From the article:
"The judge seems to have had good reason to reject the Democrat arguments. Elias is the same lawyer who commissioned the Steel Dossier and hired Fusion GPS to work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Elias is no stranger to baseless conspiracy theories. Casting doubt on the legitimate winner of an election is kind of his thing. "
Looks like this Democrat would be very familiar with fraud.
Watching with 
No one is claiming fraud.
Fraud wasn’t claimed either then or now.
How does a machine “under count”?
It’s explained in the complaint.
I don’t want to read that. Can’t you just tell me in two sentences or less?
Nope.
It’s near the beginning and everything.
Everybody owes Jezcoe $10 for his time.
The DNC with its search for Just-Us.
Ok, I read it. It does not say how a machine can “under count”, just as I suspected.
A lot of those accusations are the same ones made by another group.
Violation of election law, misplaced ballots, etc.
Questioning the validity of an election result is something only tyrannical fascists do…or so I’ve heard.
There was an initial hand vote where Red got X, Blue got Y and Under vote got Z.
The machine count had the undervote as a higher value.
This happened in a few cases.
In an election where the space between the two candidates is in the thousands then this wouldn’t really matter.
But this election is being decided by 132 votes.
So the relief being sought is a hand audit of the ballot given the other instances of outright incompetence during this election.
It is in the complaint in pretty plain English and most people would find that the request is pretty reasonable.
What isn’t being said here is that there is fraud, that the election was hacked, that there was some grand conspiracy to steal the election.
What is being said is that there were enough irregularities AND a margin thin enough that a more thorough recount is reasonable.
Will they get it? Don’t know.
Only after the question has been repeatedly settled.
So if Trump had claimed he lost due to “irregularities” in the vote counting, instead of saying it was stolen, you would be good with that?
I guess the first amendment allows one to choose ones words, though.
I’d have been good with it had he brought an ounce of evidence.
Why do you guys insist on arguing like this?
You know the cases aren’t remotely similar.
You know a 150 vote difference is different than tens of thousands of votes’ difference over multiple states.
Oh and additionally I don’t see the challenger here stirring up his supporters to disrupt democratic offices or occupy government buildings.
Why do you keep arguing similarities where none exist?
Does it somehow ease the cognitive dissonance?
But it’s EXACTLY the same thing Trump did, don’t you see?
Trump was impeached for inciting a riot.
I would have no problem with Trump claiming irregularities and requesting a recount… but he lost several States and the likelihood that such irregularities happened over several States in enough magnitude to swing the election his way was vanishingly small.
The hand recount of Georgia should have been the end of it… but he kept claiming fraud and such long after the election was decided… basically up until the last minute and invited a riot on his behalf.
To compare that to this… where there is a chance that the irregularities can shift a razor thin margin is a bad faith argument.
I understand that, but how did that happen. A machine doesn’t “under count”, it just counts.
