Showing posts with label 2020 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2020 election. Show all posts

Friday, January 30, 2026

How Trump’s 2020 Election Claims Have Been Debunked Again and Again; The New York Times, January 30, 2026

 Reid J. Epstein and , The New York Times; How Trump’s 2020 Election Claims Have Been Debunked Again and Again

"More than five years after President Trump lost the 2020 election, he and his administration are still pursuing baseless conspiracy theories in an attempt to prove otherwise.

Though scores of lawsuits aiming to overturn the results were dismissed by judges in 2020 and 2021, Mr. Trump’s relentless false arguments that he won the election have led many of his supporters to believe him. And now that he is back in the White House, some of those falsehoods have become official stances of the U.S. government.

On Wednesday, F.B.I. agents in Georgia searched an election center in Fulton County, Ga., which includes Atlanta, for ballots and other voting records from the 2020 contest. The move appeared to be a significant escalation of Mr. Trump’s effort to rewrite the history of the 2020 election and his defeat to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Here’s the reality of what happened."

Sunday, December 14, 2025

Colorado Officials Reject Trump’s ‘Pardon’ of a Convicted Election Denier; The New York Times, December 13, 2025

  , The New York Times; Colorado Officials Reject Trump’s ‘Pardon’ of a Convicted Election Denier

"President Trump’s pledge to pardon Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk convicted of tampering with voting machines, touched off a new battle on Friday over the fate of perhaps the last high-profile 2020 election denier still behind bars.

Democratic leaders in Colorado dismissed the pardon as an empty attempt to bully a Democratic state into freeing one of the president’s political allies. They argued that Mr. Trump had no legal power to overturn Ms. Peters’s conviction in state court...

Legal scholars and Colorado officials were incredulous. They said the notion that the president could intervene in state courts clashed with the plain language of the Constitution, as well as its fundamental principles of federalism and states’ rights."