… some courts in battleground states are beginning to declare the way widespread absentee ballots were implemented or counted violated state laws. The author cites “only” 3 cases out of the “multitude” of cases filed. “Lord only knows” how many cases were filed. But it is known that since Donald Trump lost in November 2020, Donald Trump, Republicans and others have filed and lost at least 63 [latest published account] lawsuits contesting election processes. And yet not a single court has ever found one iota of any evidence whatsoever supporting the alleged “FRAUD” charges. So, what is the significance of this article? Someone tell me, since I can none. Well, maybe there is one. And that would be, the continuance to: Get over it. Trump LOST the election. Move on … I posted this article – US election 2020: Why Donald Trump lost – after Biden had been officially declared the winner. Stone then decided to delete it because he said “Trump had not lost the election.” Oh, well – So much for “denial.” We shall see if Stone will now let this post stand or delete it like he does to so many of my posts. It is tragic that denial can be harmful in that denying reality enables someone to continue engaging in bad irresponsible behavior. C'est la vie …

16 hours ago

Actually, no court ruled on anything regarding the evidence, because it was never allowed to reach that point, as I wrote above. It seems YOU have the issue with reading.

And you might wish to look up the meaning of "void ab initio", which is what Joe Biden's prsidency will be declared, once a court of competent jurisdiction gets to see the evidence. If a lottery winner is found to have been declared the winner through fraud and deceit, is he/she allowed to keep their alleged winnings? If a student is discovered to have been cheating on an exam, with they be permitted to keep the high grade their cheating gained them?

Actual fact: Kamala Harris does not qualify as a United States citizen, because the "anchor baby" claims authorized under modern US law was not ruled on until four years after she was born to foreign citizens who 1) were not subject to the laws of the United States, and 2) were not attempting to make their student housing in California any sort of permanent dwelling. That makes Kamala a citizen of Jamaica, not the United States, and thus, ineligible to hold the office of President, and because of that, is also ineligible to hold the office of Vice President, as defined by the plain text of the Constitution.

Were you born gullible ... was there --- some terrible accident?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/03/25/this- may-have-been-the-dumbest-line-of-bidens-painful-press-conference- n1435067

Actually, no court ruled on anything regarding the evidence, because it was never allowed to reach that point, as I wrote above. As you “wrote above” was bullshit and – Actually, to say that “evidence was never allowed to reach that point” is just more BULLSHIT. The reason “no court ruled in favor of Trump’s team on anything regarding evidence” – is there simply was no creditable evidence ever presented. Judges everywhere have uniformly rejected the claims of vote fraud and found the campaign’s legal work amateurish. In a scathing ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann — a Republican and Federalist Society member in central Pennsylvania — compared the campaign’s legal arguments to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” concluding that Trump’s team offered only “speculative accusations,” not proof of rampant corruption or fraud. The claims of widespread voter fraud were not just unsubstantiated — they were flat-out false. They all have been repeatedly and definitively debunked by scores of the nation’s leading election administrators, national security leaders, political leaders, and election experts. Indeed, the top federal agencies in charge of election security issued a joint statement declaring that the November election was “the most secure in American history” and that there was “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” Clinging to notions of widespread vote rigging is asinine since Trump’s own attorney general has disputed the repeated a litany of baseless assertions of political corruption, machine tampering and mysterious votes appearing out of nowhere that allowed Joe Biden to steal the election. It seems YOU have the issue with reading. No, the issue here is that it is blatantly obvious YOU have a problem with accepting factual reality. And you might wish to look up the meaning of "void ab initio" … No need to, I know what it means and nothing has been proven to be invalid “from the moment of its purported existence in the election. If a lottery winner … This election was not a lottery – Simpleton. Actual fact: Kamala Harris does not qualify as a United States citizen … That is NOT an “actual fact” and it has nothing to do with any alleged election fraud. That is only your “expressed opinion” and your opinion does diddly squat to change or validate anything. It’s just simply more bullshit. Were you born gullible ... was there --- some terrible accident? https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/03/25/this- may-have-been-the-dumbest-line-of-bidens-painful-press-conference- n1435067 Your links have nothing to do with voter fraud – Why did you post them? And so, Boris – The claim of fraud has died, but the myth lives on in the minds of some. C'est la vie …

evidence was never allowed to reach that point” is just more BULLSHIT.

That isnt bullshit. It's true. They dismissed cases and didnt look at evidence then said no standing without looking at the substance of the case.

… evidence was never allowed to reach that point” is just more BULLSHIT. That isnt bullshit. It's true. They dismissed cases and didnt look at evidence then said no standing without looking at the substance of the case. What I called bullshit, was just that – bullshit. What you posted is only partially true. Some cases were rightly and legally dismissed for ‘lack of standing.” Lack of standing is based in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff must have standing first in order for the court to look at evidence. In law, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A federal judge in Pennsylvania rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit that sought to prevent certification of the presidential election results in that state. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the campaign's claims with prejudice, meaning it cannot try again with a revised complaint. Brann's scathing ruling, which concludes that neither the campaign nor the two Pennsylvania voters named as plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit and in any event failed to state any valid constitutional claims, vividly illustrates the chasm between the arguments Donald Trump's lawyers are making in court and his assertion that systematic fraud denied him his rightful victory in the presidential election. There are other similar cases with the same results. They dismissed cases and didnt look at evidence then said no standing without looking at the substance of the case It’s all very simple and easy to understand: Some courts “didn’t look at evidence” because they couldn’t even consider the case since there was a “lack of standing.” Therefore, there was no way the court could look at any “alleged” evidence. You need to realize that standing exists from one of three causes stated here. The plaintiffs did not satisfy one of those causes in any of the dismissed cases – not a single one. It’s in the constitution and it’s the law that plaintiffs must. You have no argument. So, you can keep this shit up or you can give it up – already – and move on to prepare for 2024 and the reelection of Trump. In either case, you will change noting – and that is the reality you need to face. Stop –