Thread by @RileySnyder

I'll be covering the 1:30 p.m. hearing on the Trump campaign's lawsuit (Law v. Whitmer) seeking to block NV's presidential results or have the state's 6 electoral votes assigned to President Trump.

Livestream link here:

Judge James Russell is in the court, we're getting underway

Judge Russell says "It is important for all Americans to have confidence that their governmental officials have conducted a fair open and free election."

We're first hearing a challenge to a supplemental declaration filed by Jesse Kamzol, a RNC data analyst/operative that was filed today. Attorneys for Ds says it was filed after deadline & Kamzol isn't a "qualified expert."

Jesse Binnall, who is the Trump campaign's attorney in the case, is now responding to motion to dismiss the Kamzol declaration. Says they relayed info ASAP

Judge Russell interrupts to ask about deadline:
"Is it fair to the defense to bring this in at the last minute?"

It's a bit difficult to hear Binnall through the livestream, but I believe he's saying that the campaign has list of 4K non-citizens who allegedly voted but received it after deadline - says campaign submitted info as soon as it could

Judge Russell agrees to strike supplemental declaration of Jesse Kamzol, citing that it was filed after deadline. Says he's allowing other evidence to proceed but that this declaration was filed late

Judge Russell says he plans to give each side about an hour to present, can reserve time for rebuttal.

Judge Russell is now asking attorneys what standard of evidence should be applied in case - clear and convincing, reasonable doubt, etc.

Binnall says that because this is a civil case, standard of evidence should be a "preponderance of evidence." Says campaign isn't aware of any intention by #nvleg to increase burden of proof for evidence in these types of cases (election contests)

Judge Russell asks about use of term "reasonable doubt" in NRS 293.410, which relates to dismissal of election contests
leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-293.ht…

Attorney for Ds Kevin Hamilton says he agrees that NV Supreme Court hasn't IDed burden of proof in election contests.

But says by very nature, ask that court reverse election results is "an extraordinary thing," and that other states have used higher burden of proof

Hamilton wants court to use "clear and convincing" evidence standard.

Judge Russell says he'll reserve ruling on evidentiary standard, and it "may or may not make much difference."

Judge Russell now asks about what is affect of NV Supreme Court certifying state's election results last week.

Binnall (Trump campaign attorney) says it doesn't take away court's ability to enter order on an election contest.

Hamilton (attorney for Ds) says NV Supreme Court action of certifying election results wouldn't prohibit a judge's order on election contests.

Judge Russell says he agrees, asks Binnall to begin arguments. Says he read filings from 5 a.m. to noon today

Binnall offers an index of evidence in binders to Judge Russell and opposing counsel. Says this case is about the "failure of the electoral system in an election. No one wants to say it, but it's true."

Judge Russell interrupts to ask about ballot counting machines (Agilis machines) and asks if it's been determined by other judges in other cases.

Binnall: previous order had to do with standing, circumstances have now changed

Binnall says there is a statutory issue with use of Agilis machine for signature verification, which only Clark uses (says it violates AB4 provision requiring hand-checking of ballots). Same argument has been used in past cases - Binnall says different now b/c of standing issue

Binnall says he needs to address the "elephant in the room," which is a "narrative" spread by the media that there's no widespread voter fraud

Binnall says that in the month since Election Day, the Trump campaign has put together a "robust body of evidence showing the voter fraud that came in this case."

Again, this the first time we're hearing a lot of the Trump's campaign evidence in public, as most of their filings in the court have been filed under seal

Binnall says there are some examples of clear fraud (such as a person voting more than once) and other irregularities, such as non-NV residents casting ballots.
"That should have been accounted for to make sure that the system had integrity."

Binnall: Just because people want to vote in a swing state....doesn't mean they get to do that.

Says he feels like an honorary Nevadan after spending last 7 weeks here but he's registered in VA

Binnall says evidence points to "many many thousands of votes" that were improperly counted, which in turn disenfranchises many thousands of Nevadans.

Binnall says almost all of campaign's depositions were with its own witnesses, only received records via subpoena from the DMV. Says other evidence was "hard to get" and campaign can't "knock on government's door to get that information without some legal tool."

Binnall says that Clark County closed and locked its doors, and that Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria was "stonewalling" contestants by locking his door and not responding to subpoenas.

Binnall says that the campaign has a whistleblower who said he say Joe Gloria inspecting election sites while holding a Joe Biden pen.

Binnall - citing a deposition from an anonymous witness - says that Clark County failed to provide any cybersecurity protection with voting machines. Says machines did not encrypt USB discs, didn't have passwords on voting machines

Binnall says that election totals on the discs would have changing totals after being checked in at night.

Now says that voting machine manufacturers are not allowing full inspection due to intellectual property rights.

Judge Russell interrupts to ask where evidence is coming from - Binnall says it comes from declaration of anonymous whistleblower (Doe #1) and is backed up by another declaration

Binnall is now talking about "bad actors" going to native American reservations in NV to offer something of value in return for casting a ballot - something he calls a "very clear tit-for-tat"

Binnall says campaign has evidence from a whistleblower (Doe #3) who saw a Biden-Harris bus close to an early vote polling location and saw "unusual activity" - people taking handfuls of ballots and filling them out on the side of the van.

Binnall says that the whistleblower saw people putting the ballots into return envelopes, but that county didn't take any action when it was reported to them.
"This is ballot box stuffing, plain and simple."

Judge Russell is now asking if there is enough evidence to show that there is enough evidence that there are enough votes out there to show that there's enough votes in question to overturn election results - says he looked through depositions and couldn't find that claim

Binnall says there's no way to tell that X number of votes would have gone for Biden/Trump -- application of that standard would make any election contest effectively impossible

Binnall says that once questionable/improper votes are separated from their envelopes, it "poisons the entire pool" as it's impossible to take those ballots out (there's no marking on them to ensure secrecy of the ballot)

Binnall says campaign has evidence that 19K non Nevadans voted, 42K people double voted, 15K commercial addresses or vacant lots, 8K fake addresses, and 1.5K dead voters.
(to be clear, evidence has been filed under seal, so these lists are not available publicly)

Binnall says the only thing to do to "avoid debasement and dilution" in election results is to strike Biden voters from representing NV in the Electoral College

Judge Russell says court is taking a 10 minute break

We're back.

Kevin Hamilton, attorney representing defendants, is now up. Says election results in Nevada have been "carefully canvassed audited, and certified."

Hamilton says that the Trump campaign is asking for "breathtaking relief" in this case.

"It's difficult to imagine a more shocking and fundamentally undemocratic ask."

Hamilton: From the start to the jumbled end this contest appears to be nothing more than part of a larger extrajudicial effort to disparage hard working state and county local election officials across the country and to cast doubt on the outcome of the election.

Hamilton says evidence provided is "examination is built on nothing more than speculation, conspiracy theories, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral process in Nevada."

Hamilton says that the Ds are asking for case to be rejected on laches (i.e. several of their complaints, including signature verification machine use, could have been brought earlier)

Hamilton says it was "no secret" that Clark County purchased and used the signature verification machine during the June primary election, but no complaints were raised until months later

Judge Russell asks if he should rely on a section of Nevada rules of civil procedure or just proceed on language of state laws. (I'm not a lawyer but I think that's the gist of his question)

Hamilton: You don't you don't bring this kind of a lawsuit unless you have the evidence to make a claim with sufficient certainty to inform the defendant of the charges. But it's not enough to a certain categories, you have to name voters.

Says lawsuit fails to name single voter

Hamilton says campaign has to ID individual voters and who they voted for in order to bring an election contest claim. Says there's a specific process for doing that, cites similar election contest case in WA in 2005

Hamilton: The contestants case is simply a calamity, and the contestants barely pretend otherwise... it's evidence that counts, not tweets or social media bluster, not hearsay or speculation

Hamilton says that five Nevada courts have looked at claims regarding signature verification machine used by Clark County, and all five have rejected claims "without exception and without hesitation."

Hamilton says AB4 (the election law passed by #nvleg in summer special session) expressly allows counting by electronic means.

Says Ds have deposed manufacturer of Agilis machine, who said settings should only accept "obviously matched signatures" using a test deck of ballots

Judge Russell asks about the 40% standard used by Clark County on signature verification machine - Hamilton says that manufacturer called that "best practice."

Regarding signature match/image quality, Hamilton says that Agilis signature verification manufacturer said machine would reject those ballots and they would be reviewed by human employees in those cases.

Hamilton is now talking about depositions provided by anonymous whistleblowers, says much of what they claimed to see/evidence cited is just speculation.

Hamilton says that Doe #1 (person who made claims about vote totals changing overnight) said in deposition that there are no differences between paper audit trail and vote machine totals, or anyone tampering w/ USB drives

Judge Russell asks about Registrar Joe Gloria's statement about the election discrepancies in Miller/Anthony Clark County Commission race (about 140 in race decided by 10 votes).

Hamilton says there are always instances of minor discrepancies in elections, not just in 2020

Hamilton says Trump campaign doesn't ID any of alleged dead voters who allegedly cast a ballot - says its possible persons cast ballots before dying, but campaign doesn't list death date in filings

Hamilton says Trump campaign doesn't ID a single voter who they claim have voted twice, just a general list but no specific names.
"A categorial accusation doesn't make proof in court....this is trial by allegation, not proof."

Hamilton: This is an utter failure of proof on every level. Charitably, one might call it junk science, unreliable on it's face.

Hamilton says the Biden/Harris bus witness's claims are "patentably ludicrous" and adds that witness could not confirm that those alleged ballots were actually cast, just filled out

In regards to claims over Native American vote 'bribes,' Hamilton says "not a shred of evidence to suggest that anyone was offering something of value to manipulate a vote. Not a single thing that would indicate those individuals are acting on behalf of the Biden campaign."

Hamilton, in closing, says "breathtaking relief requires breathtaking evidence," which isn't present in this case.
"Contestants are bereft of evidence to support their outlandish claims."

Hamilton is finished - Binnall is back up for a rebuttal, but asks for a few minutes to formulate reply. So short break.

Judge is back, so hearing resumes

Binnall says evidence is clear, including 7 "Does" (anonymous whistleblowers who filed decelerations w/ court) that show major transparency concerns
"Transparency is not political. Transparency is something that is necessary for us to have a democratic election."

Binnall says defendants (Dems) are trying to add to Nevada law by requiring them to ID specific voters who broke laws/voted twice. Says campaign couldn't possibly depose 40K voters in short timeframe

Binnall says it's "quite honest" that Dems can't "attack the data itself," so they attack the data scientists. Says concerns raised about error rates and other statistical methods were not directly addressed by defendants.

Binnall says "their attacks on the data themselves are quite honestly weak."

In regards to Doe #1, Binnall says this is a great example of circumstantial evidence (this is the votes changed overnight claims).

On Doe #3 (Biden/Harris bus), Binnall says defendants can't impeach credibility of witness

Binnall says it Biden/Harris bus witness may have provided circumstantial evidence, but "it's striking."

Binnall says there is evidence of stars being used as signature but they were pushed through anyways (again, all this is under seal).

Says county election officials wanted to "get it done quick" and not get it done correctly

Binnall: This election was, unfortunately, stolen.

Binnall is finished.

Hamilton (Ds attorney) has nothing to add.

Judge Russell thanks parties - says court tried to accommodate everyone and everything as quickly as he could.

Russell says he wants to review evidence - orders each party to issue a proposed order by 10 a.m. tomorrow morning for his consideration. So this means no decision today.

Says court's preference is to decide on merits

That's it for the hearing.