PROOF of Stolen Election

Now, there are many ways, methods, places where the election was stolen, all with mountains of circumstantial evidence, but here is just one with PROOF, and all we need is one, correct?

BEFORE YOU READ the link below, you must be honest enough to understand the underlying truth that is NOT mentioned in this story: No court has the authority to break the law. Courts are appointed to apply and enforce the law, not break it. When courts purposely break the law to advance a political agenda, we no longer have a country.

So, in Pennsylvania, voting date deadlines were illegally extended. Trump sued them. The court stepped in and supported the extension, in total violation of the law which states that an act of the legislative body is required to extend the deadline, not just an executive order.

So, in the article below you will see that the deadline was in fact extended, that Trump sued, and that the court ruled in favor of the extension - those facts are verified in the story. What you will not see is that the court ruling directly violated the very law that Trump was seeking to appeal to.

If you Democrats think this is bullshit, then let me remind you of the many many times that YOU said the courts violated the law with an illegal ruling, like Citizens United or Bush v. Gore. Democrats have already established, according to them, that courts make illegal rulings.

This is another one.

Well, take your proof to court and file suit.

What are you waiting for?

Excuses in 3...2...1
 
Yeah, we know you are a retard. Don't have to prove that you can't read. We got that. :itsok:
still, you keep posting, subliminal comments, in regards to your sick proclivities, I would think you would want to keep that to yourself

a shame you must resort to trolling, framing, and sharing your proclivities, instead of being on topic
 
still, you keep posting, subliminal comments, in regards to your sick proclivities, I would think you would want to keep that to yourself

a shame you must resort to trolling, framing, and sharing your proclivities, instead of being on topic
yawn. What's the matter, snowflake? You get triggered? :itsok:
 
Yeah, all those blue states have seen major inflation of gasoline, food and other commodities. Empty shelves, and increase in crime. It is Joe Biteme's America.....

<pssssst>

all that ^^^ there ^^^? it's worldwide.

but you go ahead & peddle yer bullshit
 
thank god you speak for no judge in america

Dismissed

Trump-Appointed Judges Balk at President’s Efforts to Overturn Election

Trump-Appointed Judges Balk at President’s Efforts to Overturn Election


U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election challenges

U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election challenges

The most remarkable rebukes of Trump’s legal case: From the judges he hand-picked

At least nine Trump-appointed judges or Supreme Court short-listers have declined to bolster his claims of election fraud. None have ruled in his favor.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ukes-trumps-legal-case-judges-he-hand-picked/

Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases

By JESSICA GRESKOFebruary 22, 2021

Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases
 

Trump-Appointed Judges Balk at President’s Efforts to Overturn Election

Trump-Appointed Judges Balk at President’s Efforts to Overturn Election


U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election challenges

U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election challenges

The most remarkable rebukes of Trump’s legal case: From the judges he hand-picked

At least nine Trump-appointed judges or Supreme Court short-listers have declined to bolster his claims of election fraud. None have ruled in his favor.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ukes-trumps-legal-case-judges-he-hand-picked/

Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases

By JESSICA GRESKOFebruary 22, 2021

Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did.
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did.

the one word answer from the SC:

denied.

go bitch to the them.
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did.

201208170901-pennsylvania-scotus-order-large-169.jpg
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did

you repeating the same thing means nothing.
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
So, admit you think that law should be changed, or that you want fewer people to vote.

You know, we all know this is your motivation. Here is the complete list of all the people you are fooling:
 
So, admit you think that law should be changed, or that you want fewer people to vote.

You know, we all know this is your motivation. Here is the complete list of all the people you are fooling:
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
Nothing you can do about it
 
Nothing you can do about it
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
So what. Nothing you can do about it
 
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did

us2020_resultpromo_306.png


mtp_data_download_1_2020_12_20.png


 
So what. Nothing you can do about it
Article 2, section 1, clause 2

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attorney general of Pennsylvania and the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, have absolutely no authority to change election laws yet that’s what they did
 

certainly a proud achievement

rising electricity rates
electricity black outs
gas prices record highs
stock market falling
rising interest rates
rising housing costs
rising taxes
rising illegal immigration
rising crime
war
broken treaties with allies
record prices for food
no new cars available
lumber record high price

exactly what you wanted
 

Forum List

Back
Top