Legal Adviser for President Trump Says These Arguments in Sidney Powell’s Lawsuits Could ‘Affect the Outcome of the Election
Pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell finally came through on her promise to legally challenge the 2020 election Thursday by releasing two highly anticipated lawsuits in Georgia and Michigan alleging widespread fraud. As for what affect the lawsuits will have on the results of the election — which for now show former Vice President Joe Biden defeating President Trump 306-232 in the Electoral College — that remains to be seen.
But at least one Trump campaign legal adviser appears to believe that the claims made in the Georgia lawsuit, if argued successfully before a judge, could overturn the election and grant the president a victory.
In a lengthy Twitter thread Thursday, Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer and former Republican Party official who is now involved in the Trump campaign’s legal effort, summarized the key claims made in Powell’s suit. She acknowledged that while some of Powell’s major arguments — such as that Dominion Voting Systems software was hacked and that thousands of ballots were pre-printed for Biden — would certainly “be enough to change the election results,” they may be more difficult to prove in court.
Instead, Dhillon suggested that a simpler path to victory for Powell would be to lean into a couple lesser, but still serious, claims of election fraud made in the suit.
“To me, the easiest way to reach the goal [of overturning the election] is something much simpler alleged in the complaint at para. 121,” wrote Dhillon. “That thousands of specific, identifiable voters, cast ballots after they moved out of state as evidenced in their registration in a national database, and may even have cast votes in their new states also which can easily be checked against the other state’s records. This accounts for thousands of votes.”
“The other category Matt Braynard has researched & documented, is thousands of identifiable, specific registrations at fraudulent addresses such as P.O. Boxes, non-residential, etc.,” she continued. “These seem to be specific and of a sufficient volume that their disqualification would affect the outcome of the election. I think this simple tack — much easier to grasp and prove than the more complicated theories — is compelling.”