Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,756
- 2,180
Not necessarily.
Much of the evidence, might have been factual, and real, and may, in fact, have affected the election. . . however. . . When ever cases were brought to the courts, they were not heard, the were rejected due to lack of standing.
Standing requirements
"There are three standing requirements:
- Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract).[42][43] The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
- Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[44]
- Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[45]"
Standing (law) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Even had the courts so found in favor of Trump, there was no conceivable redress according to law, but to throw the whole system into chaos, for the nefarious actor was not before the court.
Moot point. No benefit to hearing any of the cases or the supposed evidence. No standing.
That's not true. In many instances the 'evidence' being presented was found to be supposition, speculation, lacking factual basis, or uselessly unreliable. Take Melissa Carone for example made claims before a judge that the judge found neither believable nor credible.
That the same ballots were being re-run dozens of times in favor of Biden....and yet no one else, not any election official, not even one of the near dozen Republican poll observers reported seeing any such thing?
And while standing has been an issue cited as a reason for Trump's loses, so has the case Trump or his supporters presenting FAILING ON ITS MERITS. Judges have addressed the 'evidence' presented again and again and indicated that these cases would fail on their
"A. The Campaign has no strong likelihood of success on the merits
As discussed, the Campaign cannot win this lawsuit. It conceded that it is not alleging
election fraud. It has already raised and lost most of these state-law issues, and it cannot
relitigate them here. It cites no federal authority regulating poll watchers or notice and cure.
It alleges no specific discrimination. And it does not contest that it lacks standing under the
Elections and Electors Clauses. These claims cannot succeed.....
......
The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically chal-
lenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims
fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in
ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate
and upsetting all down-ballot races too."
-Trump v. Lawerence
November 25, 2020
This from a Trump appointed judge. And again different Trump appointed Judge, same conclusion: the case fails on standing AND merits.
"Wood does not allege unfairness in counting the ballots; instead, he alleges that select non-party, partisan monitors were not permitted to observe the Audit in an ideal manner. Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing......
.....As discussed above, Wood's allegations are the quintessential generalized grievance. He has not presented any evidence demonstrating how he will suffer any particularized harm as a voter or donor by the denial of this motion....
-Wood. V. Raffensperger
November 11, 2020
And yet ANOTHER Trump judge cited yet another election challenge by Trump's team as failing on its merits.
"A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred....
....This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits."
-U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig
December 12th 2020
With Trump appointed judge calling Trump's claims 'bizarre' and noting that Trump had failed to prove his claims. Again and again and again, these cases failed on standing AND their lack merit, with utterly insufficient evidence to back their claims.
Worse still, Trump had every opportunity to present all the evidence he wanted, call his witnesses and make his case. He was granted a full trial . And the day before the trial was to begin, when Trump's claims would face actual cross examination and be subject to the court standards of evidence, Trump voluntarily dismissed his own case
"On the eve of getting the day in court they supposedly were begging for, President Trump and Chairman David Shafer’s legal team folded Thursday and voluntarily dismissed their election contests against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger rather than submit their evidence to a court and to cross-examination. However, even in capitulation, they continue to spread disinformation."
Trump Legal Team Folds | Georgia Secretary of State
President Trump and Chairman David Shafer’s legal team folded Thursday and voluntarily dismissed their election contests.
But now its YOUTUBE that has all the evidence that your ilk failed to present in court, with the cases AGAIN AND AGAIN failing on their merit?
Good luck with that.
Last edited:
Thanks,I will take a look at it,the fact all the paid shills of the deep state and bits are all laughing at this or posting fake news is proof you hit a home run out of the ballpark.
