BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Accurate List of 2020 Election Fraud Cases Shows 81 Cases Total, 30 Still Active – And NOT ONE SINGLE COURT Has Allowed Evidence to be Argued

GATEWAY PUNDIT ^ | 1/24/2021 | Joe Hoft

[bitt]

The 2020 election will go down as arguably the greatest fraud in world history. The tremendously popular incumbent candidate, President Trump, was easily winning the race on election night in a landslide and then suddenly multiple states took a break, quit counting, and by the end of the week the election was flipped to Joe Biden. Then, as the President and his team attempted to address the fraud and alleged abnormalities, the courts refused in any case evidence to be brought before a court of law. We’ve heard over and over from Big Media that President Trump and his team lost numerous court cases linked to the 2020 election. But this is not accurate.

Here’s what we identified from our research of an accurate and updated list of court cases:

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

Here is a link to the list of cases. Notice this file is updated on an ad hoc basis so numbers may change

[stanne]

Mike Pompeo put out this tweet today
IMG_3036.jpeg

He says from Romans. Have faith and assurance.

[Dr. Franklin]

The headline by GP is not accurate. In GA, Rudy’s evidence was rejected by the state district court because of standing IIRC. A day or two later, the state appeals court took it up, received evidence, heard arguments and rapidly turned around a decision in favor of Rudy giving him an injunction allowing the campaign to audit Fulton County. About 8 hours later, the state supreme court struck down the injunction because of latches. If I’ve tangled any of this sequence, someone please fix.

It would be very unusual for an appellate court to receive evidence. It's usually against the rules as evidence is normally only received at the trial court level. Although, an appellate court could order a lower court to accept the evidence. The fact is that the GA Supreme Court denied the complaint based on laches, which is not a decision on the merits of the case. So, GP is correct, no decision on the merits was permitted, even if the intermediate appellate court disagreed.

[Pontiac]

The fact is that the GA Supreme Court denied the complaint based on laches, which is not a decision on the merits of the case.

Denying the case on the bases of laches seems a stretch.

Bringing the suit in less than 2 months seems more than timely to me.

If election laws had been followed all of the evidence should have been preserved and readily available.

[Dr. Franklin]

Denying the case on the bases of laches seems a stretch. Bringing the suit in less than 2 months seems more than timely to me. If election laws had been followed all of the evidence should have been preserved and readily available.

The fact that there is a federal remedy through a writ of quo warranto means that no defendant has a right of repose to claim laches. It's the kind of BS legal defense that judges use to avoid giving a decision. In WI Trump filed suit within two days of the election certification, and got hit with laches, and he couldn't file suit before the certification. These courts are claiming Trump had to file suit well before the election rather than the courts admitting that the executive branch didn't follow the law.

[mountainfolk]

I have been waiting and watching for somebody in congress as well as the justice/legal system to tell the citizens of this country just what can be done to legally protect their vote from being stolen by a few states who can produce as many votes as needed to swing an election. Trump voters have been told, and shown, that their concerns about fraudulent votes will not be addressed by even the Supreme Court. We are told what we cannot do but nothing about what can be done. Our legal votes are simply wiped out by machines paid for by the commie democrat party. This was a lawless national election and with the communists now running the country there is no reason to expect that their successful vote theft will not be repeated in all future elections.

[shanover]

It is so nice how ,predictably, so much evidence comes after the fact but the damage is certainly done. I blame the GOP actually more than the left.

[lonestar67]

I think this is a good link but I continue to be amazed at how Gateway Pundit sensationalizes in grotesquely misleading ways.

If you click on the primary link you do find an incredible online database of all the cases and the outcomes.

The primary link shows that some cases were considered on the merits.

Trump’s team won 6/12 of these cases. These did not change the outcome of the overall election but they provide a much more nuanced picture.

I really wish GP would do a better job of summarizing their articles. It is often counterproductive when people forward these headlines and easy fodder is established for those who disagree with us and this election travesty.

[Dr. Franklin]

It is so nice how ,predictably, so much evidence comes after the fact but the damage is certainly done. I blame the GOP actually more than the left.

Yes, Republican governors in AZ and GA were in on the steal, a Republican legislature in PA violated the state constitution approving mail in voting for anyone who wanted a ballot, and Republican legislatures in GA, PA, MI, and WI all failed to decertify the fraudulent elections in their states. They have total contempt for their own voters. Throwing an election must have a consequence.

[JohnBovenmyer]

>rope manufacturer

hemp byproducts

[tbw2]

Vote fraud evidence - a searchable database
https://hereistheevidence.com/

[DrPretorius]

GOPee RIP

[Bob Ireland]

Ping

[WhattheDickens?]

Ping

[TigersEye]

bookmarked

My 2020 Election Fraud folder is getting big.

[BEJ]

If what you are saying is true then why is Trump always making the claim that he had more than enough votes to win if they see the evidence for fraud. He has always made that claim.

[SERE_DOC]

"No court, no Legislature has given us a fair hearing."

Just remember that every one of these cases on the election were found to have no "standing". If we don't have standing they don't have authority over us.

[Dr. Franklin]

I think this is a good link but I continue to be amazed at how Gateway Pundit sensationalizes in grotesquely misleading ways.

GP is less than 100% accurate, but is generally correct. They did conflate cases by the Trump campaign, with those by Trump, himself, the candidate. Legally, they are different entities. Yes, there have been appellate courts that agreed with Trump, but those have been reversed by the state supreme courts. A fair reporting of events is that the legal conclusions by these courts to dismiss these cases on procedural grounds were far less than unanimous. The dissenters have the better argument.

[Hootowl99]

Yep, it was a stretch. As I recall, Rudy complained that he couldn’t initiate the GA lawsuit until the certification was official and the court said he waited too long. Catch 22 trap.

[Amendment10]

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

When Texas sued Pennsylvania for fraudulent vote counting related to electoral votes, the Supreme Court dismissed the case on the so-called basis that Texas had no standing to disagree with another state’s electoral votes.

The Court's action denied Texas due process imo.

More specifically, Justice Joseph Story had clarified concerning the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 state versus state clause, that the clause was intended as a last resort to avoid conflicts between states.

"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

In other words, the Roberts Court wrongly ignored (imo) that being a state is the only standing that a state needed in order for the Supremes to hear complaints against another state imo.

From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…

• § 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.

• § 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

From paragraph 1675 above, the bottom line is that regardless that Justice Story had indicated that the Court would always be obligated (my word) to hear conflicts between the states, the misguided Supremes nevertheless invented the requirement for standing in Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923.

"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored any electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.

"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864

Corrections, insights welcome.

[Mase]

Bookmark