Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found ‘excuse’ to sit it out

Sen. Rand Paul rejected the idea that courts have “decided the facts” on the integrity of November’s presidential election.

“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.”

Paul pointed out while speaking with former special counsel Ken Starr that 60 court cases involving voter fraud claims in the election were thrown out for procedural reasons, which Starr agreed with, saying that the “vast majority” were thrown out for procedural reasons rather than merit.

Paul also called on state legislatures to “reaffirm” that election law can only be changed by state legislatures, and he suggested that hearings should take place in the future to listen to state legislators and make sure that is happening.

The Kentucky Republican told Starr that this legal aspect should be heard by the courts and stated that roughly two dozen states made changes to when and how ballots are counted against the will of state legislatures.

Starr said election laws were “flagrantly violated” in Pennsylvania, which President Trump’s legal team has vehemently argued, and Paul agreed with that assessment.

“The legal question there is a very easy one to decide,” Paul said. “Even as a physician, I can figure out that the secretary of state cannot create law.”

He added: “I think there is a lot of work to be done.”

Paul’s comments have been echoed by several prominent conservatives, including radio host Mark Levin, who has taken issue with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a legal challenge of the 2020 election that was signed by 17 states.

Levin also slammed the Supreme Court for not taking up a challenge in Pennsylvania over the constitutional question that Paul and Starr discussed in Wednesday’s hearing.

Levin called the justices on the court “fearful” of the political repercussions of hearing the case and accused them of “ducking under the proverbial table.”

Related Content