By Duncan Smith
We have no idea whether President Donald Trump will succeed in thwarting what appears to be the latest coup attempt against him — the theft of the 2020 election.
But because he refuses to back away from challenges, he’s not simply going to retreat from the field of battle.
He’s going to court in as many states as necessary to claw back his victory.
And while a growing number of gutless Republicans blast him for it and call on him to concede a stolen election, he’s going to court — and he’s right to do so, according to the chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
The Trump campaign is bringing “legitimate accusations” to court through affidavits of credible witnesses and other evidence used in its challenges to electoral outcomes in various states, Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor said.
Trainor said his review of evidence, including numerous affidavits claiming voter fraud and a sworn statement by a prominent mathematician flagging up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots, met the first level of legal scrutiny under what’s known as motion to dismiss or “Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which would dismiss less credible claims.
Noting the subsequent legal threshold beyond a “motion to dismiss” is the “summary judgment phase,” Trainor said that under this phase, the credibility of witnesses is presumed to be accurate, especially given the caliber of the testimonies Trainor has observed to date.
“When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant’s opponent,” the Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute website notes.
“What I would be concerned with, if I were on the other side of these election contests that are going on around the country, is that if you look at the level of evidence that has been provided by these affidavits — hundreds of affidavits that corroborate events that have happened on the ground — in a summary judgment phase of these cases, you have to take the evidence of the plaintiff as being true,” Trainor told “Just the News AM” television show Friday.
“The court has to take the evidence of the plaintiff as being true and see whether or not the other side can make a case against it,” added Trainor. “So, the massive amounts of affidavits that we see in these cases show that there was in fact fraud that took place. And the other side really needs to answer these questions.”
'At the end of the day, what I would say is that these are legitimate accusations that are going to be tried in court.”
“And we need to let this legal process play out,” Trainor added, “so that we come to a valid conclusion to this election that everybody believes to be legitimate.”
Sounds like a ringing endorsement to us.
Is Inflation Going to Break the Back of Consumers and our Economy?
Will backed-up supply chains ever catch up to demand?
You have to be prepared for the coming financial reset