Page:Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.pdf/238

 The judge wrote that "[t]his argument is belied by the record" because absentee ballots were actually rejected for signature issues at the same rate as in 2018.

In Michigan, a Federal judge found in King v. Whitmer that the plaintiffs' claims of "massive election fraud" were based on "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden. . . ." Similarly, a State-court judge rejected plaintiffs' claims in two cases brought against Detroit and the surrounding county that accused them of systematic fraud in how absentee ballots were counted; the judge found that one group of plaintiffs ". . . offered no evidence to support their assertions," and that the other group's "interpretation of events is incorrect" and "decidedly contradicted" by "highly-respected" election experts.

In Nevada, a State-court judge rejected a litany of claims of systematic election fraud in Law v. Whitmer, ruling that plaintiffs "did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud" or "for any other improper or illegal reason." The ruling was unanimously upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court.

In Pennsylvania, a Federal judge dismissed Donald Trump for President v. Boockvar, finding that the Trump Campaign had presented nothing but "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." The dismissal was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which held: "[C]alling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." That opinion was authored by another Trump appointee.

Lastly, in Wisconsin, another judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Wisconsin Elections Commission of "constitutional violations" that "likely tainted more than 50,000 ballots." The judge ruled: "This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits," failing to show that the outcome was affected by Commission rules about drop boxes, ballot addresses, or individuals who claimed "indefinitely confined" status to vote from home. The ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, all of whom were Republican appointees, including one appointed by President Trump himself.

In all, the judges who heard these post-election cases included 22 Federal judges appointed by Republican presidents.

President Trump and his lawyers were well-aware that courts were consistently rejecting his claims. During a December 18th meeting in the