Trey Trainor, Chairman of Federal Election Commission Says Trump Campaign Bringing ‘Legitimate Accusations’ of Election Fraud
Despite the obfuscation and the out and out lies by the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the censorship going on by the social media tech giants over voter fraud allegations in the 2020 election, the Trump campaign is bringing what so far sound like “legitimate accusations” to court through affidavits of credible witnesses along with other evidence used in its challenges to electoral outcomes in various states, according to the Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor.
Trainor said that his analysis of evidence, together with numerous affidavits that claim voter fraud and a sworn statement by a prominent mathematician flagging up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots, met the first level of legal scrutiny under what’s generally known as motion to dismiss or “Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which would dismiss less credible claims.
Pointing out that the ensuing legal threshold beyond a “motion to dismiss” is the “summary judgment phase,” Trainor noted that under this phase, the credibility of witnesses is assumed to be authentic, especially given the quality of the testimonies he has already seen to date.
Cornell University Law School’s website says, “When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant’s opponent.”
Friday morning, Trainor appeared on “Just the News AM” where he told the host, “What I would be concerned with, if I were on the other side of these election contests that are going on around the country, is that if you look at the level of evidence that has been provided by these affidavits, hundreds of affidavits that corroborate events that have happened on the ground, in a summary judgment phase of these cases, you have to take the evidence of the plaintiff as being true.”
“The court has to take the evidence of the plaintiff as being true and see whether or not the other side can make a case against it,” added Trainor. “So, the massive amounts of affidavits that we see in these cases show that there was in fact fraud that took place. And the other side really needs to answer these questions.”
This means, if a court goes against that normality in legal cases, something is up. For example, a Pennsylvania court recently ruled against the Trump legal team for a ruling to hold off state certification even though it was the PA Supreme Court that violated the US Constitution’s Article I, Section 4, and unlawfully changed PA law Act 77 by changing the deadline for when mail-in ballots could be received. In short, there is a chance that the judges are in on the scam, if not for monetary gain, then for political reasons. And that’s not a really big leap given what we that we have seen the way some judges have ruled since trump was elected. Many times judges ruled against trump, while at the same time ruling against Constitutional law, and the only explanation is that they are left wing activists wearing black robes. The travel ban is one such instance. Many travel bans were done by past presidents, but when Trump did one based on six countries that the Obama administration identified as being a risk for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate Middle Eastern refugees coming in, a judge ruled this president couldn’t do it. Another example would be when President Trump went to rescind the unlawful Obama executive order that unconstitutionally created the DACA program, with a judge saying he couldn’t do it, even though it is accepted law that any president can undo or change any executive order written by a past president. Apparently any president has that authority except Donald Trump.
The Trump legal team, spearheaded by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including former US Attorney and attorney representing Lt. General Michael Flynn Sidney Powell, Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, and former US Attorney Joseph diGenova did a press conference they referred to as their case’s “opening statement” where they presented a macro view of the evidence collected by that point, with Giuliani and Powell giving high level details of how the Democrats pulled off the greatest election fraud scheme in US history. They went on to say that they are seeking to protect the privacy of sworn witnesses by not sharing who they are until they get to court, because everyone reading this knows they will be harassed and attacked by leftist mobs the minute their names are given.
Looking at the cases being planned out in key battleground states where massive voter fraud is alleged, Trainor said, “At the end of the day, what I would say is that these are legitimate accusations that are going to be tried in court.”
“And we need to let this legal process play out,” he added, “so that we come to a valid conclusion to this election that everybody believes to be legitimate.”