But according to California attorney and LawNewz contributor Robert Barnes, there is “substantial evidence” to make a great case. He writes:
The best study on the subject — a study that meets the Daubert standards for admissible evidence in a jury trial in a legal courtroom — provides substantial evidence that non-citizen voting alone likely reached over a million in this election. A trio of well-regarded scholars used scientifically approved methods to study the question of non-citizen voting in federal elections. The result of their study published in one of the best-regarded peer-review political science journals, Electoral Studies. The evidence from their study suggested upwards of 10% of non-citizens voted in 2008; given the issues implicated in this election, a higher number would be a reasonable inference for a jury to conclude. Given the increase in non-citizen members of the population, the same study’s conclusions would project out to millions of illegal votes from non-citizen voters in this election.But that’s just the start. Those numbers don’t include other instances, such as illegal votes, illegally counted votes or counties and precincts which “accidentally” over-counted votes, states Barnes.
For example in Detroit, Barnes notes that some precincts counted more votes than there are citizens. And guess what? “The over-counting overwhelmingly occurred in heavily pro-Hillary precincts with precinct workers overwhelmingly in Democratically controlled cities and counties.”
With all of this in mind, Barnes believes there’s enough to make the case that Trump is probably right:
In sum, if on trial, Trump’s belief of illegal voting has more than enough evidence to get to a jury. Sorry, Jake Tapper, but, from a jury trial perspective, the evidence isn’t as one-sided as you would like it to be.http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/report-substantial-evidence-over-million-illegal-aliens-voted-2016
