MCViewPoint

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/11/dom-armentano/the-big-lie-revisited/

By Dom Armentano

The main-stream media has repeated almost daily that  Donald Trump and several important MAGA-friendly organizations  continue to support the so-called “big lie,”  namely,  that the 2020 election was stolen. They also repeat almost daily  that this conclusion about that election  is totally bogus  since   “no evidence” of substantial election fraud  was  ever uncovered in the  65+ lawsuits filed after the election; Trump and his supporters lost them all.  The election was stolen?  What nonsense. It’s all “delusional thinking” and irrational conspiracy theory. Case closed.

Well not quite.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has published a list of the legal filings that challenged the results of the 2020 election and a summary of the court findings in each case.  It makes for very interesting reading.

The most important lesson to be drawn from  these  case summaries is that the bulk of them  have (almost) nothing to do with the  alleged evidence concerning  voter and election fraud.  And the reason for this is reasonably clear. Fraud is  itself  an extremely difficult legal matter to litigate; along with any relevant empirical evidence, the legal concepts of due diligence and “intent” would have to be fully explored.  Moreover, any  determination of election and/or voter  fraud  would have  required (at a very minimum)  a so-called “evidentiary hearing”  where the court would  take testimony under oath  from expert witnesses;  accept and evaluate  properly supported affidavits; evaluate any relevant election data analysis,  and explore the  murky issue of “intent” (by elected officials and others) at some length.  To my knowledge,  none of this process or analysis occurred in any systematic manner in any of the 65  post-2020 election challenge cases.

*

So what were these cases really about?  My reading of the summaries convinces me that the courts were concerned almost exclusively  with what are termed “procedural issues” and not with the actual substance of what would  constitute election fraud.  For example, the so-called issue of “standing” is procedural. Does a  particular plaintiff have the legal right  to bring this  action?  If the answer is “no” then the entire case is summarily dismissed.  (This happened in several  of the challenge cases). This, of course,  is a perfectly appropriate ruling but it has  nothing  whatsoever to do with the issue of substantial fraud one way or the other.

In another one of the 65 cases,  the judge actually asked why the plaintiff  could not have filed suit before the election regarding some alleged problem in the way the voting process was likely to be administered.  “Too late now” the judge said, in effect.  Case dismissed.  One judge actually asserted that any complaints about the legitimate certification of the election (in Georgia)  were all now “moot” since “the election results… had already been certified.”  But the issue of “certification legitimacy” was the very concept that the plaintiffs were challenging! Unbelievable.

See the rest here

Be seeing you