On Friday, a Nevada state judge court ruled in favor of the state against the six GOP electors, holding that the plaintiffs from Trump’s campaign did not prove that sufficient ballots would be able to change the outcome election.
The judge’s opinion confronts plaintiffs in an election challenge such as the Trump’s campaign waging over mail-in ballots’ legitimacy. The time frame allowed for a contest in an election in a state that has never considered the circumstances where massive ballots were submitted by mail.
Local officials have always been trusted in processing the ballots. And the witnesses who could offer pertinent and admissible first-hand testimonies are almost all under the opposing party in the case.
The Nevada judge authorized 15 depositions by each side and set a hearing for December 3. It would then be a mystery how the plaintiffs would be expected to identify possible witnesses, gather sufficient pieces of evidence, take depositions, and organize an orderly presentation in a hearing in 16 days, with a holiday therein.
However, the difficulty lies not on the judge but on the circumstances of modern mail-in voting. The final vote count in the state was certified only until November 16. The complaint was filed the next day, November 17.
The judges think the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence before the court in a required standard format. Usually, pieces of evidence would be in the form of deposition transcripts. Nonetheless, the judge stated that the affidavits would be considered part of the “totality of evidence” presented in the case.
“Dr. Herron’s testimony [that there was no fraud] is buttressed by Contestants’ own expert witness, Mr. Gessler, who also testified that he had no personal knowledge of that any voting fraud occurred in Nevada’s 2020 General Election.”
When the judge references experts for a proposition that is basically scrapped, the judge is subtly mocking, having wasted his time.
Several other developments regarding the legal front of the party have gone throughout Friday. All of the founded developments seemed to be a common signal from the judiciary that “enough is enough.”