Trump only actually had half a dozen cases of his own. Other citizen groups and voting groups drafted the other cases.
Since those groups weren't the ones disenfranchised, they were thrown out before evidence was even looked at. There was no court case at all, not only did HE not lose them, they weren't even lost. All can appeal to a higher court, but there wasn't enough time/money from independent groups to do so. Most court cases can take several years.
The cases Trump actually had, they used the oldest trick in the lame-judge rule book:
"If the damage is already done, say they should have filed the case BEFORE damages. If the election hasn't happened yet, there haven't been any damages incurred, so they can't file a suit. In other words, GFYS"
Trump has not lost a single case, as no ruling has been delivered. They all have been tossed aside before any evidence was heard by a judge. They then go to a panel of judges on appeal who also toss the case. Then it goes to the SCOTUS and then they can just say there is no standing and while you still have not lost, and the rigged system successfully ran the clock out.
This trick has been used so much that Trump knew the courts would never go anywhere. The court cases were all just to show how rigged the court system has been against the American people for a long, long time.
"If the damage is already done, say they should have filed the case BEFORE damages. If the election hasn't happened yet, there haven't been any damages incurred, so they can't file a suit. In other words, GFYS"
I think this fucker wants to break my arm, let me go ahead and sue him. Fucking ridiculous.
The Too Late ones were ruled to be so because whatever had happened had happened and so it was too late to change anything. All the votes had been cast.
The Too Early ruling was because nothing had actually happened that could be prosecuted yet. It would have been a case based on speculation rather than fact.
The Too Late ones were ruled to be so because whatever had happened had happened and so it was too late to change anything. All the votes had been cast.
The legal term for this is "laches". It's an ancient rule that says you can't wait an unreasonable amount of time to sue over something, if that delay causes problems for other people. If you have a problem with election procedures, you're supposed to sue before the election so that they can be fixed in time for the election. If something happens during the election that you couldn't have anticipated, then you are allowed to sue after the election, as long as you're reasonably prompt about it.
The Too Early ruling was because nothing had actually happened that could be prosecuted yet. It would have been a case based on speculation rather than fact.
Again, this is a longstanding legal principle. You can sue over something that is clearly about to happen, but you can't sue to prevent something just based on a guess that it might happen. Can you imagine the chaos if people could sue each other over hypotheticals?
There is no dispute that would have been "too early" before the election and "too late" after the election. Many disputes over election procedures were heard on the merits before the election. Some disputes over fraud were heard on the merits after the election.
In one case, the witness (counting observer in michigan) said that he saw crates of ballots brought in at the back of the room but he couldnt see them. The judge said that his testimony was just hearsay cus he couldnt see if all the ballots were for biden
They didn't want their Epstein tapes being released. They didn't want to upset their actual bosses- the people who funded their campaigns and made them rich in exchange for compliance. They didn't want to risk getting a knock on their door and opening it to get blasted in the chest with a shotgun like what happened to other judges who dared investigate the wrong things. The noose of corruption is firmly slipped over their neck.
Who cares what they say? Watch what they do. The MSM "says" there is no fraud. So, I guess case closed? Biden "says" there's no fraud. What somebody says matters 0%. What matters is an objective and analytical look at the evidence. There was obviously evidence of fraud, it's undeniable. If a judge denies it for any reason, they obviously have a hidden motive. It's basic.
Link to the SC case of Trump's. Responses were due by today. Looks like everyone waived their right to respond. I believe this is in favor of President Trump
Some of the cases were made by third parties, so they had no standing on which to sue. After all, the election results didn't harm them in any way. There were also cases (complaining about the changes to the way votes were being held due to COVID restrictions) which were told that since nothing had happened (brought before the election), that it wasn't a valid case and they had to wait until they were harmed. And some cases where people were told they should have sued earlier (before election happened rather than after).
There's also the problem that each invididual case of voter fraud wouldn't, by itself, overturn the election.
I remember Rudy Giuliani saying that they had only filed 3 cases, not over 50 at a hearing (I don't have a link right now, but I could try to find one).
There was a whole variety of different cases brought by different groups in different states over different issues. The rulings are all online - you can look them up if you want. The Trump campaign actually did win some cases, though most of these were before the election, which is when most election litigation usually happens. Generally the post-election losses came down to one of the following factors:
the plaintiffs were not directly involved in the dispute (i.e. they weren't candidates or campaigns) so they didn't have standing
they were trying to fight state law issues in federal courts
they were trying to relitigate stuff that had already been dealt with by previous cases
they were trying to dispute long-established election procedures just before the election or after the election
the small number of cases that were actually focused on fraud only offered really flimsy evidence, including a lot of hearsay ("our witness says that somebody else said that...") which is generally not admissible, and expert witnesses who clearly had no idea what they were talking about (e.g. one was an anonymous person who claimed to have worked on missile systems and argued that this made them an expert on voting machines)
Tbh I suspect that most of the people who brought these cases knew they had no chance of winning, and were just doing it for the publicity or whatever.
Lack of standing.
Trump only actually had half a dozen cases of his own. Other citizen groups and voting groups drafted the other cases.
Since those groups weren't the ones disenfranchised, they were thrown out before evidence was even looked at. There was no court case at all, not only did HE not lose them, they weren't even lost. All can appeal to a higher court, but there wasn't enough time/money from independent groups to do so. Most court cases can take several years.
The cases Trump actually had, they used the oldest trick in the lame-judge rule book:
Trump has not lost a single case, as no ruling has been delivered. They all have been tossed aside before any evidence was heard by a judge. They then go to a panel of judges on appeal who also toss the case. Then it goes to the SCOTUS and then they can just say there is no standing and while you still have not lost, and the rigged system successfully ran the clock out.
This trick has been used so much that Trump knew the courts would never go anywhere. The court cases were all just to show how rigged the court system has been against the American people for a long, long time.
vs. merit tells you everything you need to know. Avoids the whole messy evidence presented part.
Every single citizen in this country should have standing when it comes to fraud in federal elections
I think this fucker wants to break my arm, let me go ahead and sue him. Fucking ridiculous.
The whole damn court system is corrupt.
Cases brought before election thrown out because they were filed to "early"
Cases brought after filed to "late"
It's a game
Sadly, yes.
The Too Late ones were ruled to be so because whatever had happened had happened and so it was too late to change anything. All the votes had been cast.
The Too Early ruling was because nothing had actually happened that could be prosecuted yet. It would have been a case based on speculation rather than fact.
The legal term for this is "laches". It's an ancient rule that says you can't wait an unreasonable amount of time to sue over something, if that delay causes problems for other people. If you have a problem with election procedures, you're supposed to sue before the election so that they can be fixed in time for the election. If something happens during the election that you couldn't have anticipated, then you are allowed to sue after the election, as long as you're reasonably prompt about it.
Again, this is a longstanding legal principle. You can sue over something that is clearly about to happen, but you can't sue to prevent something just based on a guess that it might happen. Can you imagine the chaos if people could sue each other over hypotheticals?
There is no dispute that would have been "too early" before the election and "too late" after the election. Many disputes over election procedures were heard on the merits before the election. Some disputes over fraud were heard on the merits after the election.
Fucking handshake kys
Biased. They even refused to take a look at the evidence. Rejected without consideration.
This is what we mean by Activist Judges.
insufficient evidence
In other words, they did not look at it.
Exactly
That's just it. They didn't look. They just rubber stamped it and refused to hear the case.
In one case, the witness (counting observer in michigan) said that he saw crates of ballots brought in at the back of the room but he couldnt see them. The judge said that his testimony was just hearsay cus he couldnt see if all the ballots were for biden
Most were on lack of standing or timing. Almost none proceeded the point of presenting any evidence.
They didn't want their Epstein tapes being released. They didn't want to upset their actual bosses- the people who funded their campaigns and made them rich in exchange for compliance. They didn't want to risk getting a knock on their door and opening it to get blasted in the chest with a shotgun like what happened to other judges who dared investigate the wrong things. The noose of corruption is firmly slipped over their neck.
Who cares what they say? Watch what they do. The MSM "says" there is no fraud. So, I guess case closed? Biden "says" there's no fraud. What somebody says matters 0%. What matters is an objective and analytical look at the evidence. There was obviously evidence of fraud, it's undeniable. If a judge denies it for any reason, they obviously have a hidden motive. It's basic.
Link to the SC case of Trump's. Responses were due by today. Looks like everyone waived their right to respond. I believe this is in favor of President Trump
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C20-845.html
Some of the cases were made by third parties, so they had no standing on which to sue. After all, the election results didn't harm them in any way. There were also cases (complaining about the changes to the way votes were being held due to COVID restrictions) which were told that since nothing had happened (brought before the election), that it wasn't a valid case and they had to wait until they were harmed. And some cases where people were told they should have sued earlier (before election happened rather than after).
There's also the problem that each invididual case of voter fraud wouldn't, by itself, overturn the election.
I remember Rudy Giuliani saying that they had only filed 3 cases, not over 50 at a hearing (I don't have a link right now, but I could try to find one).
Some of the cases are still docketed at SCOTUS, like Wood’s. Just sitting there, since December 8.
His first case was 11/13 and it has been through all the lower courts (dismissed for standing or timing).
Corruption. All the "standing" crap was just garbage from corrupt judges
blackmail and TDS
There was a whole variety of different cases brought by different groups in different states over different issues. The rulings are all online - you can look them up if you want. The Trump campaign actually did win some cases, though most of these were before the election, which is when most election litigation usually happens. Generally the post-election losses came down to one of the following factors:
the plaintiffs were not directly involved in the dispute (i.e. they weren't candidates or campaigns) so they didn't have standing
they were trying to fight state law issues in federal courts
they were trying to relitigate stuff that had already been dealt with by previous cases
they were trying to dispute long-established election procedures just before the election or after the election
the small number of cases that were actually focused on fraud only offered really flimsy evidence, including a lot of hearsay ("our witness says that somebody else said that...") which is generally not admissible, and expert witnesses who clearly had no idea what they were talking about (e.g. one was an anonymous person who claimed to have worked on missile systems and argued that this made them an expert on voting machines)
Tbh I suspect that most of the people who brought these cases knew they had no chance of winning, and were just doing it for the publicity or whatever.
Corruption with a side of Blackmail!!
Corruption. Blackmail. Brownstoning