I'm damn proud of the Jan 6 "insurrectionists".....I'll bet Trump is as well....Are there any conservatives who aren't?

[jc456]

Are you ever not an idiot?

Ever??

Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts

Bush v. Gore, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court’s recount order of the state’s presidential ballots in 2000. With the termination of the recount, Florida’s electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, giving him the electoral votes needed to be...

www.britannica.com

​

In a per curiam ruling issued the following day, the Court found (7–2) that, owing to inconsistencies in manual recounting methods and standards between Florida counties, the Florida court’s order of a manual recount amounted to a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a smaller majority (5–4), the Court also ruled that no new recount could take place, because none could be finished by the “safe harbor” deadline—the date, set by federal law (3 U.S.C. §5)​

How does that prove your point? The challenge was denied because of the fourteenth amendment. Did you not read that part?

 

[jc456]

If that were true, you'd be able to post video of anyone dropping off ballots multiple times. Despite being challenged to do that, you failed to do so.

Hey stupid ass, that's what the movie was about. fk, your smartest stupid is on full display.

 

[Faun]

no they didn't, it was reported they didn't. It's why the challenges weren't ever actually completed. The dominion machines were removed in most cases. The forensic audits didn't happen!!!! Why were you all afraid of the challenge if he lost?

Of course they did. Here's an example...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

That's 7 judges in 2 courts ALL reaching the same conclusion... the plaintiff's evidence failed to demonstrate fraud.

 

[Faun]

How does that prove your point? The challenge was denied because of the fourteenth amendment. Did you not read that part?

Holy fuck are you retarded. That's what I said in my first post which you denied...

Lying fool, there were 2 rulings. The first was the recounts were not performed the same throughout the state, violating equal protection;

​

 

[Faun]

Hey stupid ass, that's what the movie was about. fk, your smartest stupid is on full display.

Then post a video of someone doing what they claimed.

They said they had 4 million minutes of video. You can't find video of even one person on video doing what they claimed??

 

[jc456]

Of course they did. Here's an example...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

They filed a case

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

That's 7 judges in 2 courts ALL reaching the same conclusion... the plaintiff's evidence failed to demonstrate fraud.

that doesn't mean what you think it means. judges make rulings and disallow evidence, and that happened here. It's like a judge in a rape case not allowing in past crimes to perjer the defendant. Same excuse here,

 

[jc456]

Then post a video of someone doing what they claimed.

They said they had 4 million minutes of video. You can't find video of even one person on video doing what they claimed??

go watch 2000 mules. It's a video. I'm not adding it here because it's available on youtube. You can take your own time and open it. I've already watched.

 

[Faun]

that doesn't mean what you think it means. judges make rulings and disallow evidence, and that happened here. It's like a judge in a rape case not allowing in past crimes to perjer the defendant. Same excuse here,

LOL

No, retard. Can't you read? The judge asked them to present evidence to support their claims. One example was to show evidence of their claim that dead people voted in the election, they presented voter roles with dead people still on them as evidence. The judge determined that was only evidence the voter roles were not purged, it wasn't actually evidence of anyone voting with any of those names. So no, not the same of not allowing past crimes in a case. I showed you a case where a judge threw the case out due to lack of merit because the evidence they brought to court didn't support the claims they filed.

 

[Faun]

go watch 2000 mules. It's a video. I'm not adding it here because it's available on youtube. You can take your own time and open it. I've already watched.

I watched it. Several times. They didn't post any videos either of people dropping off ballots more than once.

 

[jc456]

I watched it. Several times. They didn't post any videos either of people dropping off ballots more than once.

sure they did.

 

[Lastamender]

I watched it. Several times. They didn't post any videos either of people dropping off ballots more than once.

That does not change the digital evidence of less than 300 people driving by drop boxes, and stopping 5,000 time in early AM hours. Between 12 AM and 5 AM. The authorities had the evidence and refused to identify the people or act on it. Both facts.

 

[jc456]

Then post a video of someone doing what they claimed.

They said they had 4 million minutes of video. You can't find video of even one person on video doing what they claimed??

video of multiple people dropping off multiple ballots.

 

[Billo_Really]

It was! Just a fact! Enjoy that all the elites didn’t want trump to win so everyone was in on it. But don’t insult sane folks with your selective outrage

If your fraudulent claim was valid, why were 60 law suits dismissed regarding this matter? I believe only 2 went forward and only one had a conviction. A minor conviction.

 

[jc456]

If your fraudulent claim was valid, why were 60 law suits dismissed regarding this matter? I believe only 2 went forward and only one had a conviction. A minor conviction.

I've explained that many times. the judges didn't want to interfere in an election, period. They went with the elites threats to stay the course and leave it alone. I'd be interested if someone investigated their bank accounts for money.

 

[Clipper]

I thought hundreds of sworn advadavits were signed by folks who witnessed or were part of voter fraud?
I thought Elon Musk confirmed that Democrats colluded with big tech and asked them to meddle?
I thought voting guidelines were changed in the 11th hour under the guise of national emergency?

Nobody gives a rat's ass what Musk thinks. The rest of your post is pure horseshit.

 

[Lastamender]

If your fraudulent claim was valid, why were 60 law suits dismissed regarding this matter? I believe only 2 went forward and only one had a conviction. A minor conviction.

None got an evidentiary hearing. Cannot present evidence without one.

 

[Billo_Really]

I've explained that many times. the judges didn't want to interfere in an election, period. They went with the elites threats to stay the course and leave it alone. I'd be interested if someone investigated their bank accounts for money.

Wrong! There were dropped for a lack of evidence!

 

[Lastamender]

Wrong! There were dropped for a lack of evidence!

No, they were not.

 

[Billo_Really]

None got an evidentiary hearing. Cannot present evidence without one.

Since there was no evidence, no hearing.

 

[Faun]

sure they did.

Nope. You're lying again. It was one of the major criticisms of the film. That you would lie like you just did is proof you'll make up anything just to support the bullshit you post. Add this to your ever growing list of bullshit.

Even Dinesh D'Souza admitted they didn't show video of people dropping off ballots more than once. He accuses states of malfeasance over video evidence that would have proven him right and he claims he showed it with cell phone pings because he has no video evidence to support his claims...

D’Souza: We’re merely assuming that there is no rational reason for someone, let alone in the middle of the night, to make more than 10 trips to mail-in drop boxes. Let’s remember, first of all, we’re not talking about the post office. This is not places where you drop off regular mail. The only purpose of going to a mail-in drop box is to drop in a ballot.​

​

Bump: But you don’t know the people went to the drop boxes.​

​

D’Souza: The only explanation I’ve even heard is that these are people dropping off lawful family members’ ballots and you have not been able to provide any explanation for why such a person would, A, go to 10 more —​

​

Bump: It’s not up to me! It’s up to you to prove this even happened. But again, your movie doesn’t prove that this even happened even once. You show no one who went to multiple drop boxes.​

​

D’Souza: But what I’m saying is I do show it. You’re demanding video evidence when you know that there are whole states that took no video. There are other states that that took very partial video. There are other states that took video, but the camera is not even pointed at the drop box. So the absence, my inability to — if this had been done properly according to the election rules and there was video surveillance on all the drop boxes, I am firmly convinced that a mule going to 10 different drop boxes would be seen on the video 10 different times. But if only one of those drop boxes have video, you can’t then fault me and say, “Wait, why can’t I see more video?” Because the states didn’t take it.​

​

Bump: I can fault you because you are the one making the proposition. It’s not up to me to prove you wrong, but for you to prove your point. And you just admitted you don’t have the evidence to prove that point.​

​

D’Souza: Well, I’m saying that I have the evidence — when I say “I’m,” I’m speaking also, by the way, for True the Vote — we have the electronic evidence, which is decisive in itself, and the video evidence happens to completely correspond with the geotracking evidence.​

​

Bump: Although we don’t see that in the movie.​

​

D’Souza: The video evidence I agree is partial. It doesn’t show every mule. In fact, it shows a minority of the mules. But the strength of the video evidence is it is supported by the geotracking evidence. In other words, True the Vote knew where to look on the video.​

​

Bump: You don’t actually —​

​

D’Souza: You have a guy whose phone is at a location on a given date at a given time. You look in the video and boom, there he is.​

​

Bump: But you don’t actually show that. You at no point in the movie show, “Here is the geotracking data. We saw the bike guy, for example, or the dog guy. We saw them heading to this location. Then boom, there they were at this date and time. And then they went on to this place where there is no camera.” You never showed that.​

​

You never actually prove or show any evidence for what you claim is fundamentally happening. The burden is on you to provide the evidence, not on me to rebut it. And that’s really one of the challenges that this whole movie has.​

​

more...​

emphasis mine