From: garyrayl70@gmail.com   
      
   Don't bother to read any of this if you're convinced that DJT is   
   the greatest President of all! Ignore it all and continue to play   
   with lies, myths, distractions and whatever else suits you!   
   And as you observe America's downfall in progress, please tell   
   yourselves that "It's only lies" until the economy collapses and   
   a civil war erupts in the streets. Deep State fantasies may still   
   be there to aid your denial through it all, since an aversion to   
   discomforting reality always has its teddy bears and teething rings!   
      
   I asked AI Microsoft CoPilot:   
      
   Trump and his fans claim that state courts refused to adjudicate his   
   claim of a rigged 2020 election due to a conspiracy among those court   
   judges and/or state officials (Sec. of State, Atorney Generals, etc.),   
   and argued that the "standards" by which they dismissed their claim were   
   violated to suppress the "truth" of a widespread Left/Democrat   
   conspiracy. Mitch McConnell rejected that claim in the Senate   
   immediately after  the Jan. 6th, 2021 assault on the Capitol by   
   Trumpers. What are the facts?   
      
   It answered, fully quoted:   
      
   Here’s the crux: Trump’s narrative that “the courts refused to hear the   
   evidence” is flatly contradicted by the litigation record, and by top   
   Republicans like McConnell citing that record in real time. Courts did   
   hear his side; they rejected it because the claims were factually   
   unsupported or legally deficient, not because of a conspiracy.   
      
   High‑level comparison [CHART]   
   Question	Trump narrative	Documented facts   
   Were cases “never heard on the merits”?	Claims they were thrown out only   
   on “technicalities” like standing.	Many courts reached the merits and   
   rejected fraud claims as unsupported; others used standard doctrines   
   (standing, mootness, etc.).   
   How many lawsuits?	Framed as massive legal war “blocked” by courts.   
   Trump campaign and allies filed about 62 post‑election cases; 61 failed   
   in court.   
   Why did they lose?	Alleged partisan/Deep State conspiracy by judges and   
   state officials.	Courts (including Trump‑appointed judges) found no   
   credible evidence of widespread fraud or illegality and applied routine   
   procedural rules.   
   What did McConnell say?	Trump world later implies GOP “betrayed” him.   
   McConnell: “The voters, the courts and the states have all spoken… If we   
   overrule them, it will damage our republic forever.”   
   Sources:   
      
   1. What actually happened in the courts   
   Volume and outcomes   
   Number of cases: Trump’s campaign and allied plaintiffs filed roughly 62   
   post‑election lawsuits challenging election processes and results in   
   multiple states.   
      
   Results: 61 of 62 were rejected by state and federal courts; only a   
   minor Pennsylvania case changed a small number of ballots and did not   
   affect any outcome.   
      
   These losses occurred in state and federal courts, trial and appellate   
   levels, in both red and blue states, under judges appointed by both   
   parties, including Trump’s own nominees.   
      
   Merits vs “technicalities”   
   Trump has repeatedly claimed that “we lost on standing, a technicality,”   
   and that courts never reached his evidence. A detailed analysis by   
   Richard Bernstein (a former Supreme Court clerk) shows that claim is false:   
      
   Many cases were decided “on the merits”—judges examined the allegations   
   and found them unsupported or implausible.   
      
   Others were dismissed on standard procedural grounds, such as:   
      
   Standing: Plaintiffs weren’t the proper parties to sue.   
      
   Mootness: The issue was no longer live.   
      
   Laches / timing: Challenges came too late, after rules were set and   
   ballots cast.   
      
   These procedural doctrines are not inventions for Trump; they are   
   long‑standing, neutral rules applied in all kinds of litigation,   
   including elections.   
      
   Bernstein explicitly notes that Trump’s statement that his team lost   
   “solely on the technicality of standing” is wrong: courts did reject   
   claims on the merits as well as on well‑established procedural grounds.   
      
   2. Why courts rejected the fraud and “rigged” claims   
   Lack of evidence and unreliable witnesses   
   In cases where courts reached the substance, the pattern was consistent:   
      
   Judges found no credible evidence of large‑scale fraud or   
   outcome‑changing irregularities.   
      
   Many allegations were based on:   
      
   Misunderstandings of normal election procedures.   
      
   Statistical or mathematical claims that collapsed under scrutiny.   
      
   Affidavits that were speculative, conclusory, or unsupported by records.   
      
   The Judicature analysis of 2020 election litigation (“The Courts Held”)   
   emphasizes that courts repeatedly demanded proof and were not given   
   proof that could meet legal standards—and that this is precisely how the   
   rule of law is supposed to function under stress.   
      
   Standard procedural doctrines, not a special anti‑Trump rule   
   The Supreme Court and other courts used familiar doctrines:   
      
   Standing: For example, in Texas v. Pennsylvania, Texas lacked standing   
   to challenge how other states conducted their elections—a basic   
   federalism principle, not a Trump‑specific rule.   
      
   Mootness / timing: Pre‑election and post‑election challenges were   
   sometimes brought too late to be legally cognizable; courts routinely   
   apply this to avoid retroactive rule‑changing.   
      
   A Legal Clarity summary notes that the Supreme Court’s refusals to take   
   certain election cases were grounded in these routine doctrines, not in   
   any refusal to examine “fraud” in principle.   
      
   3. The conspiracy claim about judges and state officials   
   Trump and his supporters often argue:   
      
   Claim: Judges (state and federal) and officials (secretaries of state,   
   attorneys general, etc.) coordinated to protect a “Left/Democrat   
   conspiracy” by refusing to adjudicate the cases fairly.   
      
   When you compare that to the public record:   
      
   No evidence of coordinated conspiracy among judges or state officials   
   has been presented in any court or credible investigation.   
      
   Multiple Republican officials—including Republican secretaries of state   
   and governors—certified their own states’ results and defended them in   
   court.   
      
   Many adverse rulings were issued by Republican‑appointed judges,   
   including some appointed by Trump himself, who applied conventional   
   legal standards and explicitly rejected fraud claims as unproven.   
      
   In other words, the “conspiracy” narrative is entirely assertion.   
   Trump’s team had full opportunity, in multiple forums, to put that   
   conspiracy theory into a sworn complaint with evidence; they did not   
   produce evidence that met courtroom standards, and judges said so in   
   their written opinions.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)