- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
Trump and his False Cry-Baby 'election fraud' pre-date the election itself buy 6 mos. (knowing he was behind)
Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.
Pressed by judges, some attorneys representing Trump back away from claims
"...Election-law experts say many of Mr. Trump’s legal claims amount to citations of common irregularities or unintentional errors by voters or administrators rather than election fraud...
[.....]
In an Arizona case the Trump campaign largely sought to dismiss on Friday, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers said during a Thursday hearing that fraud wasn’t an issue in its allegations that some in-person votes cast in Maricopa County were improperly rejected. “We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election,” Kory Langhofer, a Trump campaign attorney, said at the start of the hearing. Instead, he said the case was about good-faith errors made in the tabulation of some ballots that might have unfairly resulted in votes not being counted... In a Friday filing, Mr. Langhofer told the Arizona state court: “Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors.”
In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.
Mr. Goldstein at first declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”
Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
“To my knowledge at present, no,” Mr. Goldstein said.
The exchange illustrated the difference between Mr. Trump’s public-relations strategy around the election and what can be raised in court, where strict rules govern what attorneys can say within the bounds of their professional responsibilities and what evidence is deemed admissible.
“I think that there’s a huge difference between the kind of cheap talk that the president can engage in on Twitter and the way that lawyers need to present evidence in court,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor and election-law specialist at the University of California, Irvine. “Not only are lawyers subject to sanctions if they file frivolous lawsuits or provide false information to the court, but claims are also subject to the rules of evidence"..."
[.....]
www.wsj.com
Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.
Pressed by judges, some attorneys representing Trump back away from claims
"...Election-law experts say many of Mr. Trump’s legal claims amount to citations of common irregularities or unintentional errors by voters or administrators rather than election fraud...
[.....]
In an Arizona case the Trump campaign largely sought to dismiss on Friday, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers said during a Thursday hearing that fraud wasn’t an issue in its allegations that some in-person votes cast in Maricopa County were improperly rejected. “We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election,” Kory Langhofer, a Trump campaign attorney, said at the start of the hearing. Instead, he said the case was about good-faith errors made in the tabulation of some ballots that might have unfairly resulted in votes not being counted... In a Friday filing, Mr. Langhofer told the Arizona state court: “Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors.”
In a Pennsylvania lawsuit over several hundred disputed ballots in Montgomery County, a state judge Tuesday repeatedly asked lawyer Jonathan Goldstein if he was alleging that fraud took place.
Mr. Goldstein at first declined to answer, saying “everybody is coming to this with good faith.”
Judge Richard Haaz pressed: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
“To my knowledge at present, no,” Mr. Goldstein said.
The exchange illustrated the difference between Mr. Trump’s public-relations strategy around the election and what can be raised in court, where strict rules govern what attorneys can say within the bounds of their professional responsibilities and what evidence is deemed admissible.
“I think that there’s a huge difference between the kind of cheap talk that the president can engage in on Twitter and the way that lawyers need to present evidence in court,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor and election-law specialist at the University of California, Irvine. “Not only are lawyers subject to sanctions if they file frivolous lawsuits or provide false information to the court, but claims are also subject to the rules of evidence"..."
[.....]
Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.
Under questioning from judges, at least two of the lawyers have backed away from suggestions the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud.
www.wsj.com
Last edited:
