Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

[Natural Citizen]

Biden's current COVID relief plan has 90% American support...

Care to tell me what policy Republicans have that has 90% support


I'll wait.....

Oh, hey, btw, I noticed Biden supports repealing section 230 now.

Trump and Biden both want to revoke Section 230, but for different reasons

It's always been war on the little guy's voice. I told you guys that months ago. Duh.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway, I'm gonna go make some Cream of Wheat. Mm Mm gud.

 

[L.K.Eder]

one example: the pennsylvania case.

https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=368

in the list categorized as not fully heard. and dismissed because lack of standing.
if you read the ruling, you can see that they judged on the merits as well, and found those severely lacking. trump's lawyers did not even really try. LOL


and then all the whining about "we could not present our evidence because of the evil court system and the nazi liberals". pathetic.

 

[MeBelle]

one example: the pennsylvania case.

https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=368

in the list categorized as not fully heard. and dismissed because lack of standing.
if you read the ruling, you can see that they judged on the merits as well, and found those severely lacking. trump's lawyers did not even really try. LOL


and then all the whining about "we could not present our evidence because of the evil court system and the nazi liberals". pathetic.

Wow!

Why is your three case summary so different from the list in the OP?

 

[L.K.Eder]

one example: the pennsylvania case.

https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=368

in the list categorized as not fully heard. and dismissed because lack of standing.
if you read the ruling, you can see that they judged on the merits as well, and found those severely lacking. trump's lawyers did not even really try. LOL


and then all the whining about "we could not present our evidence because of the evil court system and the nazi liberals". pathetic.

Wow!

Why is your three case summary so different from the list in the OP?

WOW!!??

my "summary"?

i took the link from the list, and read the ruling. try it some time.

 

[Penelope]

Shows how badly tramp wanted to win but he lost the EC and maj votes.

 

[MeBelle]

one example: the pennsylvania case.

https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=368

in the list categorized as not fully heard. and dismissed because lack of standing.
if you read the ruling, you can see that they judged on the merits as well, and found those severely lacking. trump's lawyers did not even really try. LOL


and then all the whining about "we could not present our evidence because of the evil court system and the nazi liberals". pathetic.

Wow!

Why is your three case summary so different from the list in the OP?

WOW!!??

my "summary"?

i took the link from the list, and read the ruling. try it some time.

No need to be a jerk.
I asked an honest question.

I obviously made my observation by reading both links.

Do you mean you clicked on a link?

 

[L.K.Eder]

one example: the pennsylvania case.

https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=368

in the list categorized as not fully heard. and dismissed because lack of standing.
if you read the ruling, you can see that they judged on the merits as well, and found those severely lacking. trump's lawyers did not even really try. LOL


and then all the whining about "we could not present our evidence because of the evil court system and the nazi liberals". pathetic.

Wow!

Why is your three case summary so different from the list in the OP?

WOW!!??

my "summary"?

i took the link from the list, and read the ruling. try it some time.

No need to be a jerk.
I asked an honest question.

I obviously made my observation by reading both links.

Do you mean you clicked on a link?

i looked at the list provided in the op. looked for the well known case in pa, where judges brann and bibas (in the appeal) slapped the trumptards down hard.
i clicked the link provided in the list, and reposted it here.
in the linked page there are more links, including to the rulings. i managed to click a further link, and then managed to read the ruling.
then i clicked on "post reply" and managed to post in this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and so-called fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by Trump's campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue.

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15.


Spreadsheet...

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Thanks for that data!

 

[JLW]

Most do these Trump “wins” a the OP classifies them deal with late ballots that would not have affected the election outcome one iota.

In the cases that matter, the tossing out of millions of ballots, allegations of impropriety , Etc., those cases were dismissed and the lawyers who brought those cases are on the verge of being sanctioned by their respective bar associations or are now engaged in litigation for making false and defamatory statements.

The OP can put lip stick on the Trumpist pig, but it is and always will be a pig.

 

[Penelope]

The findings do not necessarily suggest that if the lawsuits had all been decided before Joe Biden was certified as the official winner of the presidential election by Congress on Jan. 7 that former President Trump would have won the hotly contested election.

Nor would they necessarily have affected many of the Electoral College votes won by Biden in the disputed battleground states. Some of the legal victories took place in states like Colorado and Iowa where the popular vote counts for the respective winners of those states –Biden in Colorado and Trump in Iowa— were not close.

Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered | Citizens Journal | Citizens Journal

 

[Natural Citizen]

The findings do not necessarily suggest that if the lawsuits had all been decided before Joe Biden was certified as the official winner of the presidential election by Congress on Jan. 7 that former President Trump would have won the hotly contested election.

Nor would they necessarily have affected many of the Electoral College votes won by Biden in the disputed battleground states. Some of the legal victories took place in states like Colorado and Iowa where the popular vote counts for the respective winners of those states –Biden in Colorado and Trump in Iowa— were not close.

Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered | Citizens Journal | Citizens Journal

Your television lies to you.

I believe someone was saying a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth comes out. Heh heh.

 

[Toro]

The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and so-called fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by Trump's campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue.

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15.


Spreadsheet...

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Most of those in your link won by the GOP were either before the election or were on technical grounds.

Here is a list of most of the post-election lawsuits. Most were dismissed or dropped. The reason why they were dismissed or dropped is because there wasn't any evidence.

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BULLDOG]

15 out of 22 ain't bad considering how many crooked liberal judges there are. As more of these cases get heard it will only get better for the Trumpers.

Yes. The courts saying observers should be allowed within 6 ft instead of 10 ft was a huge win for trump's team. Remind me again how that proves trump won.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and so-called fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by Trump's campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue.

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15.


Spreadsheet...

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Haha...this thread is just great. So, of the cases that were NOT laughed out of court because they had NO merit?

And how many showed any significant fraud? Zero.

So, in a nutshell, every single case that charged what was at the basis of the slob's lies was laughed right out of court.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Most of those in your link won by the GOP were either before the election or were on technical grounds.

Hey, early bird catches the worm, I always say. And the grounds are always technical.

Here is a list of most of the post-election lawsuits. Most were dismissed or dropped.

Very nice, I'm sure you'll find those same cases in the original link. No need to look the other way.

 

[Oddball]

Trumpers are pathetic....

He's not a Trumper, Gomer Pyle.

 

[Indeependent]

Trumpers are pathetic....

Bideners are pathetic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The claim often repeated by the mainstream media, social-media content moderators, and so-called fact-checkers that lawsuits filed by Trump's campaign and Republicans were universally dismissed by the courts is untrue.

Of the 22 cases that have been heard by the courts and decided on their merits, Trump and Republicans have prevailed in 15.


Spreadsheet...

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

Lets look at ONE of the 15:

RNC/Trump claimed mailed ballots in Iowa should not be pre-filled. Judge agrees. Blank ballots are sent instead. Filed: 08/2020. Decision: 09/2020

Now wait a sec...surely you arent trying to misrepresent these lawsuits as being after the election, or as having any bearing whatsoever on the lies of the ex-President...


....right?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Lets look at ONE of the 15:

No, huh uh. Let us not. Observational selection invites intellectually dishonest dialogue and sets a strategically deceptive premise. Additionally, if there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work, including the premise, not just some of them. HelloOoo. Why not just hold up a big sign saying, hey, follow my lead, let's all learn to purposefully misunderstand the nature of statistics by suppressing evidence and regurgitating half-truths so we can sell a good bullshit story?

No, FFI. Let us do it like this. Let us take all of the cases and recognize the malfeasance and intellectual dishonesty of mainstream media, social-media content moderators and so-called fact-checkers who openly lied as well as give a a hat tip to the average message board smut muppet who blindly regurgitated the blatant malfeasance when they stated that cases were universally dismissed by the courts.

And then let us thank Natty C for setting the record straight.

Personally, I think it's the right thing to do, but it's just whuhevs. No biggie. I'm a humble man.

I mean, I get it. The truth do sting, don't it? Almost as much as having to acknowledge it. But we're shooting for the truth...the whole truth...and nothing but the truth. It's just proper human relations, man.

Right?