Every Single Time Biden Says Or Does Something Stupid They Drop Another Indictment

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Orangecat]

Every Single Time Biden Says Or Does Something Stupid They Drop Another Indictment​

That certainly explains why there are so damn many indictments.

 

[strollingbones]

every time trump commits a crime he gets indicted

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

That certainly explains why there are so damn many indictments.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The federal courts have had longstanding precedents for not becoming involved in the electoral process. Even the Bush v. Gore case resulted in a technical decision about the Florida Supreme Court's failure to follow its own procedures. But its recent Moore v. Harper decision did not close the door on reviewing abrogation of state legislature authority by state courts and authorities. Rather, the SCOTUS majority did not wish to confer absolute authority without any remedies whatsoever. Given the flawed nature of this case (the State Supreme Court had already reversed the decision that was being appealed), SCOTUS declined to specify a test for when it would review such abrogation.

It is my opinion that SCOTUS has given fair warning that it will be open to reviewing such cases in the future.

Apparently that is not exactly what happened:


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.

The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising but ends months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.

Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.

apnews.com

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court’s order reads. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

The order does not foreclose any other pending or future election appeals at the Supreme Court, but time is running out. The states meet next week on Dec. 14 for the Electoral College exercise. And on Jan. 6 there will be a joint session of the House and Senate to count the electoral votes and certify President-elect Joe Biden as the winner.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case -- without granting other relief, like issuing an injunction on electoral proceedings. They added that they expressed "no view on any other issue."

Moments after the court's decision, President Trump tweeted out one of his new campaign videos questioning elections integrity.



PENNSYLVANIA ACCUSES TEXAS OF SEEKING 'TO DECIMATE THE ELECTORATE' IN FIERY SUPREME COURT BRIEF

The justices could have agreed to hear the case and promptly dismissed it or ruled in favor of Texas, or they could have requested oral arguments before ruling. They declined to hear it outright.

The crux of the Texas case was the argument that the four states it is suing -- all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden -- unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.

"Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes," the Texas brief says. "Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits."

----
Despite the widespread attention, however, most legal experts say the Texas case is fatally flawed in several different ways and almost certain to fail. One of the major elements, according to University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias, is how late the suit is being filed.


(full articles online)



Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-supported Texas case over election results in four other states

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sad guy.

How long did Georgia spend with a Grand Jury?
How much time did Trump's lawyers had to show all of these evidence he talks about which would exonerate him?

Zero.

A man who has no proof and is only going to show what his followers want to see. Whatever he can invent, without proof, for their eyes only.


Show it to the Grand Jury and the Judge in Georgia, Donald Trump. Show it to them.

 

[scruffy]

That’s not how indictments work bucko… they don’t just get dropped on a whim

Sure they do.

Ask hundreds of Soros DA's all over the country.

 

[scruffy]

But we will still all end up in the concentration camp.

Not me.

The world will have a thousand fewer commies before anyone has a chance to put me on a train.

The dumb fucktards in the government think there's no such thing as underground anymore. They're wrong.

Underground is a magical place. I was born there, I know the terrain like the back of my hand. So do millions of others. FedGov will have about as much luck with this as they did with the Underground Railroad.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure they do.

Ask hundreds of Soros DA's all over the country.

I asked… they said you’re full of shit

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn’t have a legal process smart guy. Unless now you’re trying to claim that the guy with dementia is pulling strings for the FBIDOJ and judicial system. Is that what you’re trying to claim?

He's pulling their strings, dumbass. He may be too brain damaged to do it himself, but someone on his staff is obviously capable of doing it.

 

[bripat9643]

Not me.

The world will have a thousand fewer commies before anyone has a chance to put me on a train.

The dumb fucktards in the government think there's no such thing as underground anymore. They're wrong.

Underground is a magical place. I was born there, I know the terrain like the back of my hand. So do millions of others. FedGov will have about as much luck with this as they did with the Underground Railroad.

Where will go once the US becomes a concentration camp?

 

[Slade3200]

He's pulling their strings, dumbass. He may be too brain damaged to do it himself, but someone on his staff is obviously capable of doing it.

Hahahaha, dude. Listen to yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Hahahaha, dude. Listen to yourself.

I am.

 

[Slade3200]

I am.

You should be embarrassed. You’re claiming a guy with dementia is pulling the strings to manipulate the legal system and top law enforcement agencies… and he is doing it so masterfully that there is no evidence of it!

Ur a moron

 

[bripat9643]

You should be embarrassed. You claiming a guy with dementia is pulling the strings to manipulate the legal system and top law enforcement agencies… and he is doing it so masterfully that there is no evidence of it!

Ur a moron

There is tons of evidence for it. One or more of Biden's minions is probably doing all the actual work.

The way you all for all the Biden talking points is absolutely pathetic. You should be embarrassed.

 

[Slade3200]

There is tons of evidence for it. One or more of Biden's minions is probably doing all the actual work.

The way you all for all the Biden talking points is absolutely pathetic. You should be embarrassed.

Show some of this evidence. Something besides “one of his minions is probably doing it”