Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

[Deplorable Yankee]

We should be learning how to better practice voting in our democracy.

Ya know what would simply work ....show your state id or drivers license day of vote....nope can't have free, fair ,elections with left wing progressives .

 

[Rogue AI]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

Math and science says Dems cheated.

Sure they did even in Pa where Republican house, senate and attorney general makes the rules,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a right to interpret the Constitution. If they don't like it then legislators can pass a amendment to the state Constitution. The legislature does not have the power to violate the state Constitution. According to your reasoning, Congress could pass a law banning guns irregardless of the 2nd Amendment.

The issue here is that the PA Supreme Court didn't just make a ruling, they changed the timeframes for accepting ballots. That function belongs exclusively to the legislature. They overstepped their mandate.

 

[OKTexas]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

It's insane.

They actually believe that saying something makes it true. They are delusional.

Lawyers should know that judges have paper fetishes. Nothing is considered true and factual in a court of law unless you have honest, concrete facts as in paper work or video or photos to back it up.

Yet the republicans go to court with no proof at all.

Again.

They are wasting our time and our money.

This is just pathetic. They are making even bigger fools of themselves.

Do you understand the reason for discovery?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Very strange ... according to the SCOTUS website ... the case referred to in the article was denied on Oct 19th {Cite} ... PA SC's ruling stands ...

Maybe they're sending the briefs to God ...

That's only because the US supreme court tied 4-4.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

It's right next to the proof of Russian Collusion.

Yawn no proof of election fraud.

Idk for sure, but I believe most, if not all evidence has been presented to the courts, and we must wait.
I wonder how many of these reports are substantial ???

VoterFraud — Political Cipher

Elections are Democracy. Without fair elections, we are not self-governing. Join me in cataloging examples of voter fraud in our crucial election. We need to expose this corruption.

www.politicalcipher.com

They have presented NO evidence at all period.

They aren't being given access to the evidence.

.

 

[Zorro!]

FUNNY HOW THESE ONLY HAPPEN IN ONE DIRECTION: Another Election Computer Glitch in Michigan Reversed as Republican Declared Belated Winner.

 

[jwoodie]

The burden of guilt is put up those making the claim that there was a grievous action..Those are called plaintiffs and the ones defending the charges are the defendants.

1. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, genius.

2. In order to be a plaintiff, one must file a complaint with the appropriate court.

3. Guilt is associated with criminal actions, not civil actions.

 

[jwoodie]

They aren't being given access to the evidence.

And that is why they have to file a complaint or lawsuit (to pursue discovery).

 

[ChemEngineer]

Actually I think it comes BEFORE a trial to ensure there is sufficient actual evidence to go forward.

IF that were proof, there would be no need for a trial. Sufficient evidence is far from "proof."

Well let's just start with sufficient evidence which is lacking as of yet.

In typical Leftist style, you make one statement, and then when it is clearly refuted, you backtrack and try something else.
You were wrong in your first pseudo-analysis and you are wrong in this one. So get ready to move your goalpost again.

"Sufficient evidence" is NOT something YOU determine, thankfully. For if it were, nothing would be "sufficient." That is the Leftist way. You call all the shots (you think). You demand the "proof" and you reject anything that does not comply with your dogmas.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

There is plenty of proof of Democrats fraudulent misrepresenting the "right to health care"
as something that can be legislated through federal government, instead of full disclosure
and informed consent of voters that establishing such a policy through govt unlawfully
discriminated on the basis of creed against Constitutional process, beliefs and protections
requiring a Constitutional Convention and Amendment before authorizing to federal govt
rights and responsibilities reserved to people and states through local governments.

Soliciting membership and financial donations by fraudulent misrepresentation
normally constitutes "false advertising" where using federal communications such
as US mail, internet and media to commit this is normally a federal crime,
and conspiring as a group to commit fraud, misrepresentation and discrimination by creed
violating equal civil rights of individuals is normally a felony.

There is plenty of proof that enough citizens have objected on the basis of creed
to prove either negligent or deliberate discrimination by creed and conspiracy to violate equal civil rights.

That is my argument that the Democratic Party has committed mass fraud
and abuse of government to violate civil rights by discrimination by creed and misrepresentation
in order to solicit donations and votes to legislated policies that violate Constitutional beliefs, process and protections.

SEE attached letter that I ask help to distribute freely to seek support of others to resolve these grievances and end party abuse of govt.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

If there is no proof and the Democrats are in the right, then the Dems shouldnt have any reason to deny a recount.
If this was a fair and accurate count, then prove it. We have the time.
If someone accuses you of stealing, then wouldnt you like to prove them wrong ?

If there is no proof and the Democrats are in the right, then the Dems shouldnt have any reason to deny a recount.
If this was a fair and accurate count, then prove it. We have the time.
If someone accuses you of stealing, then wouldnt you like to prove them wrong ?

Derp....
Do you honestly believe there are enough discrepancies in the PA count to find more than 50k votes for Trump?

Get real, fool.

Yes, I really do believe there are some fraudulent actions on the Dems behalf.
And you are a lying dog-faced pony-soldier

Yes, I really do believe there are some fraudulent actions on the Dems behalf.
And you are a lying dog-faced pony-soldier

That’s not what I asked, dope. Of course you incompetent, failure to launch type “adults” believe there was some “ fraudulent actions”. The workings of the world are an enigma to you saps. You have no frame of understanding to believe anything else. It’s precisely this incompetence that allows us to be absolutely inundated nationally with COVID.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

If there is no proof and the Democrats are in the right, then the Dems shouldnt have any reason to deny a recount.

Who's denying a recount? Trump still will not win, lol. Name one time when a recount won somebody an election in a presidential race, I'll wait.

If this was a fair and accurate count, then prove it. We have the time.
If someone accuses you of stealing, then wouldnt you like to prove them wrong ?

If there was fraud prove it with evidence.

I dont know of one example where a recount changed an election, so what ?
For your information, this election has yet to be determined, through the courts.
You said "Trump still will not win", and do you know this ? Did the media tell you so ? - Prove it.

For your information, this election has yet to be determined, through the courts

For your information, elections in this country aren't determined by courts.

"For your information" Ahhh, thats sweet - Is that information for me exclusively or can it be shared with everyone else on the forum ?
Either way, cases of fraud are continually coming forward. So, you word it any way that you please and might causes you less hate and pain.

"For your information" Ahhh, thats sweet - Is that information for me exclusively or can it be shared with everyone else on the forum ?
Either way, cases of fraud are continually coming forward. So, you word it any way that you please and might causes you less hate and pain

There is not a single case of fraud that has been verified, dope. Trump hasn’t won a single legal challenge.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For your information, elections in this country aren't determined by courts.

Correct. The courts are for judging the law. If you feel your rights have been violated or in this case, went against state laws, the SC does have the right to make the state follow their own laws.

Correct. The courts are for judging the law. If you feel your rights have been violated or in this case, went against state laws, the SC does have the right to make the state follow their own laws

Trump has yet to win a single legal challenge and the hour is getting late.

 

[esalla]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

Poor baby

Stomp on

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Derp....
Do you honestly believe there are enough discrepancies in the PA count to find more than 50k votes for Trump?

Get real, fool.

There is a reason they didn't allow Trump observers oversee the count. It's a law that opposition overseers have the right to watch over the vote count. Now think for a minute: if the votes were legit, then why would they care if Republicans were making sure? I mean.......there had to be seeing something in those ballots they didn't like.

Every ballot that was not checked out by the opposition should be recounted.

There is a reason they didn't allow Trump observers oversee the count. It's a law that opposition overseers have the right to watch over the vote count. Now think for a minute: if the votes were legit, then why would they care if Republicans were making sure? I mean.......there had to be seeing something in those ballots they didn't like.

Every ballot that was not checked out by the opposition should be recounted.

Derp...
Trump observers were present, dope.
Their legal challenge was that they be allowed to move from ten feet away to six. It was granted.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

One of the complaints Trumpybear filed was because an observer were so close they could read the ballots?

No, what I said is that it's not possible that an observer from six feet away can see the ballot. I don't know how they keep score of the number of votes for each candidate, but I'd be willing to bet the observers couldn't see where they were tallying the vote either.

No, what I said is that it's not possible that an observer from six feet away can see the ballot. I don't know how they keep score of the number of votes for each candidate, but I'd be willing to bet the observers couldn't see where they were tallying the vote either

Tallying the vote?
The ballots were counted by machine.
The poll workers were verifying the ballots were legit and proper.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ten Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Ballot Case

A group of ten Republican attorneys general announced Monday that they are filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case challenging mail ballots in Pennsylvania, arguing that the state increased the risk of fraud in the election.Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the group in...

news.yahoo.com

Another baseless suit that has no proof of fraud lol, where is the proof? Should of. could of, would of, is not proof

Math and science says Dems cheated.

Sure they did even in Pa where Republican house, senate and attorney general makes the rules,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a right to interpret the Constitution. If they don't like it then legislators can pass a amendment to the state Constitution. The legislature does not have the power to violate the state Constitution. According to your reasoning, Congress could pass a law banning guns irregardless of the 2nd Amendment.

The issue here is that the PA Supreme Court didn't just make a ruling, they changed the timeframes for accepting ballots. That function belongs exclusively to the legislature. They overstepped their mandate.

The issue here is that the PA Supreme Court didn't just make a ruling, they changed the timeframes for accepting ballots. That function belongs exclusively to the legislature. They overstepped their mandate

They did no such thing.
The law in PA allows for ballots received up to three days after Election Day as legit if postmarked on or before Election Day. Any fraud at that point would have to have come from the USPS. Are you accusing them of fraud?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Derp...
Trump observers were present, dope.
Their legal challenge was that they be allowed to move from ten feet away to six. It was granted.

Six feet away where you can't see shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is not a single case of fraud that has been verified, dope. Trump hasn’t won a single legal challenge.

Yeah, you got me on that one:

Trump campaign wins case on Pa. voter ID deadline

This story was updated at 2:30 p.m. Nov. 12. The Trump campaign on Thursday won a case that attempted to disqualify a small number of mail-in ballots for...

www.post-gazette.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Derp...
Trump observers were present, dope.
Their legal challenge was that they be allowed to move from ten feet away to six. It was granted.

Six feet away where you can't see shit.

Six feet away where you can't see shit

They’re there to observe the process. Not each individual ballot, dope.