United States Courts have struck down over 50 Trump attempts to overturn election

[Halbhh]

The Nevada Supreme Court struck down a Trump campaign lawsuit alleging widespread voter fraud and seeking to overturn the election result in a 6-0 ruling late Tuesday, dealing yet another blow to the campaign’s overwhelmingly unsuccessful post-election legal effort and likely concluding the challenges to the election results in the state, ensuring that President-elect Joe Biden’s victory will stand.
...
The Nevada Supreme Court ruling was one of more than 50 court cases the Trump campaign and GOP has lost in its post-election efforts to challenge Biden’s win in battleground states, as courts across the country have nearly-unanimously struck down Republicans’ allegations of voter fraud and impropriety. (The Trump campaign has only won one lawsuit, which concerned a small number of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.) The ruling was also one of multiple court losses to come on Tuesday alone, as the Arizona Supreme Court also struck down a Republican-led challenge of the state’s election results, which was led by the state’s Republican Party chairwoman, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an effort by Pennsylvania GOP candidates to block the state’s election results.
Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Trump Campaign’s Election Lawsuit And Voter Fraud Claims (forbes.com)

 

[Halbhh]

Why?

Over and over, for this reason:

“The campaign’s claims have no merit,” the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Friday "
Fox News: Trump campaign eyes Supreme Court battle after appeals panel tosses Pa. fraud case


Basically we are learning from the close examinations of these many judges, many or most of them republican appointed, that the claims of wide spread fraud are all fake. There is no evidence of wide spread fraud.

Trump has been evidently (we can now see the evidence) actually lying about this or delusional about it for months now.

Notice this: He started making these claims before the election.

 

[Albion]

You're really worried, huh?

Otherwise, there wouldn't seem to be any reason for people to keep trying to 'talk down' any and all inquiries into the obvious voting irregularities that took place.

If there were not such a dread of any investigation and of court challenges simply being allowed to run their course, there wouldn't any logical reason for people to continue posting "there's nothing wrong. There's nothing wrong." Or is it in order to reassure themselves?

 

[Halbhh]

You're really worried, huh?

Otherwise, there wouldn't seem to be any reason for people to keep trying to 'talk down' any and all inquiries into the obvious voting irregularities that took place.

If there were not such a dread of any investigation and of court challenges simply being allowed to run their course, there wouldn't any logical reason for people to continue posting "there's nothing wrong. There's nothing wrong" in order to reassure themselves.

I believe in God and in Christ. So I'm never really worried. Does that make sense?

Why does this all matter then? Here's why --

There has been a lot of strife in America over the election.

I can rightly do the golden rule and do for others what I'd want done for me by helping more Americans see past the rhetoric and salesmanship to see the actual real facts that have been discovered that will help remove causes of strife.

Consider: Putin set his Internet Research Agency (in St. Petersburg) hard at work in 2016 to stir up strife in America, as found by the Republican controlled investigation in the U.S. Senate.

Again this year it was reported that the same attempt was being made again, to cause harm to America.

We can defend our fellow citizens against that harm by showing what is real, so that Americans will have less conflict based on false ideas such as the false idea the election was 'stolen'.

 

[Albion]

But I believe in God and in Christ. So I'm never really worried. Does that make sense?

In principle, yes. On the other hand, if that is actually the case, the person would behave as though it were. Right?

 

[pescador]

The Supreme Court issued a single sentence re Mike Kelly vs Pennsylvania: "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied." No dissents, no opinions, nada.

It's obvious what the highest court thinks of these trumpian shenanigans.

 

[Halbhh]

In principle, yes. On the other hand, if that is actually the case, the person would behave as though it were. Right?

Read a bit further on that post above.

Or better, I will repeat it -->

 

[Halbhh]

Here, @Albion --

There has been a lot of strife in America over the election.

I can rightly do the golden rule and do for others what I'd want done for me by helping more Americans see past the rhetoric and salesmanship to see the actual real facts that have been discovered that will help remove causes of strife.

Consider: Putin set his Internet Research Agency (in St. Petersburg) hard at work in 2016 to stir up strife in America, as found by the Republican controlled investigation in the U.S. Senate.

Again this year it was reported that the same attempt was being made again, to cause harm to America.

We can defend our fellow citizens against that harm by showing what is real, so that Americans will have less conflict based on false ideas such as the false idea the election was 'stolen'.

 

[Halbhh]

The Supreme Court issued a single sentence re Mike Kelly vs Pennsylvania: "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied." No dissents, no opinions, nada.

It's obvious what the highest court thinks of these trumpian shenanigans.

Yeah. And perhaps the most useful information to aid people that need help to see through Trump's illusions are that judges Trump picked and nominated are some of the most prominent of those rejecting the false claims in his lawsuits. Lemme get a link.

 

[Halbhh]

Judges Trump picked and nominated are some of the most prominent of those rejecting the false claims in his lawsuits.

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Third Circuit Rejects Trump's Appeal in Broad Challenge to Pa. Election | The Legal Intelligencer

 

[Arc F1]

Yeah. And perhaps the most useful information to aid people that need help to see through Trump's illusions are that judges Trump picked and nominated are some of the most prominent of those rejecting the false claims in his lawsuits. Lemme get a link.

Of course those that don't want to see another term for Trump are going to say there was no fraud. Do you believe judges are above being dishonest or biased?

The Bible tells us that the dead know nothing yet we saw plenty of them get up and vote this election. I'm going with the Bible on this one and call fraud.

 

[Albion]

The Supreme Court issued a single sentence re Mike Kelly vs Pennsylvania: "The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied." No dissents, no opinions, nada.

And you can be rightly thrilled at that one ruling. Be sure to talk as though it's the only one, even if there are many others still working their way though the system.

I noticed that you are not the only poster who jumped at the chance to post something that tried to make it look as though this one ruling was the be-all and end-all of the matter and no other court cases can possibly matter--or maybe that they don't even exist.

And here's something else to consider. The Trump supporters take defeats like this Pennsylvania ruling calmly. They believe in the system even when it works against their hopes.

 

[Halbhh]

Of course those that don't want to see another term for Trump are going to say there was no fraud.

Did you just try to paint/claim that anyone that prefers a different president than Trump is going to lie and claim there is no fraud without any good basis to make the claim?

"Wide spread" means more than just a tiny number that doesn't matter. Wide spread in a state for example would be at least many hundreds of votes or at least 1/2 of 1%, (0.5%), of the vote for instance.

In contrast a typical (and miniscule) level of fraudulent ballots would be tiny, such as 0.0025% for instance

Of course 0.0025% is vastly smaller than 0.5%.


It's really 'false witness' to claim or even suggest I or any one else is lying to report the judges' various statements, such as those above, saying there is a lack of evidence for the claims of wide spread fraud.

False accusation itself is a major sin. I based my statements above on the explicit and clear fact that a lot of judges have examined the fraud evidence and found it lacking/insufficient. They themselves said wordings like:

"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So, for your own sake, since false witness is a deadly sin, you need to repent of it.

 

[Fantine]

It gives me confidence in our courts.

 

[Arc F1]

Did you just try to paint/claim that anyone that prefers a different president than Trump is going to lie and claim there is no fraud without any good basis to make the claim?

"Wide spread" means more than just a tiny number that doesn't matter. Wide spread in a state for example would be at least many hundreds of votes or at least 1/2 of 1%, (0.5%), of the vote for instance.

In contrast a typical (and miniscule) level of fraudulent ballots would be tiny, such as 0.0025% for instance

Of course 0.0025% is vastly smaller than 0.5%.


It's really 'false witness' to claim I'm lying to report the judge's statement above.

False witness itself is a major sin. I based my statements above on the explicit and clear fact that all these judges have examined the fraud evidence and found it lacking/insufficient. They themselves said wordings like:

"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So, for your own sake, since false witness is a deadly sin, you need to repent of it.

It's a lie if you knowingly say something false. Maybe you really believe there is no fraud. Like I pointed out all those dead people voting is fraud. Illegals voting is fraud. Underage people voting is fraud. Just because you or anyone else denys it doesn't make it so.

 

[Arc F1]

Did you just try to paint/claim that anyone that prefers a different president than Trump is going to lie and claim there is no fraud without any good basis to make the claim?

"Wide spread" means more than just a tiny number that doesn't matter. Wide spread in a state for example would be at least many hundreds of votes or at least 1/2 of 1%, (0.5%), of the vote for instance.

In contrast a typical (and miniscule) level of fraudulent ballots would be tiny, such as 0.0025% for instance

Of course 0.0025% is vastly smaller than 0.5%.


It's really 'false witness' to claim I'm lying to report the judge's statement above.

False witness itself is a major sin. I based my statements above on the explicit and clear fact that a lot of judges have examined the fraud evidence and found it lacking/insufficient. They themselves said wordings like:

"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

So, for your own sake, since false witness is a deadly sin, you need to repent of it.

Would any of this qualify as widespread?

You think you’ve seen everything, then this comes out…

 

[Halbhh]

It's a lie if you knowingly say something false. Maybe you really believe there is no fraud. Like I pointed out all those dead people voting is fraud. Illegals voting is fraud. Underage people voting is fraud. Just because you or anyone else denys it doesn't make it so.

I'm reporting the factual statements of the judges.

And that's abundantly clear above.

By painting it as being a lie to convey that information, you make a false accusation.

A false accusation itself is a very serious sin. It's the kind you have to confess to be cleansed of -- 1rst John chapter 1.

 

[Arc F1]

I'm reporting the factual statements of the judges.

And that's abundantly clear above.

By painting it as being a lie to convey that information, you make a false accusation.

A false accusation itself is a very serious sin. It's the kind you have to confess to be cleansed of -- 1rst John chapter 1.

You are reporting what was said. You have no way of knowing if the judge is above board. I've made no false accusations.

 

[Halbhh]

You are reporting what was said. You have no way of knowing if the judge is above board. I've made no false accusations.

I do think that when a wide variety of judges, in many states -- many judges, not just a few -- are all reaching similar conclusions, it tells us something real.

It would be one thing (a mistake) to just rely on only 1 or only 2 judges to reach a broad conclusion.

It's been 24 or more different Courts. (I recounted just now)

When a large and diverse set of judges are all reaching the same types of conclusions, that becomes itself powerful evidence of fact.

We are seeing the fact that diverse courts with many republican judges and also Trump appointed judges are rejecting the Trump campaign and related group lawsuits aimed to try to prevent or overturn the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin.

 

[Arc F1]

I do think that when a wide variety of judges, in many states -- many judges, not just a few -- are all reaching similar conclusions, it tells us something real.

It would be one thing (a mistake) to just rely on only 1 or only 2 judges to reach a broad conclusion.

It's been 24 or more different Courts. (I recounted just now)

When a large and diverse set of judges are all reaching the same types of conclusions, that becomes itself powerful evidence of fact.

We are seeing the fact that diverse courts with many republican judges and also Trump appointed judges are rejecting the Trump campaign and related group lawsuits aimed to try to prevent or overturn the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Seems like only yesterday that the left had no confidence in the legal system. Things sure do change fast.