elections
Court transcripts of U.S. trials about claims of voter fraud
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=60454&amp;fbclid=IwAR0M7Uy8KU09sue9DPlxjFRTez4S-KvtpkOYoZrL9V0Y_1f_uTfF15OkWIk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Law v. Whitmer in Nevada</a>. The verdict itself is in document 20-44711.</p>
<p><strong>Can someone provide me with more, similar court transcripts from the trials where the “evidence” of voter fraud has been debunked?</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>
<p>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</p>
