4 ms·

The lawsuits went nowhere because the courts determined there wasnt standing in many of the cases. A party cannot get subpoenas to investigate without a case. N

The lawsuits went nowhere because the courts determined there wasnt standing in many of the cases. A party cannot get subpoenas to investigate without a case. No case == No Investigation or presentation of evidence. So I would say its more along the lines that they tried to look under the rug many times but everytime they tried they got denied. How is standing assessed? That there has been damages to the party. The party is claiming that there was voter fraud however most of the evidence they need to prove their damages require a subpeona which they need a court case to start gathering proof. Do you see the catch 22 there? I am not a lawyer but presenting all your evidence before a trial seems poor form.

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
Some of them were dismissed for standing. Quite a few were dismissed because they lacked specific allegations and/or evidence. You don't have to present all your evidence before a trial, but your filings at the start of the process do need to create a picture of the standing you have, the harm you've suffered, and the evidence you intend to present. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-idUKKBN2872BA https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-penn...
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... United States Supreme Court Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. - Dismissed on standing. Arizona Aguilera v. Fontes - Voluntarily Dismissed Aguilera v. Fontes - Dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs - Voluntarily Dismissed Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - Dismissed Ward v. Jackson - Dismissed Bowyer v. Ducey - Dismissed on standing Stevenson v. Ducey - Dismissed The case was dropped because by the plaintiff because even if the plaintiff won, they would still be short a few hundred votes. Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Georgia In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020 - Dismissed Brooks v. Mahoney - Voluntarily Dropped Wood v. Raffensperger - Dismissed on Standing Pearson v. Kemp - Dismissed on standing Boland v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Trump v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Favorito et al. v. Fulton County et al. - Dismissed Trump v. Kemp et al. - Dismissed Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Im not going to list every single state but its very similar elsewhere. Dismissed for standing, jurisdiction, or trumps team dropped the suit voluntarily. The statue of limitations is VERY short for elections. Going back to the Catch 22, many of the personal testimonies the trump legal trump had saying they witnessed fraud were thrown out or could not be used until a trial. So, he cannot use a subpoena , and his witnesses were not allowed to testify. What would you recommend he do? So now you get crazy schemes like Mr Pillow to collect data during the election so they have something to bring to court. At least that sounds like their plan no matter how wacky it is. Now, I dont believe that Trump won. But I do believe they should've gave the guy his day in court. To deny someone that on the basis that they will just keep coming back looking elsewhere is not right. By denying his day in court you have emboldened their supporters and disenfranchised independent voters who want secure elections, like myself.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    You might want to ask yourself why Bill Barr, with the powers and visibility he had as AG/head of DOJ, looked at the pile of fraud allegations and told his boss it was a big box of nothing. I'm sure he's just part of the conspiracy, or something...
  - mindslight 3y ago
    A pattern of outcomes being similar isn't indicative of much when a large number of suits were filed with a shotgun approach. The only way you can sift through this from first principles is to read the legal briefs that were actually filed, and see for yourself if there is something substantive there. I read and analyzed a sampling of two cases, and saw the same pattern where there were a whole bunch of straightforward banal claims plus a whole bunch of grandiose conclusions, without any logical linking of the two. The grandiose claims were widely quoted in the press though, despite being completely unsubstantiated. That was enough to satisfy my own opinion.
    - georgeplusplus 3y ago
      >>>...a large number of suits were filed with a shotgun approach. The only way you can sift through this from first principles is to read the legal briefs that were actually filed. True and I think that's a good observation. My takeaway from it was they were looking to get a trial and up against a fast approaching statue of limitations. I also think the fraud they claimed was very novel for a case. What evidence would a person need to bring forward to meet the criteria for standing in a federal election> I still don't know even though most of these cases were dropped for it. A lot of the sound bites in the press focused on what I thought was frivolous political points on both sides so I think the answer is like many of the issues we are facing these days, in the middle. However, I do believe giving Trump a day in court and having faith in the system would be overall the best to move the country forward. Maybe he is allowed to bring forward some evidence in his criminal trials for why he believed there was fraud? We shall see.

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago

Some of them were dismissed for standing. Quite a few were dismissed because they lacked specific allegations and/or evidence. You don't have to present all your evidence before a trial, but your filings at the start of the process do need to create a picture of the standing you have, the harm you've suffered, and the evidence you intend to present. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-idUKKBN2872BA https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-penn...

georgeplusplus 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... United States Supreme Court Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. - Dismissed on standing. Arizona Aguilera v. Fontes - Voluntarily Dismissed Aguilera v. Fontes - Dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs - Voluntarily Dismissed Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - Dismissed Ward v. Jackson - Dismissed Bowyer v. Ducey - Dismissed on standing Stevenson v. Ducey - Dismissed The case was dropped because by the plaintiff because even if the plaintiff won, they would still be short a few hundred votes. Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Georgia In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020 - Dismissed Brooks v. Mahoney - Voluntarily Dropped Wood v. Raffensperger - Dismissed on Standing Pearson v. Kemp - Dismissed on standing Boland v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Trump v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Favorito et al. v. Fulton County et al. - Dismissed Trump v. Kemp et al. - Dismissed Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Im not going to list every single state but its very similar elsewhere. Dismissed for standing, jurisdiction, or trumps team dropped the suit voluntarily. The statue of limitations is VERY short for elections. Going back to the Catch 22, many of the personal testimonies the trump legal trump had saying they witnessed fraud were thrown out or could not be used until a trial. So, he cannot use a subpoena , and his witnesses were not allowed to testify. What would you recommend he do? So now you get crazy schemes like Mr Pillow to collect data during the election so they have something to bring to court. At least that sounds like their plan no matter how wacky it is. Now, I dont believe that Trump won. But I do believe they should've gave the guy his day in court. To deny someone that on the basis that they will just keep coming back looking elsewhere is not right. By denying his day in court you have emboldened their supporters and disenfranchised independent voters who want secure elections, like myself.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  You might want to ask yourself why Bill Barr, with the powers and visibility he had as AG/head of DOJ, looked at the pile of fraud allegations and told his boss it was a big box of nothing. I'm sure he's just part of the conspiracy, or something...
- mindslight 3y ago
  A pattern of outcomes being similar isn't indicative of much when a large number of suits were filed with a shotgun approach. The only way you can sift through this from first principles is to read the legal briefs that were actually filed, and see for yourself if there is something substantive there. I read and analyzed a sampling of two cases, and saw the same pattern where there were a whole bunch of straightforward banal claims plus a whole bunch of grandiose conclusions, without any logical linking of the two. The grandiose claims were widely quoted in the press though, despite being completely unsubstantiated. That was enough to satisfy my own opinion.
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    >>>...a large number of suits were filed with a shotgun approach. The only way you can sift through this from first principles is to read the legal briefs that were actually filed. True and I think that's a good observation. My takeaway from it was they were looking to get a trial and up against a fast approaching statue of limitations. I also think the fraud they claimed was very novel for a case. What evidence would a person need to bring forward to meet the criteria for standing in a federal election> I still don't know even though most of these cases were dropped for it. A lot of the sound bites in the press focused on what I thought was frivolous political points on both sides so I think the answer is like many of the issues we are facing these days, in the middle. However, I do believe giving Trump a day in court and having faith in the system would be overall the best to move the country forward. Maybe he is allowed to bring forward some evidence in his criminal trials for why he believed there was fraud? We shall see.