Trump did not lose a Nevada decision
The headlines all say Trump lost yet another case in Nevada. He didn't. 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 today's pretend journalists are complete ignoramuses. If I didn't, 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 Trump 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. Instead, he accepted only the firsthand, entirely self-serving testimony of the same foxes who savaged the election hen house.
Writing at RedState, Shipwreckedcrew explained:
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.
I highly recommend reading the entire RedState article.
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.
Image: Trump. Pixabay public domain.