Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
all that comment means is you are ill informed,,,I disagree,,,Trump has clearly lost this election and really needs to consider conceding so that the country can begin to move on. The longer he goes with this the more embarrassing it’ll be for him and the more stressful it will be on the country.
there is clear evidence of wrong doing in multiple states and as per our constitution there are systems in place to contest and make sure all is legal,,
The evidence of widespread voter frraud just isn't there.
As demonstrated by the judge's ruling in this case:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Its the lack of evidence that renders Trump's cases such consistent failures.
I'm pretty sure it costs more than $20 just to have the injunction served on the appropriate party. Throw a claim for attorneys fees on top of that if it isn't $20. If there's no Constitution on the judge's desk, Trump's team is calling the military police.The controversy doesn't have any specific numeric value.
Injunctions don't have jury trials. They never have.
I think you may be trolling.
But if that's just a request for temporary or preliminary injunction before the matter reaches the jury, that's one thing, but to dismiss the entire lawsuit on that basis is absurd. Enough to disbar the judge.
When questioned in the PA case they just lost, Giuliani told the judge it was not a fraud case.They haven't "brought" anything except embarrassment and failure. Every lawsuit concerning fraud has been dismissed. Guliani and Powell are coming off as ambulance chasers.
all that comment means is you are ill informed,,,I disagree,,,Trump has clearly lost this election and really needs to consider conceding so that the country can begin to move on. The longer he goes with this the more embarrassing it’ll be for him and the more stressful it will be on the country.
there is clear evidence of wrong doing in multiple states and as per our constitution there are systems in place to contest and make sure all is legal,,
The evidence of widespread voter frraud just isn't there.
As demonstrated by the judge's ruling in this case:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Its the lack of evidence that renders Trump's cases such consistent failures.
all that comment means is you are ill informed,,,I disagree,,,Trump has clearly lost this election and really needs to consider conceding so that the country can begin to move on. The longer he goes with this the more embarrassing it’ll be for him and the more stressful it will be on the country.
there is clear evidence of wrong doing in multiple states and as per our constitution there are systems in place to contest and make sure all is legal,,
The evidence of widespread voter frraud just isn't there.
As demonstrated by the judge's ruling in this case:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Its the lack of evidence that renders Trump's cases such consistent failures.
Or...I've actually read the relevant rulings.
I'll go with the federal judge in this ruling over some random dude on a message board insisting that they know better.
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote." At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Ignore as you will.
Suits at common law are "torts".In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.They don't have jury trials for injunctions. Which is what the Trump team was requesting.
Not worth $20? Who made that decision?
all that comment means is you are ill informed,,,I disagree,,,Trump has clearly lost this election and really needs to consider conceding so that the country can begin to move on. The longer he goes with this the more embarrassing it’ll be for him and the more stressful it will be on the country.
there is clear evidence of wrong doing in multiple states and as per our constitution there are systems in place to contest and make sure all is legal,,
The evidence of widespread voter frraud just isn't there.
As demonstrated by the judge's ruling in this case:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Its the lack of evidence that renders Trump's cases such consistent failures.
Or...I've actually read the relevant rulings.
I'll go with the federal judge in this ruling over some random dude on a message board insisting that they know better.
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote." At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Ignore as you will.
OK,,,
I never mentioned what these judges ruled on,,,all that comment means is you are ill informed,,,I disagree,,,Trump has clearly lost this election and really needs to consider conceding so that the country can begin to move on. The longer he goes with this the more embarrassing it’ll be for him and the more stressful it will be on the country.
there is clear evidence of wrong doing in multiple states and as per our constitution there are systems in place to contest and make sure all is legal,,
The evidence of widespread voter frraud just isn't there.
As demonstrated by the judge's ruling in this case:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Its the lack of evidence that renders Trump's cases such consistent failures.
Or...I've actually read the relevant rulings.
I'll go with the federal judge in this ruling over some random dude on a message board insisting that they know better.
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote." At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Ignore as you will.
OK,,,
Sorry, Prog...but the actual rulings by the actual judges in the actual court....are way, way more compelling than you insisting you know better.
You can't get an injunction if there is no civil lawsuit >$20 involved.They were seeking an injunction. That's a legal request for a court order. That never involves a jury.
Dismissing the request for injunction is not the same as dismissing the entire lawsuit.
got a link???You can't get an injunction if there is no civil lawsuit >$20 involved.They were seeking an injunction. That's a legal request for a court order. That never involves a jury.
Dismissing the request for injunction is not the same as dismissing the entire lawsuit.
The request for injunction IS the lawsuit. They're asking for an injunction on the certification of the vote totals the day after tomorrow.
You can't get an injunction if there is no civil lawsuit >$20 involved.They were seeking an injunction. That's a legal request for a court order. That never involves a jury.
Dismissing the request for injunction is not the same as dismissing the entire lawsuit.
Uhhhhh... I don't quite know how to break this to you, but your Orange Baboon-God was NOT running against Obumble....Trump didn't lose, he won more votes then the beloved Obama, the one who lost is you.
You didn’t read what the judge said, did you?So when you put 180,000 fraudulent votes in you dont think that disenfranchises the 180,000 real votes? Man you have some serious slave issues. At least try to talk back to your prog masters once in a while, otherwise, they will treat you worse..."In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote." At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
This decision will be repeated in every state
therightscoop.com
Trump supporters, you are being conned.
Trump has zero chance.
He has lost the election, he's losing in the courts, and he'll lose in the Electoral College.
He is lying to you and stringing you along.
rumble.com
The futility continues as a Republican Federal Judge dismisses another Trump lawsuit.
Is it time for Republicans to end the nonsense and admit you lost?
Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign Pennsylvania lawsuit
A federal judge dealt a death blow to the Trump campaign's effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win of the presidency on Saturday, by dismissing a closely watched lawsuit that sought to invalidate millions of Pennsylvania votes.www.cnn.com
www.cbsnews.com
President Biden would disagreeTired of losing yet?oh darn,,, I guess he should just give up now,,,The futility continues as a Republican Federal Judge dismisses another Trump lawsuit.
Is it time for Republicans to end the nonsense and admit you lost?
Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign Pennsylvania lawsuit
A federal judge dealt a death blow to the Trump campaign's effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win of the presidency on Saturday, by dismissing a closely watched lawsuit that sought to invalidate millions of Pennsylvania votes.
Never give up!
MAGA forever!
Who is losing? not moi.....not many of us
May be you are?
You mean RESIDENT Biden, surely.
Resident from the Nursing Home.
got a link???You can't get an injunction if there is no civil lawsuit >$20 involved.They were seeking an injunction. That's a legal request for a court order. That never involves a jury.
Dismissing the request for injunction is not the same as dismissing the entire lawsuit.
The request for injunction IS the lawsuit. They're asking for an injunction on the certification of the vote totals the day after tomorrow.
sounds like they got him now,,,got a link???You can't get an injunction if there is no civil lawsuit >$20 involved.They were seeking an injunction. That's a legal request for a court order. That never involves a jury.
Dismissing the request for injunction is not the same as dismissing the entire lawsuit.
The request for injunction IS the lawsuit. They're asking for an injunction on the certification of the vote totals the day after tomorrow.
Here are *all* the links for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, including Justice Brann's dismissing of the entire lawsuit as moot.
