Election Investigations

[Bootstrap]

Which raises the question. Why go through all the trouble in the first place to bring lawsuits if you don't have standing or any legitimate evidence to support your claims? And the answer was it that all of it was part of a larger strategy to cast doubt on the results of the election. They went in front of the regular media (TV cameras) to make false claims about the election. They went onto social media to do the same. The obstructed and interfered with official elections proceedings and certifications to cast doubt. And they used the courts as a 4th theater in the larger effort to cast doubt about the election even knowing that the cases themselves had no merit.

Sure, this was always political theater. A way to make as much noise as possible.

They knew they had no chance in court without evidence. They also knew that this would resonate with their own echo chamber.

Before the recounts and the election board rulings and the court cases, it made sense to keep an open mind. But those have all run their course. January 6th told us what this was all about. And that's still what it's all about - if you lose on the facts, you can still energize the mob.

[Ken]

Arguing about WHY the Trump campaign lost all 60 of the elections lawsuits that it filed or that were filed on its behalf kind of misses the point.

If the Trump campaign actually had prima facia evidence of systematic fraud across 5 separate states that was extensive and pervasive enough to actually STEAL the election and flip the results from Trump to Biden. Then they would be presenting it for all to see and screaming about it right and left. Instead all we have is crickets. The reason all those lawsuits were dismissed or lost was because they didn't have any such evidence. You don't need to go to court to present evidence. You can just present it.

To actually steal the election as Trump alleges you would need:

Massive and systematic fraud in a specific state like Pennsylvania which Biden won by 80,555 votes. The fraud would have to be much more than just 80,555 votes because that would only bring things down to a tie and no one knew what the results would be before the election. To actually steal PA they would have to fraudulently flip hundreds of thousands of votes. And that sort of thing would be absolutely impossible to hide and would be blindingly obviously in even a cursory glance at the state-wide election results compared to previous years. It would be like Venezuela. The fraud would be overt and obvious for all to see.

And the same thing would have to be repeated in a bunch of other states without detection. Literally hundreds of thousands of votes flipped in each state. Think about it. If you are going to actually concoct a plot to steal the upcoming 2024 election, how many votes do you actually need to steal and in which states (MI, PA, WI, AZ, NV, GA, NC, etc.?) this coming November? You don't know in advance what the vote will be in any one state or even which ones will be the closest. So you would have to flip hundreds of thousands of votes across many states just to be sure. And that sort of thing would be impossible to hide and would be readily apparent by looking at election patterns. And it would be impossible to do given how elections are conducted and votes counted in this country.

And yet we don't have evidence of even a single vote being fraudulently flipped anywhere in the US. We have evidence of ad-hoc fraudulent voting such as people voting for their dead mothers or snowbirds trying to vote in two different states. But that sort of thing happens in every national election and is done as much or more by Republicans as Democrats. But what we don't have anywhere is a single bit of evidence of election officials in any state or jurisdiction fraudulently flipping votes from one candidate to another in a plot to steal an election.

[Robert]

"Lack of standing" is just a court or judge's way of saying "I don't want to hear this case." Show anywhere in the federal or state constitutions that use the term. You can't. It was invented by the courts about 75 years ago if I remember right.

[Ken]

"Lack of standing" is just a court or judge's way of saying "I don't want to hear this case." Show anywhere in the federal or state constitutions that use the term. You can't. It was invented by the courts about 75 years ago if I remember right.

Maybe so. But it is necessary. Otherwise we'd have millions of lawsuits floating around for any random reason and the legal system would collapse. And anyone with deep pockets could gum up anything they didn't like without consequence.

If I don't like the business you are legally running on the other side of town? Or just have a grudge against you? I could bring it all to a halt and bankrupt you by filing endless frivolous lawsuits that you are forced to defend until you are bankrupted by legal fees and delays. Standing prevents that from happening. And prevents me from inserting myself into your business unless you have caused me a specific and direct harm.

[Bootstrap]

"Lack of standing" is just a court or judge's way of saying "I don't want to hear this case." Show anywhere in the federal or state constitutions that use the term. You can't. It was invented by the courts about 75 years ago if I remember right.

I don't think that's true. Standing goes way back to medieval England, and it runs very deep in our entire legal tradition. For instance, English common law emphasized that only the "real party in interest"—the person directly affected by a legal wrong—has the right to sue.

If you have standing, the judge cannot turn your case down. He can recuse himself and have it be assigned to another judge, but he cannot deny you a trial. Standing means this:

https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resour ... anding-sue

The "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution imposes a minimal constitutional standing requirement on all litigants attempting to bring suit in federal court. In order to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate, at an "irreducible minimum," that: (1) he/she has suffered a distinct and palpable injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) it is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted.

If you have standing, you have a constitutional right for your case to be heard. If you do not have standing, you don't.

Robert, could you please tell me which cases you think were dismissed for lack of standing without evaluating the merits of the case? Let's take a look at how they addressed standing, and whether they considered the merits or not. Pick three cases you are particularly concerned with, let's look at the dismissals or rulings and let's see what they say. I think every one of them will give a clear, legitimate reason for the decision.

[Robert]

Robert, could you please tell me which cases you think were dismissed for lack of standing without evaluating the merits of the case? Let's take a look at how they addressed standing, and whether they considered the merits or not.

Robert Barnes laid that out in the video clip I posted. Trump was only a party to three cases. All were dismissed for lack of standing according to Mr. Barnes. I have heard other lawyers state something similar, this is why I feel there is merit to his report.

The Judge presiding over the case decides if the complainant has standing. They can do it even without looking at any evidence of the case at hand. One can appeal it, which was being done, but that takes a lot of time and a lot of extra money.

[Bootstrap]

Robert, could you please tell me which cases you think were dismissed for lack of standing without evaluating the merits of the case? Let's take a look at how they addressed standing, and whether they considered the merits or not.

Robert Barnes laid that out in the video clip I posted. Trump was only a party to three cases. All were dismissed for lack of standing according to Mr. Barnes. I have heard other lawyers state something similar, this is why I feel there is merit to his report.

The Judge presiding over the case decides if the complainant has standing. They can do it even without looking at any evidence of the case at hand. One can appeal it, which was being done, but that takes a lot of time and a lot of extra money.

Let's look at what the judges actually did in these cases. One of the problems I have with Barnes is that he doesn't provide the facts needed to look things up, and so many claims simply aren't true. For instance, Trump is listed as the plaintiff on at least 10 cases, likely more. So what does Barnes mean by "three"?

Here are 7 major "Trump v." cases - can we pick specific cases by name? Barnes talks a lot about Pennsylvania, I assume he is talking about Trump v. Boockvar? I'll focus on that in my next message.

I added links to the rulings for the first three. I didn't have time to do that for all of them.

Major Rulings:

1. Trump v. Boockvar (Pennsylvania)
- Filed: November 9, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
- Claims: The Trump campaign sought to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results, alleging issues with mail-in ballots and observer access.
- Ruling: Link to Opinion

2. Trump v. Kemp (Georgia)
- Filed: December 4, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- Claims: The Trump campaign sought to decertify the results in Georgia, arguing that the state's election procedures, including the handling of absentee ballots, were unconstitutional.
- Ruling: Link to Opinion

3. Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Wisconsin)
- Filed: December 2, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Claims: The Trump campaign challenged the administration of absentee ballots in Wisconsin, including allegations of improper voter ID practices and ballot drop boxes.
- Ruling: Link to Opinion

4. Trump v. Evers (Wisconsin)
- Filed: December 3, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, later appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
- Claims: The Trump campaign sought to invalidate tens of thousands of absentee ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties, arguing they were improperly cast.

5. Trump v. Benson (Michigan)
- Filed: November 11, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
- Claims: The Trump campaign alleged widespread voter fraud in Michigan, particularly in Detroit, and sought to block the certification of results.

6. Trump v. Hobbs (Arizona)
- Filed: November 7, 2020
- Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
- Claims: The Trump campaign alleged that poll workers in Maricopa County improperly rejected votes cast by Trump supporters by misusing Sharpie markers on ballots.

7. Trump v. Raffensperger (Georgia)
- Filed: December 31, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- Claims: This lawsuit sought to invalidate the results of the Georgia Senate runoff elections, claiming widespread fraud.

Less Significant Rulings:

8. Trump v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
- Filed: September 26, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
- Claims: The Trump campaign challenged the state’s extension of the absentee ballot deadline, claiming it was unconstitutional.

9. Trump v. Bullock (Montana)
- Filed: September 2, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
- Claims: The Trump campaign sued Montana Governor Steve Bullock over his directive allowing universal mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming it was unconstitutional.

10. Trump v. Cegavske (Nevada)
- Filed: August 4, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
- Claims: The Trump campaign challenged Nevada’s plan to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters, arguing it would lead to voter fraud.

[Bootstrap]

Robert, could you please tell me which cases you think were dismissed for lack of standing without evaluating the merits of the case? Let's take a look at how they addressed standing, and whether they considered the merits or not.

Robert Barnes laid that out in the video clip I posted. Trump was only a party to three cases. All were dismissed for lack of standing according to Mr. Barnes. I have heard other lawyers state something similar, this is why I feel there is merit to his report.

The Judge presiding over the case decides if the complainant has standing. They can do it even without looking at any evidence of the case at hand. One can appeal it, which was being done, but that takes a lot of time and a lot of extra money.

Here's one of the three cases Barnes talked about:

1. Trump v. Boockvar (Pennsylvania)
- Filed: November 9, 2020
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
- Claims: The Trump campaign sought to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results, alleging issues with mail-in ballots and observer access.
- Ruling: Link to Opinion

Let's look at some quotes from the ruling, which is 37 pages and goes into some depth. To me, this is not some arbitrary procedural decision, it is very much on the merits. But it does say that Trump does not have standing to sue. The judge is very much concerned with protecting votes and protecting democracy.

Do we simply discard the votes of millions of voters based on no real evidence of anything? The court says "no". Barnes doesn't seem to acknowledge what the court said or respond to any of this.

More than a year after the General Assembly passed Act 77 with
overwhelming bipartisan support, well after an election in which more than 2.6
million Pennsylvania voters voted by mail, and on the eve of certification of the
results of that election, Petitioners bring this lawsuit asking this Court to
disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvanians by declaring that Act 77, a law that
allowed Pennsylvanians to vote by mail in the recent general election and the June
primary, is unconstitutional. This is but the latest attempt to disenfranchise these
voters in Pennsylvania courts: just two days ago, Judge Brann of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed an action that
similarly demanded wholesale disenfranchisement of all who voted by mail—a case
in which Petitioners here attempted to intervene—noting that the court had “been
unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the
contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated.”

Petitioners’ shocking request is similarly unprecedented and suffers from
numerous legal flaws, one of the most significant of which is the timing. First,
Petitioners provide no explanation for their decision to wait for more than a year,
after two elections had been conducted under Act 77, in which more than 4.4 million
Pennsylvania voters cast ballots by mail, and well after mail-in ballots have already
been cast and counted in the general election. This is not some simple flaw or slight
delay that this Court may overlook. Petitioners request an injunction, which is
fundamentally a remedy at equity, and their delay requires that they be denied an
equitable remedy. Petitioners were well aware of Act 77 and the numerous flaws
they allege here for more than a year, and did nothing. And that delay, if Petitioners
requested remedy is granted, would have tremendous prejudicial costs for
Respondents, the DNC, and all Pennsylvania voters. It would delay certification of
the election, put on hold the people’s representatives being seated and being able to
conduct business, and shake the very foundations of democracy. It is a remarkable
request and it is far from hyperbole to say that Petitioners’ delay in bringing this
litigation would result in unprecedented prejudice.

But the delay is just one of this Petition’s many flaws. Petitioners also lack
standing to pursue this litigation. They allege no injury from Act 77 and cannot assert
one. No Petitioner suffered injury from the provisions of the law, and the generalized
grievance they allege from the functioning of a purportedly unconstitutional law is
one that could be suffered by any citizen. This is hardly enough to meet the
requirements to continue in this action under Pennsylvania standing law.
Beyond these preliminary defects, Petitioners’ claims simply misread the
Constitutional provisions that they assert prohibit Act 77’s creation of mail-in
voting. Pennsylvania’s General Assembly has broad constitutional authority to pass
any law not prohibited by the state or federal constitutions, and Pennsylvania’s
Constitution grants it specific authority to alter the method of elections. Petitioner
points to no provision that restricts the General Assembly from expanding access to
the franchise in this manner; they merely assume that because the Constitution
requires the General Assembly to provide absentee voting for certain classes of
voters, the absence of a similar requirement for other voters precludes the General
Assembly from allowing them to vote by mail. Alternatively, they incoherently read
an in-person voting requirement into sections of the Constitution that concern the
qualifications of voters. That is not how statutory interpretation works. A
requirement that the General Assembly provide absentee voting for some says
nothing about the legislature’s authority to extend mail voting for others, and neither
does a provision plainly about voting qualifications place any limitations on the
permitted methods of voting.

Finally, Petitioners’ requested relief would violate the Pennsylvania and
United States Constitutions and is an affront to democracy. It is incredible that a
sitting United States congressman, and others who aspire to such office, would bring
such a claim in their names. Having filed this suit nearly three weeks after the general
election, Petitioners seek to disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvanians by asking this
Court to enjoin certification of the election (scheduled to occur today) and to count
only what Petitioners perceive as the “legal votes” in the election or, alternatively,
to direct Pennsylvania’s General Assembly to appoint Pennsylvania’s presidential
and vice presidential electors. This relief would eviscerate the constitutional rights
of voters who relied on the procedures advertised and administered by the
Commonwealth, pursuant to Act 77, in casting their ballots.

[Bootstrap]

Continuing to sort out the Barnes claims.

The transcript you're referring to discusses Trump's 2020 election lawsuits in Georgia. Let’s break down what was claimed and what actually happened.

"In State Court, they refused to hear it by rule, they had to hear it within five days, and they just refused to calendar it."

- Explanation: Trump’s legal team filed a lawsuit in Georgia’s state court on December 4, 2020, trying to overturn the election results. They claimed that the court didn’t follow the rules by not scheduling a hearing quickly. However, the court dismissed the case almost immediately because Trump’s team didn’t provide enough evidence to show that any mistakes or fraud could have changed the election outcome.
- Verdict: Misleading. The court didn’t refuse to hear the case—it quickly dismissed it because Trump’s team didn’t show evidence that the issues they raised would have changed the election results.

"Georgia courts, including the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, refused to schedule it."

- Explanation: The Georgia courts, including the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, looked at several of Trump’s election-related cases. They didn’t refuse to hear the cases but instead dismissed them quickly, often because Trump’s team couldn’t show that any issues with the election directly impacted the results. To have a case heard in court, you need to show that something went wrong in a way that could change the outcome—this is called "standing." Since Trump’s team couldn’t do that, the courts dismissed the cases.
- Verdict: Partially True. The courts didn’t just refuse to hear the cases—they reviewed them and dismissed them quickly because there wasn’t enough evidence that any problems could have changed the results.

"Federal District Court said no standing."

- Explanation: In federal court, Trump’s lawsuits were often dismissed for "lack of standing." This means the court found that Trump’s team didn’t show that any alleged problems directly harmed them by changing the election outcome. Without this, the court couldn’t take action. In legal terms, you need to prove that an error or fraud affected the results to have standing—Trump’s team couldn’t do that.
- Verdict: True. The federal court dismissed Trump’s case because his team couldn’t show that any issues with the election had a real chance of changing the outcome.

"His election contest was never heard."

- Explanation: This is largely true. Trump’s lawsuits were dismissed before reaching full hearings because his team couldn’t provide solid evidence that the issues they raised could have changed the election results. The courts need to see evidence that something went wrong in a way that could change who won. Since Trump’s team couldn’t show this, the courts dismissed the cases quickly.
- Verdict: Mostly True. The courts dismissed the lawsuits quickly because Trump’s team couldn’t prove that any problems could have changed the outcome, so the detailed claims were never fully explored in court.

"The case that Trump joined that hundreds of congressmen joined... before The Supreme Court of the United States."

- Explanation: This refers to the *Texas v. Pennsylvania* case, where Texas, backed by Trump and others, asked the Supreme Court to throw out the election results in four states, including Georgia. The Supreme Court dismissed this case because Texas didn’t have the right (or standing) to challenge how other states ran their elections.
- Verdict: True. Trump joined this case, but the Supreme Court dismissed it because Texas couldn’t prove it was harmed by how other states conducted their elections.

Conclusion:

The claims reflect frustration with the legal process, but the reality is that Trump’s cases were dismissed because his team didn’t provide the necessary evidence to show that any alleged issues could have changed the election outcome. To move forward with these cases, Trump’s team needed to prove that errors or fraud directly impacted the results—something they couldn’t do, so the courts dismissed the cases quickly.

I used GPT to create transcripts and fact check them. You can verify by looking at the following documents:

1. Trump v. Fulton County (State Court Case)
- Details: Filed on December 4, 2020, by Trump’s legal team in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, this lawsuit aimed to invalidate the election results in Georgia. The case was quickly dismissed by the court for lack of evidence that could impact the election results.
- Outcome: Dismissed on procedural grounds and lack of sufficient evidence.
- Date Filed: December 4, 2020

2. Trump v. Kemp (Federal District Court Case)
- Details: This federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Trump’s legal team argued that the election results should be invalidated due to alleged irregularities. The court dismissed the case, citing "lack of standing," meaning Trump’s team couldn’t prove they were directly harmed in a way that could change the election outcome.
- Outcome: Dismissed due to lack of standing.
- Date Filed: December 4, 2020

3. Texas v. Pennsylvania (U.S. Supreme Court Case)
- Details: This case was filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court by the state of Texas on December 7, 2020, challenging the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Trump and other states joined the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the case on December 11, 2020, citing that Texas did not have the standing to challenge the election procedures of other states.
- Outcome: Dismissed for lack of standing.
- Date Filed: December 7, 2020
- Date Dismissed: December 11, 2020

[Bootstrap]

So did Barnes point to even a single example of a case where Trump had no opportunity to provide evidence of election fraud in the appropriate court?

If so, could someone please tell me about that case? I've tried fact checking the ones I could find. As far as I can tell, Trump had plenty of opportunities to provide any evidence he had to election boards, recounts, and courts. As far as I can tell, his claims were rejected for good reason.

He lost the election. He did not have evidence to prove otherwise. Election boards and courts agreed about that - even Trump-appointed judges agreed.