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.
Well, no. If each ot the things you mentioned wasn't preceded by right wing law breaking, you might have a point, but holding law breakers accountable is just good government. You advocate targeting those that did nothing more than our laws require.This phony 1/6 clown show is not using government power?
This MAL raid wasn't using government power?
The two phony impeachments wasn't using government power?
Spygate wasn't using government power?
The FBI goons stealing the cell phone of an opposing representative in the middle of an airport was not using government power?
If that's what you really believe, I don't want to hear your crying when Republicans don't use government power against your people, because that's exactly what's going to happen, or as the old saying goes, payback is a bitch.
The leader of the 20 election cover up and rigging was escorted out by 3 people"They removed..."? Is that what they call retiring these days?
Blah blah fart blah blah fuck around and find out.It's not but our founders never dreamed a party would be so low, such scum, so demonic that they would use government agencies to cheat an election. They envisioned a lot of things back then, but social media and the FBI were not two of those things.
Yes you go with that. Try it on a judge. Tell how fast you get arrested.The problem is, asking for a favor is not blackmailing anybody. The only person to do a quid pro quo was Dementia. He not only laughed about it, he did it while being recorded. The only people that worked with the Russians to influence the election was Hillary and the DNC. They funded the information from Putin as phony as it was.
We'd almost have to say the same thing about you.
Courts don't like to hear election cases. Most won't even give them the time of day.
They were dismissed without the court looking at the evidence.
they all got heard, most dropped due to lack of evidence.
Translation:Your post is moronic. If you only see today, tomorrow will never be better.
So how would you reform the Election Laws so that the votes of the uneducated urban poor mean more?Until some laws are changed and enforced their vote means very little, if anything at all.
We haven't had one evidentiary case... do you know what that means?... it means that not one judge or jury has heard or viewed any evidence...Trump and his lawyers went to court more than 60 times. Including the Supreme Court.
NO FRAUD found.
No its "is"... ask Bill Clinton....If, is the most powerful word in the English language.
And you cannot figure out why?We haven't had one evidentiary case... do you know what that means?... it means that not one judge or jury has heard or viewed any evidence...
Our current judicial system is never going to cut Trump any assistance....And you cannot figure out why?
I posted the article. There are others which explain why any of those judges would not see the case, or how lousy the lawyers were at presenting any facts, if any. And even the Supreme Court went.....sorry, not here.
This is how it went for Trump lawyers in court, and SC:We haven't had one evidentiary case... do you know what that means?... it means that not one judge or jury has heard or viewed any evidence...
www.cnn.com
They are following the law. That is what he should have done, but chose not to.Our current judicial system is never going to cut Trump any assistance....
They didn't want their homes burnt down by BLM.And you cannot figure out why?
I posted the article. There are others which explain why any of those judges would not see the case, or how lousy the lawyers were at presenting any facts, if any. And even the Supreme Court went.....sorry, not here.
You don't really think a cut and paste from CNN holds any weight here do you?....This is how it went for Trump lawyers in court, and SC:
The court’s order, issued with no public dissents, to dismiss the challenge is the strongest indication yet that Trump has no chance of overturning election results in court, and that even the justices whom he placed there have no interest in allowing his desperate legal bids to continue.
The Electoral College will convene Monday to affirm Biden’s win.
The lawsuit, brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a staunch Trump ally, sought to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin – which all went for Biden – and invalidate their election results. And this week, with his options narrowing, Trump, accompanied by the support of several Republican attorneys general and GOP lawmakers, cranked up pressure to have the Supreme Court weigh in.
“From a legal perspective, the fat lady has sung,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law professor.
Trump and his legal team – hamstrung by a series of coronavirus diagnoses among lawyers who had traveled across the country advocating on behalf of Trump’s case – have for weeks pushed increasingly desperate appeals and baseless conspiracy theories about his second term being stolen.
“The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!,” Trump tweeted around midnight. Mike Gwin, a spokesman for Biden’s campaign, said the decision was “no surprise.”
Paxton, calling the court’s order “unfortunate,” vowed to fight on.
“I will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience,” he said in a statement.
Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg said Trump’s crusade to undermine the election’s results through rhetoric and court challenges “put a huge stress test on our democracy.”
“The Republicans who did follow Donald Trump really have an obligation now to make the country strong again, to heal the chinks that Donald Trump tried to put in the foundation of the country and the democracy,” Ginsberg told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.”
Texas denied for lack of standing
The court’s order Friday night was unsigned, and court did not provide a vote count, but there were no dissents to the order made public.
In its short order, the court said that Texas had not demonstrated that it had the legal right to bring the suit because it had not demonstrated a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
The order states: “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. 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.”
(full article online)
Supreme Court rejects Trump's bid to overturn election
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid from Texas' attorney general -- supported by President Donald Trump -- to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states that went in favor of President-elect Joe Biden.
If no one will view the evidence can justice be done?....They are following the law. That is what he should have done, but chose not to.
Those were Republican judges. They would have looked at any of it if it had any merit.If no one will view the evidence can justice be done?....
Nothing holds any weight on you. You are pure air.You don't really think a cut and paste from CNN holds any weight here do you?....
