How can Trump fairly present his claim of fraud if the court prevents hearings where the parties will testify under the penalty of perjury?
Election fraud is not just a real issue; it is a deadly serious one to our country’s future. Original reporting at The Federalist and many other outlets have unearthed sprawling voter distrust born of the first-hand experience with fraud after fraud in major Democratic machine cities.
These problems are real and deserve real and meticulous attention. Fraud undermines the very trust and faith underpinning the United States’ tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, and allowing fraud to continue without consequence is a threat to that peace. Election Fraud Is Too Important To Be Left To Conspiracy Theorists (thefederalist.com)
Most Americans are concerned about genuine voter fraud; those beliefs are intertwined with the notion that the scam is real and provable. Thus far, courts have rejected the President’s claims of fraud owing to the lack of evidence presented in the pleadings; such conclusions, however, to some degree, beg the question: How can you prove your claim of fraud if the court prevents hearings where the parties, under the penalty of perjury, would testify?
On the other hand, is it legitimate for a party to be allowed to proceed with his or her civil claims without asserting a reasonable degree of evidence to support the claim? In other words, should the Trump pleadings contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face? Or should the requirement be that the moving papers should only be required to show a conceivable claim? Or, more liberally, should the claim be allowed to go forward if future evidence might be produced to support the claimed relief?
Both state and federal courts have wrestled over the appropriate level of persuasion needed to overcome a dismissal of the pleadings; the Supreme Court may revisit this issue.
We think that motions to dismiss should not be granted where the factual allegations rise above a speculative level. It seems apparent that Trump has raised sufficient allegations, regardless of the impact on vote totals (e.g., even if there was a fraud, and certain votes would be discounted, Biden would still win). Trump should nevertheless have his day in court where witnesses will be required to be under oath.
Future elections need to be conducted free of fraud, and several voting practices and procedures in various states need to be scrutinized for voting irregularities and fraud. The trust in the election process is now at an all-time low—this is not healthy for America. These truths support the granting of a formal hearing where such issues can be further refined and analyzed.