers had told them to leave, and, indeed, you can see the woman with blond braids talking to them. It makes sense that the observers wouldn't have left without being told that everything was shutting down. Trump- supporters were deeply suspicious of events and would never have walked away from watching.

Second, even assuming that people had watched the ballots getting removed from their envelopes, that's not a reason for them to be disinterested in watching the votes get counted. For example, they might have witnessed the woman in the purple shirt repeatedly running the same batch of ballots through the tabulator.

Third, the shutdown theater makes nosense. If the counting was proceeding as before, why in the world engage in that shutdown theater, which effectively drove the poll-watchers out, only to spring into frantic, completely unsupervised action for the next two hours?

Fourth, even as those poll workers were busily scanning in ballots without oversight, Biden received a "mathematically impossible" spike in vote counts:

Fifth, according to Bernard Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner, that spike is a mathematical impossibility — a claim that makes sense just by looking at that chart:

It isn't surprising that the so-called "fact check" was wrong. Lead Stories is a partisan Democrat site "staffed almost entirely by Democratic donors, half of whom had worked for CNN in the past."  It's also one of Facebook's alleged "nonpartisan fact-checkers" — and they, as many have noted, function on a completely partisan basis.

There's another video of two of the women from the secret vote count — the gal in the purple shirt and the one with the blond braids — and it appears that Purple Shirt is passing something covertly to Blond Braids Many people have speculated that what's being passed is a USB:

The facts remain clear: poll-observers testified they were deliberately cleared out, at which point workers, including two who had behaved suspiciously earlier, scanned ballots like crazy, with that scanning coinciding with an impossibly huge spike in counts that favored Joe Biden. No wonder Governor Kemp suddenly called for a signature audit. Even he knew that no one would believe the purported facts "explaining" the video.

Sadly, despite all this evidence of illegal conduct, Fulton County still certified its results. That's what happens when the fox is the one charged with certifying the henhouse.

Explore holybibleparty.tripod.com/nokamala