- Legal Eagle is coming in loud and clear thanks to Ting Mobile. Look, I am as surprised as anyone that Florida isn't the swing
state in the 2020 election, nor is there any kind of Floridian Bush v Gore style lawsuit that seems like it's going
to change the outcome of the election, which
is especially surprising given that we have a literal
Florida man in the White House. There is no election chaos in Florida. Why did Florida get its act together, while smaller states
took days and even weeks to finalize their votes, and the vote is still currently ongoing? Because Florida let counties
start counting early votes and mailed ballots 22 days
before the Election day, and while this seems
like basic common sense, not all states took this common sense, dare I say, Floridian
approach to vote counting. So while the counting continues, President Trump and his
campaign and affiliated groups have filed several lawsuits
challenging many aspects of the voting process
in the 2020 election. So today we are going to examine how these election lawsuits work. Do any of the Trump campaign's lawsuits stand a chance of getting
to the Supreme Court, and are any of these
lawsuits going to change the outcome of the election? (rousing music) Hey Legal Eagles, it's time to think like the Trump campaign's lawyers. As we've talked about many
times on this channel, you can sue anyone for anything
at any time for any reason in America, but those claims
need to have a legal basis and eventually you'll
need to provide evidence, otherwise those lawsuits
will be thrown out. Now, maybe I am an
institutionalist big firm lawyer but I think there is a silver lining to all of these lawsuits,
whether they have merit or not. There are a lot of people who have doubts about the 2020 election, whether those doubts
are well founded or not, so it's important for
those doubts to be tested. That's how we have confidence in the whole election process in general, and the courts have
mechanisms for dealing with both meritorious claims
and frivolous claims, and if the claims are frivolous, then they will be thrown out, and if they have merit, then the courts will fashion a remedy. And I think that if the
shoe was on the other foot, that it was clear that the Trump campaign had won the election,
Democrats would want to know if there was foul play involved or not, and that's what the
system is designed to do. But as it happens, Joe Biden is the putative President-Elect, and it appears that Donald Trump is going to be a one term President, which means that the
balance of the lawsuits are going to come from the
Trump campaign in an attempt to, if not outright change the
outcome of the election, at least take a deeper
dive and, let's say, graciously make sure that
everything was on the up and up. Now before we dig into these
different state lawsuits, it's important to
recognize that every state has a different law when it comes to how the
elections are going to be run. Some require that ballots
have to be received before Election day. Some have a law that say as
long as the ballot is postmarked by Election day, it will be accepted. So there's no overarching federal law, every state has a different law, and sometimes these laws
are sort of contradictory so that it's a complete patchwork of laws throughout the country. Now, not all of these election
lawsuits are created equal, in fact, some have already been dismissed, and these lawsuits so far have
fallen into two categories. One are claims of fraud, and then two are claims of poll watchers not being able to adequately observe the poll process itself. The fraud claims have so far
generally been roundly rejected and disproved, while the observation suits have gained some traction. We'll start relatively chronologically, starting with some of the suits that have already been bounced, and then we'll end with the
most consequential lawsuit that may, in fact, end
up in the Supreme Court, those stemming out of Pennsylvania. And at the end of this video, I will summarize what
effect these lawsuits are likely to have on the
outcome of the 2020 Election. But we'll start with Georgia,
where there was a challenge to the counting of
votes in Chatham County. Now you would think that if
you are trying to dispute an election through lawsuit, you would be trying to disallow
votes that had been counted. But currently there's only one lawsuit that is directly challenging the counting of identified ballots. On November 4th, the Trump
campaign filed a lawsuit alleging that Chatham
County, Georgia was accepting absentee ballots after the
state's statutory deadline. This would make those ballots invalid, which means that they
wouldn't count, obviously. This lawsuit challenged
the way that Chatham County was applying the Georgia law
concerning absentee ballots. Under that law, votes by
mail that are received after 7:00 PM on Election
day will be kept unopened and transferred to storage, where they will eventually be destroyed. The Trump campaign provided an affidavit from someone claiming to be a poll watcher who claimed that 53 absentee ballots had been placed in a group
of ballots to be processed. The poll watcher claimed
that those 53 ballots arrived after the deadline. However, the poll watcher
offered no actual proof of this allegation, and wasn't present when
the ballots were processed. Chatham County is home to Savannah, an area where there are more
Democrats than Republicans, and after a one hour hearing,
the judge dismissed the case with a one paragraph order, explaining that the Trump
campaign didn't have any evidence to support its factual claims. Now there will probably
be a recount in Georgia and that process will include
examining the kinds of errors that the Trump campaign alleged made these ballots defective. But as you can see, this
will entail a close reading of the state election laws, and then a determination
about which ballots are valid and when those ballots were received. This might change the final vote count but there's probably
not enough impact here to change the results in Georgia. Georgia is probably the only
state where the final vote could be challenged due to
the problems with ballots. Keep in mind, however, that voters are already curing defects in some of these ballots, and so where the actual vote
tally is going to end up, in terms of more votes for
Trump or fewer votes for Trump is anyone's guess, and it's
possible that the Trump campaign might file lawsuits
challenging the state's process for curing ballots, but those
cases seem unlikely to end up in the Supreme Court or have a number that's appreciably going
to change the difference. So we move on to Michigan, where there was a lawsuit
about poll observers. Now, Joe Biden is the
projected winner in Michigan and on November 4th, the Trump campaign and Republican self appointed
poll challenger Eric Ostergren sued Michigan Secretary
of State Jocelyn Benson in the Michigan court of claims. The lawsuit claims that
Ostergren was excluded from watching the absentee
ballot counting board and that the state had violated
the Michigan constitution and Michigan election
law by processing ballots without allowing poll
watchers to view video footage of voters placing ballots in drop boxes. Now the Trump campaign asked the court to one, stop the counting
of absentee ballots until an election inspector
from each party was present at each absentee counting board, and until video was made
available to challengers of each ballot box, and
two, immediately set aside all ballots that were not being, quote, "inspected and monitored as described". Ostergren's claim was
dismissed by the court because he claimed he was removed from an absent voter counting board, but didn't identify which board or which official removed
him from the board. This means that he didn't
sue the proper defendant and his claim failed at step one, which is stating a claim for legal relief. But the lawsuit did include
affidavits from poll watchers alleging that they had heard
people talking about fraud. For example, poll watcher Jessica Connarn said that another poll worker told her that she had heard other poll workers say that they could
change the date on ballots when they were received and
entering them into the computer. And when you're asking
for extraordinary relief, like what a lot of these
election lawsuits are asking for, you need to have generally
extremely strong evidence, and here, that evidence just wasn't there. There was no verification of
the facts through evidence and a lot of the evidence
was not admissible. The case was dismissed
by Michigan State Court on November 6th, and admittedly, I chuckled when some of my
Twitter followers pointed out that this is one of the few
cases where hearsay evidence was not admitted, and rightfully so. We have examples of
double and triple hearsay with no exceptions to the hearsay rule. It made sense that a lot of
this evidence was not admitted. The judge found that, quote, "The assertion that the
affiant was informed "by an unknown individual what, quote, "'other hired poll workers
at her table' had been told "is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay "and plaintiffs have
provided no hearsay exception "for either level of hearsay "that would warrant
consideration of the evidence. "See MRE 801", which
is the Michigan version of the rules of evidence. Now, a lot of these
cases sought TROs or PIs, temporary restraining orders
or preliminary injunctions, which is basically an
early order from the court seeking to maintain the status quo while the rest of the
case can be litigated. Now, we talk a lot on this channel about how you often don't
need to provide evidence when you file a lawsuit,
but to get a TRO or a PI, you do have to provide
usually very strong evidence. You'll often hear about
a verified complaint. Well, a verified complaint
just means a complaint with actual evidence attached to it. But at this TRO or PI stage, a court will often test that evidence. So a lot of times, when
you're seeing the courts weighing evidence in these cases, it's because the cases are
asking for a TRO or a PI, which takes us to the
next Michigan lawsuit, which sought a de-certification
of the election results. The Republican party wanted an injunction barring Wayne County from
certifying any results until representatives of both
parties examined all ballots. They also requested that all
ballot containers be unsealed and prepared for inspection, and that they'd be permitted
to take depositions of local officials. A judge denied their
application for an injunction. Now the Michigan law appears
to allow for local city clerks to appoint Democratic
and Republican inspectors who can observe the counting
process, that's not in dispute. The judge found, quote, "Both Republican and Democratic
inspectors were present "throughout the absent voter
counting board location." Court said that the plaintiffs had failed to even state a cause of action, simply asserting widespread
fraud was not sufficient. The court stated, "The
only substantive allegation "appears in paragraph 15 of
the First Amended Complaint, "where Plaintiffs' allege
'on information and belief' "that hundreds or thousands
of ballots have been impacted "by this improper practice. "Plaintiff's Supplemental
Motion fails to present "any further specifics. "In short, the motion is based "upon speculation and conjecture." And as anyone who watches
the Simpsons knows, - We've got plenty of
hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence. - They're just not allowed in court. So this lawsuit seemed to
follow the general pattern established in the Michigan lawsuits where the Trump campaign
was making serious claims about fraud without any
particularized evidence, claiming that Republicans had been denied the opportunity to observe the count, even though it seemed that
the contradictory evidence showed that, in fact, they were present and that there were impartial observers. And the thing about these
poll observer lawsuits is that even if a judge sided
with the claims of the GOP that certain poll watchers
were not treated fairly or that they were excluded,
which seems relatively suspect, but even taking it at face
value, if that were true, it's unlikely that any judge
would invalidate the election, because just because
observers weren't there or were too far away, doesn't mean that anything
untoward was happening. So without evidence of actual
widespread ballot fraud, it's unlikely a court
is going to invalidate a single ballot, let
alone the entire election. And interestingly, the
appeal of this Michigan case was already rejected for
failing to file basic documents with the appeal. Things like attaching the
judgment that they're appealing and the transcript of the
case and the evidence. A big firm associate would be fired for making these kind of mistakes, so that might be an indication
of the kind of quality of legal representation that's responsible for the Michigan cases. So that takes us to the
great state of Nevada. Now in Nevada, Republicans
filed a single federal lawsuit lumping several claims together. The alleged irregularities included what the complaint
described as lax procedures for authenticating mailed ballots and claiming that more
than 3000 ineligible voters had cast a ballot. One plaintiff is Jill
Stokke, a registered voter who is 79 years old and legally blind. Stokke claimed that on Election day, she went to vote in person but was told that her ballot
had already been received by election officials and her signature was already verified. Election officials met with her and said that the signature on her ballot matched the signature
that they had on file, and since Stokke disputed
that it was her ballot, the County still gave Stokke the option to challenge her verified mail-in ballot and cast a provisional ballot instead, but she refused to cast
a provisional ballot. The Nevada Secretary of State investigated her claim on November 3rd. Stokke told them that a
person who had been evicted from her home had
probably stolen her ballot and turned it in, but she
didn't want to name that person and subject them to criminal charges. A Nevada election official
tried to persuade Stokke to name the person,
make a formal statement and vote by provisional
ballot, but she refused. The Nevada official also told Stokke that if she cast another ballot, she would have double
voted, which is a crime. Stokke then contacted the
Trump campaign and the media. Now it seems that Stokke's claims failed at the evidentiary
stage of the process. Her lawsuit claims that she
was turned away from the polls on November 3rd, but documents
released by the states show that she talked with local officials about the stolen ballot on October 28th, during the early voting process. The Stokke allegations
are particularly egregious because her lawsuit
declaration do not even say that the ballot was stolen, but that's what the Trump
campaign tweeted out, which made her sort of internet star. A federal judge held a two hour
hearing to assess her claims and found them to be lacking. He also warned Stokke's lawyer that she might have committed perjury. The judge also noted that the
remedy that Stokke sought, an immediate halt to
counting all of the votes, bore no relationship to her legal claims. The lawsuit also alleges that Clark County's automated
signature verification machine operates below manufacturer specifications and that use of the machine
violates requirements in state election law. The Trump campaign already
raised this same claim in a separate lawsuit, which was dismissed a week before the election. In this complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the use of the
machine is impermissible under Nevada election code and therefore violates
the Elections Clause of the US Constitution,
and that Clark County's use of the machine constitution
equal protection violation, but there doesn't appear to
very much merit in these claims. Nevada law authorizes
counties to adopt procedures that include the processing
and counting of mailed ballots by electronic means. The Clark County register opted
to use the sorting machine to increase the efficiency with which the mail
ballots were processed, and the machine makes the first pass on the sorting of ballots to ensure the signature on the ballot matches the signature of the registration, but if the machine flags
a ballot for a mismatch, then a person then reviews the ballot. The plaintiffs allege
that the process is faulty because the machine does the initial pass rather than the person. However, Clark County's process appears to comply with Nevada law. Before a ballot can be
rejected, at least two employees in the office of the clerk must agree that there is a reasonable
question of fact as to whether the signature
used for the mailed ballot matches the signature of the voter. Here, the machine does not
make the final decision about whether a ballot
will be rejected or not. A federal judge dismissed
the claim, stating that, "Nevada law allows for the use of machines "in tabulating votes, and
doesn't specifically forbid "signature comparison devices." The lawsuit also includes
a poll observer component. Here, a man named Chris Prudhome, who the lawsuit describes
as a credentialed member of the media, also sued
Clark County officials. However, it appears that Prudhome is actually a senior advisor
to the State Republican Party, and Prudhome says that
officials didn't let him observe ballot counting when
he arrived at 12:45 AM. The County officials simply said that the counting was
over for the evening. Prudhome's declaration, which
is the evidence submitted to the court in support of the claim, said that he was then improperly
told to leave the area. While Prudhome alleges that he was blocked from observing the poll counting, Clark County attorney
Mary-Anne Miller testified that he was actually
removed for trying to record the voting counting process,
which is not allowed. Prudhome also says that
he was forced to sit too far away from the action. He also alleges that it was
illegal for poll workers to be behind the glass
partition, which makes it hard for observers to hear what
the workers are saying. However, at the hearing,
Judge Gordon threw cold water on Prudhome's complaints. For mail ballots, Nevada law says that once the counting board
begins counting ballots, quote, "The counting procedure must be public." In an oral argument, the judge said, "You're asking me to
impose some new standard "or strictures or guidelines. "Do we have to provide microphones? "At what point does it
get into the ridiculous?" Of course, Nevada law does allow people to have meaningful public
access to vote counting. Here, the judge essentially ruled that the counting procedure was public and that Prudhome observed it. And in Nevada, a lot of
these claims of fraud are already evaporating. People were claiming that there were votes associated with dead people. It appears that most of
these are probably related to service members who
since moved after voting, which comports with the video
I did on election fraud, it's usually just clerical errors. So that takes us to Pennsylvania,
which is likely home to the most consequential
election lawsuits for several reasons. First, given how close the election is and how many electoral votes
are available in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is sort of the equivalent of 2000 Florida in this
particular election. And on top of that,
the lawsuits in Florida have already gotten the attention
of the US Supreme Court. So let's look at the different facets of these election lawsuits. The first concerns late arriving ballots. The most high profile case in Pennsylvania involves ballots arriving
after the state's deadline for receipt for mail ballots. This is also the only case currently before the Supreme Court. Well, it's sort of in
front of the Supreme Court, which we'll get to. The case began when the
Pennsylvania Democratic Party filed a lawsuit that challenged parts of the state's
absentee ballot system in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is long before the actual election. Relying on a provision in
the state's constitution, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court extended the deadline for mailed in ballots until November 6th. As it stands now, ballots
that are clearly postmarked after the election would not be counted under the Pennsylvania court's ruling. Ballots postmarked on
or before Election day and ballots with no postmark
or an unclear postmark would be counted if received
by the new deadline. However, Republicans objected
to the extending of a deadline from November 3rd to
November 6th, so they filed a separate case in federal courts. On September 28th, Republican legislators and the Pennsylvania Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to put the Pennsylvania
Court's ruling on hold. The US Supreme Court
declined to hear the case before the election. However, four Justices explicitly
left open the possibility of reconsidering the case after the vote. But since the Supreme
Court left the door open, Pennsylvania officials
decided to play it safe and segregate the ballots
that were postmarked on or before the Election day, which arrived up to November 6th. These are postmarked before election, but arrived after Election day. And on October 28, 2020, Kelly Boockvar, Secretary
of the Commonwealth, issued a memorandum to that effect, requiring all counties to sequester those late arriving ballots,
which would then be counted after all the other votes were processed. Now, just because they were
counted, didn't mean necessarily that they would eventually be
added to the total vote count in Pennsylvania, that
was still up in the air. But three days after the
election, on November 6th, the Trump campaign moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the case. The Trump campaign
asked the Supreme Court, seeking an emergency
order that all the ballots be sequestered and not counted. The Trump campaign alleged
that it did not know whether all counties were
following the procedures set forth in Boockvar's memo. Now, most emergency applications
of public significance are addressed by the full Supreme Court, although particularly urgent matters are sometimes acted on
by a single Justice, while the other Justices
are later asked to weigh in. Here, Justice Alito
chose to do exactly that, saying that he was referring the issue to his colleagues for further action. And in the meantime, he issued an order requiring that the ballots be sequestered, which again, at least if all the counties were following the order of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth, they already were. But Alito also rejected the request that the ballots not be counted. And on November 7th, 2020, Pennsylvania responded to the
Trump campaign's allegations that some counties were not
appropriately sequestering the ballots, saying quote,
"There is no evidence "that any County is
disobeying the clear guidance "to segregate these votes,
and the Republican Party "offers only speculation that
certain unidentified counties "may ignore the repeated guidance "or that the Secretary will
inconsistently change course." So if the US Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's ruling, it would, in fact, invalidate ballots received after Election day. The exact number of
these ballots is unknown, however, the impact of this decision will almost certainly not be decisive. Pennsylvania counties
have been sequestering the late arriving ballots
and will count them last, and there probably aren't enough ballots which arrived up to three
days after the election to make up the vote differential, if they even favored the President, which is an open question. So that takes us to the Pennsylvania cases challenging the ballot cure process. There are still more cases
pending in Pennsylvania. These cases challenge the state's process for allowing voters to cure their ballots. The cure process was mandated by the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 or HAVA. The federal law requires
states to allow voters to cure potential errors on their ballots, and here's how that works. When there's an uncertainty
about a voter's eligibility, such as an incorrect address, the absence of required
identification or other issues, the election official is
required to offer the voter a provisional ballot
instead of a regular ballot. If a voter votes in person, they can ask for a provisional ballot, or they may be directed by a poll worker to vote by provisional ballot. Since so many voters used a
mailed in ballot this year, several states have created
a process for these voters to fix certain errors in mailed ballots, like a missing or
mismatched voter signature. Once a provisional ballot is cast, it's stored separately
from the other ballots and investigated by
local election officials. Generally, a poll worker
will have to verify the voter's identity
and eligibility to vote and may require the voter to
provide further information. The states give the voters
the opportunity to cure those defective ballots, and
each state has its own deadline for voters who need to cure their ballots. Here, Republicans are raising criticisms of the state's processes
for curing ballots. So the Trump campaign and the
Republican National Committee have now sued Boockvar,
who we just talked about, claiming that she improperly
extended the deadline for absentee and mail-in votes
to provide any missing proof of identification from
November 9th to November 12th. This is a challenge to
the state's cure process for absentee ballots. The Republicans contend that
it's wrong for the state to give voters a few extra
days to cure deficiencies. A judge ordered Boockvar to
segregate mailed-in ballots from voters providing identification between November 10th and November 12th, saying that she would
rule later on the validity of this deadline extension. And it's unlikely that
the cured ballot issue will determine the result in Pennsylvania, since these votes are not
appearing in the vote totals yet, and most voters would
not have even attempted to cure these ballots. But again, we're talking
about a pretty small number of ballots here, and it's going to be a relatively easy decision
to see whether the court approves of the deadline extension or not. Additionally, Republican
candidates and officials also sued election officials
in Montgomery County, a heavily Democratic leaning
suburb of Philadelphia, from notifying voters and helping them to cure defective votes. Plaintiffs withdrew their
request for an emergency order segregating such votes just
days after filing the complaint, and the judge said that
the case lacked merit and failed to state a viable claim. The bottom line in this
case is that the voters have the right to cure their ballots, provided that they follow
state requirements, and the plaintiffs
couldn't come up with a way that the cure process was violating law in Montgomery County,
which takes us finally to the poll observer
lawsuits in Pennsylvania, which are not dissimilar from some of the other poll
observer lawsuits that we saw, though some of the outcomes of these cases show what happens when you
piss off a federal judge. In the first case, the Trump
campaign continued to file cases claiming that
there were deficiencies in how poll observers were treated. The campaign successfully sued
Philadelphia on Election day, asserting that its poll watchers
weren't being given, quote, "Reasonable access to
monitor the counting of votes "in Philadelphia, because they
were kept at too far distance "from the process." The suit was dismissed by
a Philadelphia trial court, but an appellate court
reversed, ordering officials to allow all poll observers
to watch the ballot counting, which frankly seems like
a win for all of us. We need both partisan and
neutral observers to make sure that the election process
is working as it should and there's no foul play, so
that we can all have confidence that the democratic process was working. The only thing unusual
is that they were seeking to invalidate the ballots,
but as far as I can tell, no court has ever thrown out ballots because poll watchers
were sitting too far away. Which finally takes us to
the last election lawsuit in Pennsylvania, where the Trump campaign filed an emergency request
in the federal court for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania to stop the Philadelphia
County board of electors from, quote, "Continuing
to count any ballots "so long as Republican
observers are not present "as required by state law." And here, the plaintiffs ran
into an irascible federal judge who simply wasn't having
allegations with no factual basis. Here, Federal Judge Diamond asks, "Are your observers in the counting room?" To which the Trump campaign
replied in an oral argument, "There is a non-zero number
of people in the room." To which Judge Diamond responded, "I'm asking you as a member
of the bar of this court, "are people representing the
Donald J. Trump for president, "representing the
plaintiffs, in that room?" To which the Trump campaign
lawyer responded, "Yes." And Diamond said, "I'm sorry,
then what's your problem?" So here's the thing. When a federal judge asks you to respond "as a member of this court", what he or she is signaling to you is that you had better not lie because the judge is
pissed off, and if you lie, it is a violation of your lawyerly ethics to respond to any tribunal
in a honest manner, and you might be referred to bar counsel and the judge will basically
take it as a personal offense. So if you ever get that
question in a federal court, you're not in a very good position. Now, although the Trump
campaign continues to assert in public that the counting
process is happening in secret without any Republicans present, when they're in court
in front of the judge, that's not what they're saying and it appears because
that's just not true. The parties in the case agreed after Judge Diamond suggested it that each party gets 60
observers in all areas where ballots were being counted. The judge agreed that
observers were allowed but not at a certain distance,
only at an equal amount away. So this means that there
are 120 people watching all the votes being
counted in Philadelphia, and the city also has livestreamed
the entire vote count. You can actually find this on YouTube and enjoy watching poll
workers putting ballots in the machine all night long. So while the case settled
and might be considered a win for the Trump campaign,
really it's a win for everyone to make sure that there
are an acceptable number of observers watching the whole process. It's hard not to get behind that. And finally, there was a brand new lawsuit in Pennsylvania as of November 9th. It basically claims that mail-in
voting is unconstitutional. It claims that mail-in ballots
were not signature verified to the same extent as the in-person votes, creating a two tiered system that's a constitutional violation. It also rehashes the same allegations of late received ballots
and lack of observers, blah blah blah. It's likely to fail pretty hard but they are swinging for the fences, you have to give them credit for that. They are asking for the
court to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying results, so
that is terrifyingly hilarious or hilariously terrifying,
you choose which. But at the end of the day, none of the cases involve
challenges to enough states in any of the states
to change the results, let alone change the results
in several of the states, and at the time of this recording, it looks like Joe Biden's going
to win 306 electoral votes. In the year 2000, it was very different. The election came down to
a recount in a single state where there were only 500 votes separating the two candidates, so a single court case
could decide the outcome of a huge state with
lots of electoral votes. Here, there are just too many states that would need to flip. And of course there are reports that the President is very
unhappy with his legal team that seems to be run by Jared Kushner. Man, is there anything
that that kid can't do? And also the head of Citizens
United, David Bossie, who actually isn't a lawyer. I can't imagine why the
President is not happy with his legal representation. And there doesn't seem to be any real, coordinated legal strategy here. There's nothing here that's
going to turn the tide and there's no common theme
throughout these lawsuits that's going to change the outcome of the entire 2020 election. As Maggie Haberman of the
New York Times put it, "This is a media campaign
masquerading as a legal campaign "until proven otherwise." That seems to be about right. And not for nothing, the
Trump campaign's claims outside of the court are very different from the claims they are making in court, because often you have
to make these claims under the penalty of perjury,
and the lawyers themselves have certain ethical bounds, and also there are potential sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits and putting things before the Court that have a lack of complete basis. And none of these lawsuits
are likely to change the outcome of the election. The Trump campaign would
have to file and win lawsuits concerning far more ballots
than he's litigating now. And none of these lawsuits
would be able to overturn the disparity in the various states, and the same goes for recounts. Now, some states require the objector to pay for the recount itself, so we'll see if the Trump campaign actually ponies up the money to do that, but no federal recount has
ever changed the results by more than 1/10th of a percent, and the Trump campaign
would need to win lawsuits in multiple states and
swing 18 electoral votes, a minimum of three states,
and that just doesn't seem like it's in the realm of possibility. But if you see election
fraud, or more likely, an idiot wearing a "Beer,
Barbecue, Freedom" shirt, trying to interfere with
the poor election officials trying to do their job, feel
free to call the police, and the best way to make that
call is with Ting Mobile. Ting provides great LTE 5G coverage because it partners with
the biggest carriers, so you get the benefit of
three massive networks. With Ting, you're only
paying for the actual data and services that you use
at the end of the month. So on average, Ting customers pay just $23 per month per device. And with Ting, you can
use almost any cell phone, including the newest
iPhones and Pixel phones, and you can use the same phone number you're using right now. There's no contract, overage fees, or any other carrier tricks. You just pay a fair price
for the talk, text and data that you use at the end of the month. And Ting has award-winning
customer service because they don't have any
brick and mortar stores. They pour all their resources into their phone and online support. If you have any issues, you
can just give them a call and you'll immediately
talk to a real human being. With Ting, especially if you're
around WiFi all the time, which I mean, most of us are,
we're all working from home, you'll end up paying way
less than you do now. Of course, some people
should pay $200 a month for unlimited data because they're nowhere
near their home WiFi. But if you're surrounded
by WiFi all day long, you might be paying hundreds of dollars more completely unnecessarily, and Ting gives you the option
to only pay for what you use. So if you go to legaleagle.ting.com, you can use your last bill to compare just how much you would save. And Legal Eagles will get a $25 credit by going to legaleagle.ting.com, and that could cover your
entire first month of service. And since there are no contracts, you can try it for a
month, no strings attached. Again, all you have to
do is click the link in the description or go
to legaleagle.ting.com, get a $25 credit for
whatever service you want. Plus clicking on that link
really helps out this channel. So do you agree with my analysis? Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist over here with all of my other Real Law reviews, talking about the crazy stuff and protests and the Trump administration and COVID, basically all the news,
there's a lot of it. So click on this playlist
and I'll see you in court.
Short answer: No.
just saw this last night... made me feel better down the line in regards to elections
There are a nonzero number of times that I found this video funny and informative.
Also: Just throwing this in here. A recent Reuter’s polls found that 79% of Americans think Biden is legitimate, only 3% think Trump is, and the remaining are essentially waiting for the Pennsylvania stuff to settle to the ground.
There is one really excellent suit in this video.
what's this thing about "curing" votes? I thought curing was how you make ham.