0

When you argue with QAnon proponents online, a common claim is that none of the “evidence” for voter fraud has ever been tried in court, and that this is all just “fake news” made up by the “mainstream media”, which is controlled by the “deep state” and whatever. They demand actual court transcripts instead.

But court transcripts are rarely being referenced directly by the media, so it takes some digging to find them. For instance, after some work, I managed to find Law v. Whitmer in Nevada. The verdict itself is in document 20-44711.

Can someone provide me with more, similar court transcripts from the trials where the “evidence” of voter fraud has been debunked?

Gaussler
  • 109
  • 2
    Sadly, its going to be in vain. You are in a game of "bring me a rock". The cultists demanded that the courts rule on their claims. When the courts ruled against them the demand transcripts. If you can get the transcripts, the cultists will declare them incorrect, or demand testimony from a witness who was at the court, or claim that the judge must have been biased, or something, anything, to avoid accepting the truth in front of their noses. – Paul Johnson Jan 11 '21 at 17:01
  • 1
    For those who do not know the "bring me a rock" problem - the response to your rock will be "That is the wrong rock". – George White Jan 11 '21 at 19:13
  • @PaulJohnson Maybe, but surely not everyone will play that game. The media does a terrible job of reporting on these cases (and court cases in general). I only saw specifics of a few cases, and they were dismissed before the evidentiary stage. It would be nice to know where the evidence was evaluated. It must be easy to find names of these cases. I keep hearing how there were many tens of them, but since I rarely hear their names, they are hard to look up. – Matt Jan 11 '21 at 20:56
  • 2
    Most of these cases did not go to trial. They were mostly dismissed in pre-trial practice (supported by affidavits and exhibits) which are available in federal cases via the PACER system, and in state courts through systems that vary from state to state. There would also have been preliminary evidentiary hearings, e.g. on requests for preliminary injunctions. I do not believe any reached a final trial on the merits as there were insufficient allegations to reach that point. Transcripts are generally not routinely part of court files available online despite being public records. – ohwilleke Jan 11 '21 at 21:04
  • 1
    There is a case tracker here: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_2020_Election_Help_Desk:_Tracking_election_disputes,_lawsuits,_and_recounts . Where cases have been decided you can get the actual court order and the original complaint. – Paul Johnson Jan 12 '21 at 08:48
  • Wikipedia has also made a nice overview, with references (though most of them do not refer directly to court documents): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election – Gaussler Jan 12 '21 at 08:54

1 Answers1

5

You'd have to specify the cases you want. All court transcripts are a matter of public record, though a copy may cost you a fee from the court clerk's office to recieve. It should be pointed out that not all cases got to an evidentiary stage to actually evaluate on the record any evidence. A vast majority were decided on pre-evidentiary rules such as standing or laches (timeliness) and not all cases that were able induced evidence debunked the evidence. Any appellent case would also not induce evidence as all appeals cases are strictly matter of law rather than matter of fact (evidence), so those cases would be asking a higher court to double check non-evidentiary decisions.

The fact that the party that brought the suit does not have standing to bring the suit OR that the party that brought the suit brought it too late for the courts to proceed on the matter does not debunk evidence that the fraud happened in the eyes of the law... it simply means the questions of fact were never addressed at all

Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156
hszmv
  • 22,994
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
  • Does that mean that you consider it an open question whether there is evidence of widespread voter fraud? – Gaussler Jan 11 '21 at 15:36
  • 3
    @Gaussler: Depends on where the case failed. In those cases where fraud was alledged and the questions of law prevented a hearing on allegations of Fraud from considering the questions of fact, then yes, I would consider the question open. To remove politics, if the police suspect Jimmy Jones of stealing a million dollars, but the judge refuses to hear the case because the statute of limitations run out, then I would consider the question of fact (Did Jimmy Jones Steal A million dollars) to be open still.+ – hszmv Jan 11 '21 at 16:48
  • 3
    @Gaussler: The inability for a court of law to hear evidence on the facts because of a matter of law does not mean the facts are legally resolved... the fact of the matter can still be in doubt if the evidence was not discussed. – hszmv Jan 11 '21 at 16:50