GOP stands 0-5 in legal attempts to disinfranchise Georgia voters in runoff election

I've got every single legal document filed in every case - in every state - that proves otherwise, including the Judges rulings (many of which were Republicans themselves and some of which Trump appointed himself) to prove otherwise it. What evidence do you have?

No you don't or you'd realize that none of them were thrown out because of evidentiary reasons.

I most certainly do and they were easy to obtain as they're all filed online. There's been 9 separate actions in Georgia, 2 in Texas, 1 in New Mexico, 7 in Arizona, 8 in Nevada, 16 in Pennsylvania, 1 in New York, 9 in Michigan, 7 in Wisconsin, 1 in Iowa and 4 in Minnesota. How would I know that if I didn't actually have copies of the documents?

Cases have concluded for many reasons... lack of standing, lack of merit and even lack of substantive evidence that supports the claims asserted.

Yup you could read all the judge decisions on democracy docket

I've only seen one that had anything to do with evidence, let alone dismissed for lack of it.

I provided you with all the States where cases were filed and ruled on. Don't expect me to go back and dig up the applicable documents for you. You can find them yourself. I will give you a few clues though, starting with "the Kraken" filings in Georgia and elsewhere, plus...

In PA... Judge Bibas (a Trump appointee) ruled against Trump stating “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Judge Braun stated “This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” with “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.”

In MI... Trump team initially claimed generic fraud statewide but presented almost no particular claims regarding such to the courts, so suit after suit were rejected.

In AZ... Judge stated “Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court,” ...“They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” Nothing presented in court was serious, let alone providing a basis for overturning an election.

In NV... Judge ruled Trump team “did not prove under any standard of proof” that enough illegal votes were cast, or legal votes not counted, “to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.”

I could go on but I'm not going to as I've already done my homework. It's time for you to do yours.

Look at your own quotes. Not one mention of evidence or lack of it. All of them were for non-evidentiary reasons.

Are you really that obtuse? Your statement demonstrates you know nothing about litigation proceedings nor the legal jargon and terminologies used in such.

"Did not prove any standard of proof" literally means that the evidence presented Iin the case did not meet legal requirements necessary to prove their assertions. So too does "Charges require specific allegations and then PROOF. We have neither here" Even the AZ Judge's ruling when they reference the pleadings is speaking to the lack of solid evidentiary proof contained within them.

PA Judge Braun also went on to state "... One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome [as trying to disinfranchise 7 million votes], a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and FACTUAL PROOF of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.”

He keeps adamantly pretending that every single case has been thrown out for procedural reasons only, when that is demonstrably not true. Plenty of judges have reviewed the "evidence" brought up by Trump and his allies and every time it doesn't meet the burden of proof. It's not even like there's a difference in opinion, policy prescription, moral value, etc., he's literally objectively wrong but he keeps insisting that he's right and it's really annoying.

Plus, he unironically believes that Alex Jones is the most trustworthy news source out there, so good luck trying to convince him.

No actually if you review the cases you'll see most of them were thrown out for non-evidentiary reasons. Many of them were procedural and refused to even see the evidence.
In a normal case an affidavit is enough to subpoena evidence. In these cases the judges wouldn't do it. Corruption or cowardess, pick your poison.

I'm pretty sure affidavits are considered proof. In those few cases the judges had to have been corrupt.

No, affidavits are considered 'evidence' but are not in and of themselves automatically classified as proof - they are merely the written equivalent of oral testimony - and subject to the same type of scrutiny as a legal cross examination.

Affidavits containing hearsay are not proof. Nor are those containing an "expert's opinion" unless that person first meets all three criteria conditions to provide expert testimony in the first place and is able to back up what they state with supporting evidence, such that they are deemed credible by the Judge.

Rather ironic you think I'm the one that needs to brush up on case law when I've been in the legal profession for more than two decades.

Here's a 40 page ruling made in Nevada that squarely addresses every claim made in court and why Trump team lost that case, which included affidavits deemed hearsay, expert witnessed not credible and why, etc. Read it, you might learn something.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-44711.pdf

Yes, but when someone signs one tgey are risking perjury charges, so its taken as evidence until proven wrong. It is used to obtain evidence. Read the bill of rights.

Affidavits are not considered proof in and of themselves. They are merely sworn testimonials made by individuals asserting certain claims and are subject to challenge and scrutiny.

In one particular case, an Arizona Judge reprimanded Trump/GOP lawyer for [supposedly accidentally] submitting affidavits into evidence that he knew were fraudulent in addition to those he said he couldn't prove they weren't fraudulent. Here's Court video of that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TtM8_870Nw

In other cases, affidavits produced by so called "experts" - while being produced by highly educated persons in certain disciplines - were deemed not to be qualified as actual experts on the issues they were addressing. One of those people was the individual that came up with the 'one in a quadrilian' and his credibility was quickly destroyed by an expert that actually was qualified to speak on the matter.

Those are just two or many, many, examples where claims presented did not meet the standard of proof required.

Wrong a signed affidavit is considered proof because if the person is found to be lying, they face jail time. This is known from the constitution as the thing that constitutes probable cause.

You need to brush up on your case law.

If they even thought they were fraudulent affidavits they would have arrested the people that signed them and brought them up on charges. A judges 'opinion' is pretty much worthless. Its only an explanation of why they ruled a certain way and holds no power.

Millions of affidavits, and millions of ballots that should have been invalidated just based on the constitution and local laws.
You cannot win. The fraud has been revealed, everyone knows its real including 30% of democrats. I see a mass exodus from the dem party soon over this.

Yes, evidence - as I previously stated - but not considered 'proof' of facts until the Judge has deemed it to be credible.

Its all that's needed to get subpoena's to seize evidence.

I'll remember this logic the next time I'm a judge presiding over a rape case. No matter how many eye witnesses are brought in, no matter what material evidence is discovered, even if there is video evidence of events playing out exactly how they were portrayed I'll just say "sorry, I've found not evidence. You're free to go Rappie McRaperson. Have a wonderful day!".
If the court says no evidence it must be the truth!

What you think to be the truth - which every pro Trump media site is telling you to believe - is complete BS and pure propaganda. The reason why Trump and the GOP have lost 59/60 rulings to date is because they've been unable to prove merit, standing, or substantive evidence that unequivocably supports their assertions. The only case they actually won was being able to reduce the cure date deadline on ballots by 3 days. Hardly a major victory.

That's right. Witnesses were specifically asked to provide actual proof, but they folded and admitted the was actually none. Don't like the result, blame the witnesses and not the judges.

Nope, please try again. None of the cases were dismissed because of evidentiary reasons.

He just wants people like you to live a full and happy life outside jail.

I said "like you".

Prove it.

Prove he didnt

The burden of proof is on the accuser, namely you.

Tell that to a man accused of rape in a western country.

So where do you think the burden of proof belongs? Innocent until proven guilty, that's the law.

I bring up the rape thing only because it's the easiest to illustrate that if the correct party accuses the wrong party of something they don't need any proof or justification to end a man's life. And I only say that semi-hyperboliously.

On paper, sure. But in reality, girl points her finger at you, she can destroy you with the power of the state.