Fuzzy we had “fact finding investigations” around voter fraud and they found nothing. You said you’d accept the courts as the final arbiter on whether voter fraud happened and when they ruled nothing fishy happened you just ignored it and kept saying voter fraud happened. This is no different then when you throw out accusations or talking points that get debunked and run away from the thread like nothing happened wait a couple days and post the same accusations or talking points again.
That presumes the Courts would actually hear the questions and hear witnesses. That hasn't happened. It should happen. As for "debunked" allegations, the MSM lacks the credibilty to debunk anything about this past election. They have not been objective reporters of fact; they have been activists in the tank to elect Biden at all costs. An independent press is something we don't have now.
We've spend millions on Russiagate (which has been debunked by investigation). We can spend money on this. There is cause for it. People who are actually liberal should be fine with this.
If that is the case than Trump has no one to blame but himself
He had more than enough opportunities to present compelling evidence to Judges that he Himself appointed to the courts
We should not have to spend tax payer money on a silly fact finding investigation just because trump hired and incompetent lawyer like Rudy Giuliani who could not even get "Trump Judges" to take his claims of voter fraud seriously
A couple weeks back, I went and dug through
all the post-election 2020 lawsuits listed in Wikipedia. While I'm not about to read them all again, and my notes are far from detailed enough for formal publication, the results of even a casual review demolish the claims of election deniers like Fuzzy.
I went through 54 cases. The results were (with four unresolved at that time):
Lack of Standing/Dismissed as Moot/Too late/wrong jurisdiction: 15
Dropped/Voluntarily Dismissed: 11
Without Substantial Justification/Solely or primarily for delay or harassment: 1
Ruling Issued: 3
Bailey v. Antrim Cty (MI)
Judge allowed release of the plaintiff's report on voting machine security.
Trump v Biden (WI)
Ruled in favor of the respondents: Biden et al.
The district court "affirmed" the certification of Wisconsin's presidential election result
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections (PA)
The court concluded that Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lacked statutory authority to prolong the deadline for proof of identification and ordered for such segregated ballots not to be counted. May be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dismissed: 20
(selected excerpts from dismissals follow):
"sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence"/ "largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections"
"no allegations of fraud or illegality"
"The Court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election."
"no evidence produced"
"no basis in fact or in law"
"[p]laintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible"
plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions” “mere speculation”/ “plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible"
"Plaintiff's allegations are largely based on declarations and newspaper articles. The Court would necessarily need to disregard those declarations as inadmissible hearsay. The Court finds that Plaintiff has offered no evidence sufficient to find any error…. that would warrant granting the relief sought here."
"petitioners failed to make a prima facie showing through substantial evidence that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the Secretary of State from implementing AB 4. Petitioners did not allege any burden that the challenged provisions of AB 4 impose on an identifiable group's right to vote"
"Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election"
"unhinged from the underlying right being asserted"
"voters should not be disenfranchised based on advisory portions of the Election Code"
"meritless"/"no basis in reason or law"
"claims fail as a matter of law and fact"/"lost on the merits"
