One of the more pernicious lies told about the 2020 election is that the reason Trump lost all of those court cases based on ‘technicalities.’ This is simply not true. While some cases were dismissed because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, or filed in the wrong court, plenty of the cases were decided on the merits. As a reminder, out of the more than 60 cases heard by over 80 judges, many of whom Trump appointed himself, Trump and his allies won exacly one.
Some of the most brutal rulings came from Trump appointed judges like Stephanos Bibas in Pennsylvania, who wrote, “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. 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.” Judge Steven D. Grimberg, another Trump appointee, said that Trump’s attempt to block certification in Georgia, “has no basis in fact or in law.” Trump appointee Judge Brett H. Ludwig in Wisconsin put it bluntly, when he wrote, “This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”
Other Republican judges came to similar conclusions, In Pennsylvania, Judge Matthew W. Brann compared the case to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” writing, “This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” Wisconsin state Justice Brian Hagedorn, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, spoke to the gravity of what Trump was trying to do when he wrote, “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
You can say anything online or at a rally but in a court of law you need evidence. Time and time again the Trump campaign failed to provide any credible evidence to support their claims, instead presenting – as one Michigan judge put it – “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.” That might cut it on OAN but it’s not going to cut it in a court of law.
Wonkness Blog 