While Joe Biden has been acknowledged as president-elect by credible news sources, foreign leaders, and prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, the Trump campaign continues its upward legal climb. His campaign has filed a number of lawsuits in battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada, alleging voter fraud and requesting recounts in an attempt to prevent the certification of election results. According to bipartisan experts, however, such claims of fraud are baseless.
Trump appointee Christopher Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), attested to the security and integrity of the 2020 presidential election and refuted Trump’s unsubstantiated claims. Krebs shared a report on Twitter that cited 59 election security experts asserting that there was no evidence of computer fraud during this election. A few hours after Tweeting this report, Krebs was fired. CISA also issued statements combatting claims that dead people’s votes were being counted, as well as claims that results could be changed without detection.
It’s unsurprising then that the Trump campaign has failed to provide evidence to support their allegations in court. While there have been a few scattered victories, his team has yet to win a case big enough to change any results.
It seems Trump’s lawyers know that their chances of changing anything are slim, as they have made several missteps in the past few weeks, such as misspelling “poll watchers” as “pole watchers.” Rudy Guilliani, when representing Trump in Pennsylvania, forgot the names of an opposing lawyer and the presiding judge, as well as misunderstood the meaning of the word “opacity.” Again in Pennsylvania, three of Trump’s attorneys withdrew and were replaced by Marc Scaringi, an attorney and talk show host who had said on his radio show that several of Trump’s lawsuits “don’t seem to have much evidence to substantiate their claims.”
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine says these mistakes “underscore the lack of seriousness with which these claims are being brought.”