Reply #157: I sound like a broken record, but it's the MARGIN that is the problem.

[read the law first]

If the margin was 500 votes, I would say that there's plenty to challenge the election. But it's a 119,000 margin that has to be overcome. You have to show enough illegal votes or unlawful ballots to overcome the margin. In some states, it's even worse, you have to overcome the margin and the undervote. Candidly, I have not seen the evidence (meaning very precisely evidence that will likely be admissible under the FRE or other applicable rule in State Courts with proper foundation and chain of custody and will most likely be accepted into evidence by the court) to beat the margin yet. That's not to say it's not there, it could be there, but I haven't seen it yet. There's a lot of people who have seen more of the evidence that would know better than I.

And again extrapolation doesn't cut it unless it's extrapolation that ELECTION experts traditionally use. For example, say that I sold 10 sodas in the last five minutes for a dollar a piece. If I multiply that out by the entire year, I'll be a millionaire. But of course just because I sold 10 sodas in the last five minutes for a dollar a piece doesn't mean that I'll sell that many more sodas for the rest of the year. In fact, I might not sell a single one for the rest of the year. IMHO, "I need 100,000 votes to switch the election and therefore in my professional opinion 100,000 votes were switched" without any foundation as to who, what, when, where and how is not evidence, again in my opinion, that will sway a court. In legal and deductive reasoning circles, it's called ipse dixit. Asserting the truth of a statement simply because the statement is made. There were 100,000 illegal votes simply because I say there were 100,000 illegal votes without telling you whose they were, how they were illegal, etc. Ipse dixit statements are not evidence (unless they're admissions by party opponents and then maybe you can get them in).

I wish the evidence were there. I hope the evidence is there. Election cases are not won on argument like cases where the evidence is not at issue, election cases are won on hard proof of numbers of illegal votes and unlawful ballots exceeding the margin. I hope that the evidence is there and just has not been produced for strategic reasons or that we find it soon.