- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
List of 2020 Election Fraud Cases 81 Cases Total, 30 Still Active.. 0 heard evidence
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:24 am
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:24 am
LINK
There are 81 court cases to date based on the 2020 election
In 45 cases President Trump was the plaintiff
In 34 cases President Trump is not the plaintiff
In 2 cases President Trump is the defendant
In 72 cases illegal voting is alleged
In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented
30 cases remain active
There are 81 court cases to date based on the 2020 election
In 45 cases President Trump was the plaintiff
In 34 cases President Trump is not the plaintiff
In 2 cases President Trump is the defendant
In 72 cases illegal voting is alleged
In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented
30 cases remain active
11
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:25 am to GodnCountry
Muh fraud has never been proven.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:25 am to GodnCountry
No one has standing. This is a banana republic
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:26 am to GodnCountry
quote:That’s completely false. Several of the cases requested injunctive relief and as part of the court’s analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits considered the evidence proffered.
In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:28 am to GodnCountry
quote:
In ZERO of the 72 cases where illegal voting is alleged has evidence been allowed to be presented
Actually that's not how it works.
In 100% of the 72 cases evidence was allowed to be presented. All of the affidavits, documents, videos, etc were presented. They're public record. You can access them on the internet just like any publicly filed lawsuit. It's not like they were sealed or secret or anything.
But in 100% of the cases, the judges determined that the evidence was not compelling enough to even move forward to hearings or oral arguments.
The evidence is all there. It's all public. It just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:28 am to GodnCountry
Are the affidavits evidence? Those were included in the lawsuits.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:29 am to GodnCountry
quote:
Evidence Argued means that: a) the Plaintiff was able to present ALL of their empirical evidence related to voting malfeasance, impropriety, etc. and b) the judge authorized an independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the claimed voting malfeasance, impropriety, etc.
this guy just makes up a standard that doesn’t exist anywhere other than his listThis post was edited on 1/24/21 at 11:32 am
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:30 am to WDE24
quote:
Several of the cases requested injunctive relief and as part of the court’s analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits considered the evidence proffered.
I have considered your evidence of the merits of the evidence proffered and I reject it.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:33 am to No Colors
quote:
But in 100% of the cases, the judges determined that the evidence was not compelling enough to even move forward to hearings or oral arguments.
The evidence is all there. It's all public. It just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud.
I remember this same situation in Rams v Saints, 2019. 5th circuit jurisdiction I believe.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:33 am to No Colors
quote:Define substantial
The evidence is all there. It's all public. It just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:33 am to Meauxjeaux
Yeah it turns out the affidavit from the guy who flunked out of a Military Intel training unit wasn’t super credible. Big shocker.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:37 am to WDE24
quote:
That’s completely false.
You are completely wrong.
quote:
Several of the cases requested injunctive relief and as part of the court’s analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits considered the evidence proffered.
Good Lord!
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:53 am to ChexMix
quote:
The evidence is all there. It's all public. It just doesn't add up to substantial voter fraud.
Define substantial
The judges are the ones who define substantial. Because they're the ones who looked at the evidence. Over 100 of them.
There are only two conclusions here;
1) over 100 judges -- including the SCOTUS, and many judges appointed by Trump -- are all corrupt, and on the take. All were all to a person bribed by the Deep State to deny Trump the presidency.
2) Or Trump had no evidence of substantial fraud.
Which do you think is more likely?
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:56 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
Muh fraud has never been proven.
You mean like the Wisconsin case that ruled that the "indefinitely confined" status was wrongly applied?
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:57 am to GodnCountry
Of those cases how many alleged fraud and presented evidence other than affidavits from randos with Q brain worms?
Posted on 1/24/21 at 11:58 am to No Colors
quote:looked the other way
over 100 judges -- including the SCOTUS, and many judges appointed by Trump
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:01 pm to No Colors
quote:
There are only two conclusions here;
That's wrong.
Clearly points out what the ruling was.
Most on the list seem to use no standing.
That's not hearing the evidence and ruling.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:02 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Is it your contention that none of the judges who rejected cases on standing heard and considered evidence?
Most on the list seem to use no standing.
That's not hearing the evidence and ruling.
This post was edited on 1/24/21 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:02 pm to ChexMix
quote:
looked the other way
Do you know how hard it is to get 100 independent people to agree to anything? To all do the same thing? Just magically? It's simply way more likely that the evidence just isn't there.
Posted on 1/24/21 at 12:03 pm to No Colors
Not only the judges, but numerous Republican Governors, Attorney Generals, Legislators, and other election officials.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News