He would have to prove a systematic error that resulted in tens of thousands of votes being incorrectly tallied for Biden in multiple states. The burden of proof on that would be astronomically high.
Perhaps so. We have already found that thousands of votes have been counted incorrectly and made it at least some way through the system towards the final count and in one down ballot case, causing an incorrect winner to be announced. I agree that the odds are low, but even from the perspective of innocent errors if there has been one error that has caused thousands of votes to move, there could be others. It's unlikely, but not inconceivable. We would have to be talking about a lot of error, but there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that people are systemically struggling to follow proper process with the machines. The odds are low, but hopefully we can get it confirmed one way or the other. If nothing else, maybe it will shift a few things around down ballot?
No, it really doesn't. An error that is detected and corrected at the time is practically by definition an error that doesn't count, in that it literally doesn't count.
Any error that I am able to evidence now is by definition one that has been found, and hence the totals corrected. We have already had one such error that was corrected after making it all the way to an incorrect announcement of a down ballot winner. These errors are being caught be humans looking at the result and saying "that can't be right". You surely aren't asking me to list errors that have not yet been found? I can't, they haven't been found yet. There may well be some, the only question is whether they effect 50 votes or 50,000. Clearly 50 votes is rather more likely.
And of Trump's lawyers presented that as evidence of tens of thousands of stolen votes, the judge would give it as much attention as your "voting frauds have been detected in other countries under other systems therefore they may have gone undetected in this country" argument.
I'm not at all sure that the intended audience for much of this is exclusively a judge. In any case, given that these errors were found by human checking, the only way I can see to find other such errors would be human checking. Back in 1960 Nixon had to organize his own audit to get the necessary political will to order for an official audit. He seems to have managed to get that in one state. If that produces nothing significant, I would think he's sunk unless he can get more recounts going first.
One thing that occurred to me is that in the Nixon case that I've been boring everybody with, the only reason he was able to get a recount was that a down ballot ticket in one county was within the margin for a recount and they were able to show significant errors in that race, hence he piggy backed off that. I don't know if Trump can do that here, but given that people were asking "why would they not cheat on the other races", that's at least one reason.
Trump will, of course, say all that, but there is literally nothing Trump would not say if he thought it would suit his purpose.
Sure. He's clearly pushing the truth pretty hard at the moment.
The courts have so far very properly asked the plaintiffs to supply evidence of significant fraud, and in its absence have very politely stopped short of telling them to **** right off, and simply declined even to hear the suit.
All that is fine. Again, just like Nixon... part of the battle I think is getting the political/public will together for recounts and audits. Trump does like to keep a lot of plates spinning in the air at once. There is going to be a lot of smashed crockery before this is over.
