Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Trump’s 2020 Stolen Election Claims Are Wrong on the Merits

by September 16, 2024
September 16, 2024
Trump’s 2020 Stolen Election Claims Are Wrong on the Merits

Walter Olson

Donald Trump is back to saying the 2020 election was stolen from him, and his followers regularly echo these claims. It’s therefore helpful to keep on hand one or two of the exhaustively detailed state-by-state accounts by election lawyers and scholars of why this isn’t so.

“Lost, Not Stolen,” from 2022, is a 72-page report from eight prominent conservative legal and political figures that knocks down many of the more frequently heard claims that the 2020 election was stolen or illegitimate. Among its all-star author lineup: Michael McConnell and two other former federal judges, former Solicitor General Ted Olson (who is no relation), and Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg.

Their “unequivocal” conclusion is that Trump lost; they find no credible evidence that fraud changed the outcome even in a single precinct, let alone in any state. I wrote about their report here.

In 2024 Justin Grimmer and Abhinav Ramaswamy of the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford University published an 85-page dissection of the Trump fraud claims. Grimmer is also associated with the Hoover Institution.

“All of the claims we evaluate fail to provide evidence of fraud or illegal voting. Trump’s claims … are riddled with errors, hampered by misunderstandings about how to analyze official voter records, and filled with confusion about basic statistical techniques and concepts.” Like the authors of “Lost, Not Stolen,” Grimmer and Ramaswamy examine cases from all six of the close/​contested states in 2020, namely Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

When I wrote about the Grimmer/​Ramaswamy paper here, I addressed the argument that papers like these are pointless because those friendly toward Trump’s claims will not find or read them, while those opposed don’t need them. As I see it, persuasion matters and will always matter so long as questions of politics are resolved by something short of force.

At his debate with Kamala Harris, Trump repeated a claim he’s made before: that his 2020 election challenges were thrown out on standing rather than merits. So far as I’m aware, neither Harris nor the moderators challenged this assertion about standing, which is a shame because it was flatly false. While some cases did fail on standing (sometimes because Trump’s side had not proffered needed evidence), courts reached merits in case after case.

In a new piece, veteran lawyer Rich Bernstein examines how courts disposed of the Trump election cases, as enumerated in “Lost, Not Stolen.” Courts regularly cited merits, not infrequently in circumstances in which independent alternative grounds, such as standing or procedural flaws, would also doom a claim. (For a sample of a well-written opinion showing some of this interplay, read this from the Third Circuit on Trump’s Pennsylvania claims, written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee.)

When Trump claims his supporters were never given their day in court to dispute the 2020 results, he bids to undermine the legitimacy of both the electoral and the judicial systems. Those are good reasons to make sure those assertions don’t go unchallenged.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Harris-Trump showdown: Presidential race rocked by 2nd assassination attempt with 50 days until election
next post
Equity Markets Rebound As Discretionary Out-Performs

You may also like

Seattle Transit Agency Doing the Two-Step to Get...

November 25, 2024

How Subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act Undermine...

September 22, 2023

11 Charts Showing How Canada/Mexico Tariffs Would Harm...

February 28, 2025

Immigrant Population Is Still One Million Below the...

September 13, 2024

The Whole DEI Project Is a “McCarthyite Witch...

May 2, 2025

In Memoriam: David Boaz

June 7, 2024

Friday Feature: Streams of Hope Christian School

September 8, 2023

Voters in Four States Chose to Continue Infringing...

November 6, 2024

WSJ Ed Board Knives Fourth Amendment, Betrays Journal’s...

March 26, 2024

Ambiguous Economy Is the Latest Result of Fed’s...

June 13, 2023

Seattle Transit Agency Doing the Two-Step to Get...

November 25, 2024

How Subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act Undermine...

September 22, 2023

11 Charts Showing How Canada/Mexico Tariffs Would Harm...

February 28, 2025

Immigrant Population Is Still One Million Below the...

September 13, 2024

The Whole DEI Project Is a “McCarthyite Witch...

May 2, 2025

In Memoriam: David Boaz

June 7, 2024

Friday Feature: Streams of Hope Christian School

September 8, 2023

Voters in Four States Chose to Continue Infringing...

November 6, 2024

WSJ Ed Board Knives Fourth Amendment, Betrays Journal’s...

March 26, 2024

Ambiguous Economy Is the Latest Result of Fed’s...

June 13, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • One in six UK workers struggling to pay bills as second jobs hit record high

      July 12, 2025
    • Here’s What’s Fueling the Moves in Bitcoin, Gaming, and Metals

      July 12, 2025
    • Inside longtime Biden aide’s marathon closed-door grilling in House GOP cover-up probe

      July 12, 2025
    • David Gergen, trusted White House advisor to 4 US presidents across decades, dies at 83

      July 11, 2025
    • 3 Stocks Seasoned Investors Should Watch

      July 11, 2025
    • What Happens Next for the S&P 500? Pick Your Path!

      July 11, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,455)
    • Investing (2,118)
    • Politics (16,011)
    • Stocks (3,205)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved