To the Editor:

Each week I read Constantinos Scaros’ Commentary albeit his views are antithetical to mine, seeking to expand my perspective on the current political climate. But his defense of former President Trump’s relentless and unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the 2020 election in his column ‘The Chilling Effect on Challenging Election Results’ (TNH August 12) lacked cogent argument.

I focus specifically on his assertions: “At what point does a losing candidate not have the right to challenge the election results? Does lack of proof of fraud unequivocally prove there wasn’t any?”

Dino, the federal indictment for election interference and related serious charges explicitly acknowledges that right to challenge an election result by a losing candidate. In fact, Trump and his cohorts filed in excess of 60 lawsuits to that end. When I last checked, one, yes, one, had succeeded (on an insignificant procedural point); so yes, that right of challenge is not challenged. But maybe the reason nearly every election challenge was rejected by the Courts, even often by Trump-appointed judges, was that in fact Trump had no proof of fraud. Yes, as a brother counsel, you do know that the party alleging serious matters such as fraud in an election has the burden of proof to demonstrate same. And thus the logical and legal corollary: in the legal system lack of proof has the same end result as “unequivocally proving there wasn’t any.”

There was and is no proof that any fraud remotely sufficient to affect the 2020 presidential election occurred. Trump’s actions in continuing to assert same are an affront to logic and reason and the rule of law.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory J Stamos, Esq.

Woodbridge, CT