[ad_1]
In the period since the November 3 electoral defeat, United States President Donald Trump has filed nearly 20 lawsuits in various tipping states that he lost and thus cost him the presidential seat.
In different states, Trump’s demands are different, but the goal is the same: to turn an electoral defeat into an electoral winner through the American courts.
But in several of the states where Trump has filed lawsuits, judges who have heard the Trump campaign case have been downright frustrated with the electoral campaign’s procedures and legal basis, according to ABC News.
The reason is clear, according to a Norwegian-American expert:
“Trump has neither the law nor the facts on his side,” he said.
This is Trump’s demand
But first: What does Trump ask the judges of the different states?
In Pennsylvania, Trump and his lawyers wanted to reject a series of mail-in ballots, stop counting in some constituencies and prevent final certification of the election result.
In Michigan, the president’s attorneys wanted to stop the mail-in ballot counting and prevent final certification of the election result.
In Nevada, the Trump campaign wanted to avoid using a machine that verifies signatures in a particular county.
In Arizona, Trump wanted to prevent Maricopa County from certifying the county’s election results.
In Georgia, the president wanted to separate mail-in ballots that arrived after the deadline from other ballots. It is said to have been about 54 votes, according to the Trump campaign.
Declared judge
In Nevada, Trump’s attorneys tried to argue their case by claiming that campaign watchers were not allowed to be close enough to the polls. The attorneys claimed that since observers for the Trump campaign did not hear in plain text what the narrators were saying, they were by definition not close enough to observe the count satisfactorily.
Judge Andrew Gordon, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, later struck back at Trump’s lawyers, according to ABC News. The judge rhetorically asked Trump’s lawyers:
– At what point does this get ridiculous?
The judge later concluded in favor of Trump and the Republicans.
“What is your problem?”
Also in Pennsylvania, judges, including former President George W. Bush-appointed Judge Paul Diamond, have responded with little understanding to Trump’s demands.
In one of several lawsuits filed in the state, Trump’s attorneys argued against him that election observers for the Trump campaign had been excluded from the electoral college.
Then Trump’s lawyers turned around.
In court, they admitted that the election observers for the campaign had not actually been excluded, but were actually allowed to observe the count from a distance of 15 feet – 4.5 meters.
ABC News writes that Judge Diamond appeared “confused” at the time.
“I’m sorry, but what is your problem?” The judge asked Trump’s lawyers.
“Come on …”
In Michigan, Judge Cynthia Stephens, appointed by Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, went against the alleged evidence of Trump’s attorneys.
Before the court, the lawyers presented the statement of a witness, who affirmed that there had been irregularities in the handling of the ballots. But the witness did not see or hear the alleged wrongdoing for himself, and the witness claimed in his statement to Trump’s lawyers that he had heard it from someone else.
– This is, at best, a “hearsay” certificate, Judge Stephens said in court.
“Rumors” is a term for testimony if something the witness himself has not seen or heard, but heard from others. In most US courts, “hearsay” tests are invalid, but exceptions can be granted in certain circumstances.
Michigan Judge Stephens did not see such circumstances.
– If there is anything in this testimony that could indicate that the witness observed an activity that would have corrupted the rights of the electoral observer, I want him to point me in that direction. “I heard someone say something.” Tell me why it’s not “rumor”. Come on, Judge Stephens said.
Trump’s lawyers have been unable to point to any other evidence requested by the judge.
Spread “misinformation”
American expert Hilmar Mjelde, a researcher at the Norce Research Center, is not surprised that Trump’s lawsuit is getting nowhere.
– Because he has neither the law nor the facts on his side. Trump’s revenge attempts take place in two arenas: in the media and in court. In the media, Trump’s lackeys are free to spread misinformation. In a court of law, on the other hand, you must have a legal case. Trump doesn’t have that, says Mjelde.
However, he is aware that Trump’s unfounded allegations of voter fraud have paid off.
– Trump has had considerable success in Trump-friendly outlets like Fox News. Republican voters now mistakenly believe that Biden did not win honestly. Trump has now managed to delegitimize a legitimate election winner for Biden by spreading misinformation, says the expert.
