Who actually read any of the court documents connected to the election? (Pennsylvania, examples)

[latimeria]

I keep hearing how all of the judges just threw out the cases summarily without looking at the evidence. It isn't true. If you actually look at the documents and follow what happened, you can see that evidence like the affidavits was presented and the judges did look at them.

All of these links are taken from democracydocket.com since they lay it out nicely and are links to the actual court filings themselves

Let's look at one of the early ones:

Costantino v. Detroit
Lawsuit claiming multiple fraud conspiracies in the Michigan election. The challenge asks the Board of Elections to conduct an audit of the election, prohibit the certification of the election, and order a new election to be held.

The links to the various filings are at this link, and I will highlight a few.
https://www.democracydocket.com/stat...=post-election

First, there was the complaint:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...Exhibits-1.pdf

Note that it wasn't just one page with the summary above or anything. It's 78 pages along, details the issues, and includes some of the actual affidavits themselves. Notably, ones that were talked about a lot that were included were Jessy Jacob and Melissa Carone.

Next there were a few different motions, then the order:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...on-Printer.pdf

The judge's name is Timothy Kenny. His opinion and order was 13 pages long and he specifically mentions some of the problems with the affidavits and that the Defendents' arguments were more persuasive.

For example, he found Jessy Jacob's statements to be too generalized and detailed why. He found that a lot of the issues brought up were actually normal parts of the process and several of the affiants had not gone to a meeting before the election where they would have learned about all of these things.

As for Melissa Carone, he didn't find her affidavit reliable since she mentioned a bunch of issues that would have been noticeable and unusual, but no one else talked about anything like that and no other indications that it had happened were found.

He ruled for the Defendents. After that, there were various other filings. The case went to an appeal, and the resulting order once they reviewed is here:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-c...0-11-23-or.pdf

Denied, with a 7 page explanation of why.

A few more filings after, with the matter ultimately dismissed.

There are other examples we could go through, but this is getting long. The one in Arizona with the webform affidavit mess, the one in Nevada where the judge was vocal about looking at the evidence specifically, the Pennsylvania cases, etc

If you want to still believe that the judges just threw all of these cases out without ever considering anything about the cases, well, that's your prerogative. Weird, but yours.

There was no there, there. Case after case showing no credible indications that fraud or other issues were real. If Trump and Co. still have something out there, something REAL, they need to get it into a court, stat. This has gone on way too long.