Non-Zero Number of Election Observers

What I previously identified as a “Gish Gallop” regarding election fraud claims continues.

My own stance is not "Voter fraud did not happen" but "I see no real evidence that voter fraud happened, but I'll consider any good evidence that comes out." I'm grateful that we do indeed have institutions which could resolve this. I feel bad for all the law firm associates who are being roused in the middle of the night to furiously type up something semi-coherent to challenge the validity of the election. You can't say Trump's side doesn't have the energy or the resources to devote to this issue, and I'd be grateful for their efforts if they do uncover nefarious dealings. That said however, their efforts thus far has been rather embarrassing.

To pick just one example, Trump's lawyers filed for an emergency halt to the Philadelphia count because they alleged that the count was proceeding without their Republican observers present. This is probably the most cogent of the allegations of nefarious dealings. However....

Judge Paul Diamond to the Trump campaign lawyer:

Diamond: Are your observers in the counting room?

Trump campaign: "There's a non zero number of people in the room"

Diamond: "I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: are people representing the Donald J Trump for president, representing the plaintiffs, in that room?"

Trump campaign lawyer: "Yes."

Diamond: "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"

So they claimed in the lawsuit that their observers were not being let in, but then the lawyer under penalty of perjury had to admit to a judge that wasn't actually true. Oof.

The motion for emergency injunction by the Trump campaign is here. They specifically alleged that "The County Board of Elections is aware of this Order but is intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party." Then in court when the judge asked for confirmation, the campaign lawyers walked that back and had to admit that no, they actually did allow representatives and poll watchers. At that point the judge's plan was to dismiss the case as moot because the Trump campaign was asking for a remedy it already has. There is no audio recording of the hearing (for whatever reason the district court prohibits that) but there are these brief snippets from a journalist on Twitter. It seems that as the hearing was about to be over, the campaign attorney piped up and seemed to want to complain about how far the observers can stand from a table. It seems like the judge was exasperated at this point and just encouraged the parties to settle things amongst themselves. The Trump campaign suggested 60 observers and the other side had no objection, so the judge dismissed the lawsuit because it was completely moot at that point. My impression is that the lawyer just had to ask for something in order to not look like a complete buffoon.

It probably goes without saying that making shit up is frowned upon by judges and incredibly damaging to your credibility as an attorney. Lawyers (as the judge said, as "officers of the court") get a ton of leeway for asserting claims. For example, when I’m in court I am very likely to have a statement like "I called the treatment facility and confirmed my client attended" accepted at face value without the need to provide any documentation. But jesus if I am lying or trying to be misleading and I get caught even once, there is no way in hell that would ever happen again, and my reputation is guaranteed to follow me.

The instance in this case is not just mere puffery, but it forms the entire basis of the action. The lawyers literally said they wanted the court to grant an emergency injunction halting the voting count because they claimed they were not allowed any observers, then it turns out that was 100% false. It's not just a blatant misrepresentation to the court, but it becomes a gigantic waste of time. Court calendars are clogged up and asking for an emergency hearing is already a significant burden. Now the clerk has to make time and opposing counsel is forced to respond which of course is neither simple or cheap to do. For all of that to end up being for naught is crippling.

I'll continue to keep an open mind to question the validity of this election, but so far I have not encountered anything compelling. Absent evidence otherwise, I have no reason to think that 2020 marked the beginning of widespread and unprecedented voter fraud in the United States, especially when the primary rationale presented is that Trump didn't get as many votes as he liked.