Biden's America

[Colin norris]

For the record, this is from Reuters, a conservative-leaning news source.

"State and federal judges -- some appointed by Trump -- have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump or his allies alleging election fraud and other irregularities. Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there has been no evidence of widespread fraud."

As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules

Republican state lawmakers have begun to use President Donald Trump’s baseless charges of voter fraud to push for new restrictions on voting.

www.reuters.com

This is the prevailing assessment. Dozens of court cases were brought, most were tossed quickly due to lack of evidence, and none were successful in changing any vote outcomes, even a little. Numerous election officials, including several appointed by Trump, have acknowledged that the many, many safeguards in place made this a perfectly fair and secure election.

It was fine, folks. He just lost. It happens.

None were tossed for lack of evidence you lying dipshit. All of the election challenge lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs bringing the suit, or the court's lack of jurisdiction, both of which are very different than lack of evidence. The courts don't even address evidentiary matters until the Discovery process is over, which takes a year at the minimum in federal court. I don't expect lay persons to know these things without having any experience in this area, but the least you could do is either refrain from commenting about complex matters you know nothing about, or do some genuine research and try to obtain a modicum of knowledge about it before posting nonsense like this.

Lack of standing by the plaintiff?
Do you mean trump?
He has no standing even when overseas.

 

[Pellinore]

For the record, this is from Reuters, a conservative-leaning news source.

"State and federal judges -- some appointed by Trump -- have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump or his allies alleging election fraud and other irregularities. Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there has been no evidence of widespread fraud."

As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules

Republican state lawmakers have begun to use President Donald Trump’s baseless charges of voter fraud to push for new restrictions on voting.

www.reuters.com

This is the prevailing assessment. Dozens of court cases were brought, most were tossed quickly due to lack of evidence, and none were successful in changing any vote outcomes, even a little. Numerous election officials, including several appointed by Trump, have acknowledged that the many, many safeguards in place made this a perfectly fair and secure election.

It was fine, folks. He just lost. It happens.

None were tossed for lack of evidence you lying dipshit. All of the election challenge lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs bringing the suit, or the court's lack of jurisdiction, both of which are very different than lack of evidence. The courts don't even address evidentiary matters until the Discovery process is over, which takes a year at the minimum in federal court. I don't expect lay persons to know these things without having any experience in this area, but the least you could do is either refrain from commenting about complex matters you know nothing about, or do some genuine research and try to obtain a modicum of knowledge about it before posting nonsense like this.

Oh. Well. You sure are confident that you know more about the law than a random Internet person about whom you know almost nothing. Are you an attorney?

Either way, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Of the 60-ish lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies, the most common reason in part or in full for their dismissal was lack of evidence, "did not prove," or something similar. A number of them were also dismissed voluntarily, and many of those appear to have been because their case (or a contingent case) fell apart. Others were dismissed for procedural reasons -- someone missed a filing deadline, or filed in the wrong court, or whatever.

Only a few were dismissed for lack of standing. Many dismissed cases were done so for multiple reasons, but all of the ones naming lack of standing had other reasons as well, except one (Texas v. Philadelphia et. al., when Texas tried to sue other states over their voting procedures). Even fewer were dismissed partly for jurisdiction.

I could list the whole docket here for you, but I don't particularly feel the need to go back and forth on this forever, or relitigate sixty long-resolved cases on the Internet. I really just hope that at some point (besides reassessing your information sources) you accept the mountain of evidence and move on, for your sake and the country's.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

For the record, this is from Reuters, a conservative-leaning news source.

"State and federal judges -- some appointed by Trump -- have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump or his allies alleging election fraud and other irregularities. Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there has been no evidence of widespread fraud."

As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules

Republican state lawmakers have begun to use President Donald Trump’s baseless charges of voter fraud to push for new restrictions on voting.

www.reuters.com

This is the prevailing assessment. Dozens of court cases were brought, most were tossed quickly due to lack of evidence, and none were successful in changing any vote outcomes, even a little. Numerous election officials, including several appointed by Trump, have acknowledged that the many, many safeguards in place made this a perfectly fair and secure election.

It was fine, folks. He just lost. It happens.

None were tossed for lack of evidence you lying dipshit. All of the election challenge lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs bringing the suit, or the court's lack of jurisdiction, both of which are very different than lack of evidence. The courts don't even address evidentiary matters until the Discovery process is over, which takes a year at the minimum in federal court. I don't expect lay persons to know these things without having any experience in this area, but the least you could do is either refrain from commenting about complex matters you know nothing about, or do some genuine research and try to obtain a modicum of knowledge about it before posting nonsense like this.

Oh. Well. You sure are confident that you know more about the law than a random Internet person about whom you know almost nothing. Are you an attorney?

Either way, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Of the 60-ish lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies, the most common reason in part or in full for their dismissal was lack of evidence, "did not prove," or something similar. A number of them were also dismissed voluntarily, and many of those appear to have been because their case (or a contingent case) fell apart. Others were dismissed for procedural reasons -- someone missed a filing deadline, or filed in the wrong court, or whatever.

Only a few were dismissed for lack of standing. Many dismissed cases were done so for multiple reasons, but all of the ones naming lack of standing had other reasons as well, except one (Texas v. Philadelphia et. al., when Texas tried to sue other states over their voting procedures). Even fewer were dismissed partly for jurisdiction.

I could list the whole docket here for you, but I don't particularly feel the need to go back and forth on this forever, or relitigate sixty long-resolved cases on the Internet. I really just hope that at some point (besides reassessing your information sources) you accept the mountain of evidence and move on, for your sake and the country's.

They're all listed right here, smarty pants:

Post-Election Litigation

Learn more.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Pellinore]

For the record, this is from Reuters, a conservative-leaning news source.

"State and federal judges -- some appointed by Trump -- have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump or his allies alleging election fraud and other irregularities. Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there has been no evidence of widespread fraud."

As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules

Republican state lawmakers have begun to use President Donald Trump’s baseless charges of voter fraud to push for new restrictions on voting.

www.reuters.com

This is the prevailing assessment. Dozens of court cases were brought, most were tossed quickly due to lack of evidence, and none were successful in changing any vote outcomes, even a little. Numerous election officials, including several appointed by Trump, have acknowledged that the many, many safeguards in place made this a perfectly fair and secure election.

It was fine, folks. He just lost. It happens.

None were tossed for lack of evidence you lying dipshit. All of the election challenge lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs bringing the suit, or the court's lack of jurisdiction, both of which are very different than lack of evidence. The courts don't even address evidentiary matters until the Discovery process is over, which takes a year at the minimum in federal court. I don't expect lay persons to know these things without having any experience in this area, but the least you could do is either refrain from commenting about complex matters you know nothing about, or do some genuine research and try to obtain a modicum of knowledge about it before posting nonsense like this.

Oh. Well. You sure are confident that you know more about the law than a random Internet person about whom you know almost nothing. Are you an attorney?

Either way, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Of the 60-ish lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies, the most common reason in part or in full for their dismissal was lack of evidence, "did not prove," or something similar. A number of them were also dismissed voluntarily, and many of those appear to have been because their case (or a contingent case) fell apart. Others were dismissed for procedural reasons -- someone missed a filing deadline, or filed in the wrong court, or whatever.

Only a few were dismissed for lack of standing. Many dismissed cases were done so for multiple reasons, but all of the ones naming lack of standing had other reasons as well, except one (Texas v. Philadelphia et. al., when Texas tried to sue other states over their voting procedures). Even fewer were dismissed partly for jurisdiction.

I could list the whole docket here for you, but I don't particularly feel the need to go back and forth on this forever, or relitigate sixty long-resolved cases on the Internet. I really just hope that at some point (besides reassessing your information sources) you accept the mountain of evidence and move on, for your sake and the country's.

They're all listed right here, smarty pants:

Post-Election Litigation

Learn more.

www.democracydocket.com

Well, thank you for not making me type them all out, but if you go through the cases and read the orders, you'll find that they back up what I said and contradict what you said.

You're pro-Trump, I get it. It sucks when your guy loses, but he did. It's up to you if you want to keep shouting someone else's lies on message boards, or accept reality and try to move forward. Good luck.