Antrim county was audited and no fraud was found. I don’t consider their expert to be particularly credible and their conclusions (with leaps of faith as to assumed motive) are not even borne out by the facts as they reported. An overly sensitive page size detection could produce the same discrepancies they claimed to find.

The ‘expert’ in the Antrim document also claimed over 100% of registered voters voted in various Michigan counties but was actually using Minnesota data. It was buffoonery of the absolute highest order and plainly visible. Why anyone would rely upon someone so incompetent for any other analysis is beyond me.

Oh, right, equally ludicrous is the misadministration by a Republican county clerk is cause for disenfranchising a vote by the opposing party.

For her part though, the county clerk called shenanigans:

‘Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy all pushed back on the report.

Guy, a Republican, said she was saddened by the efforts to discredit the equipment.

I did read the report and find that there are many misleading statements that are simply not accurate.”’

Note, I made no claim on what is or is not credible. I simply stated that there were experts claiming that. This gives cover for Rudy

You should read the Dominion filing against Rudy. They leave no stone unturned to show that not only were Rudy's sources not experts, but that Rudy knew they weren't experts.

> Frankly, I’ve seen the evidence Guiliani has presented and I find it convincing

Care to share?

Edited in, check again

A plethora of court cases disagree with you.

That link contradicts you. If you take its contents at face value, there were multiple cases decided on merits.

If anything, I can see the potential for an argument to be made that that that site's definition of "decided on merits" is too narrow. For example, depositions were submitted in Law v. Whitmer, significant parts of the decision were dedicated specifically to discussing the merits of the case, and the conclusion specifically says that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof, but that case is listed as "Decided on Merits: NO".

Yeah, there is a sense in which dismissal for “failure to state a claim” (which is very common for the Trump cases, often alongside other grounds like laches and/or lack of standing) is “procedural”, but it definitely and unequivocally amounts to a finding on the merits, since it is literally “does the plaintiff allege the actual elements of an offense, with specific alleged factual bases, and profer evidence which would suffice, if not countered, to prove each”. If you lose on that, it is exactly the court say that “ignoring everything else, if you went to trial, presented everything you say you have, and the defendant’s legal team slept through your whole presentation and then decided not to present a case of their own, you would still lose”.

There was a bit of a catch-22 in many of these. There was statistical and/or witness evidence that looking more closely at dominion machines and/or ballots was warranted. However, the only way to actually be allowed to look was during discovery ... which required a suit to actually be heard rather than dismissed. So you don't get to go looking for evidence because you are told you don't have any evidence.

I remember this county being an early catch that angered many on the right, where people actually made an effort to recount. I wonder how many here are aware of it? https://www.westernjournal.com/michigan-recount-confirms-tru...

We are told by the "fact check" websites that we may (and must) disregard the conclusions [2] that Navid Keshavarz-Nia [1] swore an affidavit to, because there is no proof. But how can we get such proof without the cases actually being heard? Left leaning people in general, and HN posters in particular have a disdain for those who make up the non-urban, non-coastal heart of the USA. But wouldn't it have been better to allow these cases to come to trial, so that the nation could actually determine the facts and begin to heal?

[1] https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/4873267/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20201202043332/https://www.court...

Stating that you expect to find something specific during discovery is sufficient for the purpose of stating a claim. The issue for most of the cases is that the Trump campaign lawyers were very careful not to include in their claims that they believed that fraud had occurred, because they did not actually believe this, and lying in a court filing is a serious crime. Asking for a trial so that you can avail yourself of discovery but not actually claiming any illegal things you expect discovery to uncover is commonly referred to as a "fishing expedition", and is never permitted.

> There was a bit of a catch-22 in many of these

Please cite a specific case which made claims that were not properly adjudicated on the basis of this supposed “catch-22”.

And what was the statistical evidence?

googles wiseenergy.

Oh look it's the successor to WindpowerFacts.info, run by a climate change denier. I'm so ready to trust his opinion on legal matters.

You think those are fake links to stanford law on his site? The sources are of equal validity regardless of the messenger.

> You think those are fake links to stanford law on his site? The sources are of equal validity regardless of the messenger.

At least the links I checked (the only thing linked is the title of each case) were to the complaints, so they aren’t sources for the data in the table about the outcomes or grounds for the outcomes.

Do you regularly find yourself relying on a Gish Gallop of information provided by pathological liars to support your theses?

You must have replied to the wrong comment. I didn’t present a thesis.

> None were discussed on merits.

Incorrect, read some of the cases. Quite a few were dismissed on the merits. Literally your own link says “YES” in the Decided on Merits column! Did you not read your link?

Some of the later cases were not decided on merits because they were filed so late (e.g., suing over a change suggested by Republicans used in the 2016 Wisconsin election to fill in missing zip codes and then used again in 2020, or a change passed by Republican legislators in 2019 and promoted by them to the public in 2020 in Pennsylvania, and only complained about after Biden won).

However, some courts did reach the merits and found the claims of Trump campaign and his allies to be completely meritless. Note that Giuliani and his associates, when under oath in court, stated their cases were not fraud cases but then went to press conferences and claimed they were.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/21/politics/federal-judge-dismis...

> Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania called the Trump campaign's case "Frankenstein's monster" for its poorly stitched together legal theories.

>

> On Friday, a federal appeals court dealt the Trump campaign's effort another blow, with a Trump-appointed judge writing in a scathing opinion that the campaign's lawsuit lacked proof and that its allegations in Pennsylvania "have no merit."

Rightfully so, for the accusers own sake - going to jail for peddling this ridiculous election fraud conspiracy in court isn't in their interest.