I’m proud of you for being able to recognize and acknowledge you were wrong. Growth can be painful but always worthwhile.

weird

Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let's see how each of those court cases were ruled!

Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.

Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm'n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.

King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could've been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.

Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.

Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff's claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.

Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could've been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff's claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn't didn't override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.

Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff's claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.

Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.

Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.

Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.