Trump desire to suspend the Constitution is not a deal breaker to Republicans

[Slade3200]

That video explains exactly what the Constitution says. You do not like the rule of law?

You didn’t get the Trump memo? The law don’t matter not even the constitution when it comes to reinstating him as president.

 

[Lastamender]

It will not happen. Because it did not happen.

Endless waste of the court's time.

Angry Judges ahead !!!

Why are denying what everyone watching TV on Jan.6th saw? They saw Congress with the chance to investigate the election and refuse to do so. That put them on the side of the alleged fraudsters. That clearly violated their oath of office.That simple.

 

[Lastamender]

You didn’t get the Trump memo? The law don’t matter not even the constitution when it comes to reinstating him as president.

Trump does not have the power to do anything. Are you afraid of his words? Find a safe space. See you in a couple of weeks.

 

[Slade3200]

Trump does not have the power to do anything. Are you afraid of his words? Find a safe space. See you in a couple of weeks.

Afraid? No. Empowered to show yet another example of how stupid, immoral and unAmerican he is by pointing to his own words?? Yes

So what were you saying about the constitution and law n order?

 

[Lastamender]

Afraid? No. Empowered to show yet another example of how stupid, immoral and unAmerican he is by pointing to his own words?? Yes

So what were you saying about the constitution and law n order?

Empowered? You?

 

[Faun]

At this point it can't, doesn't mean the illegal shit shouldn't be prevented in the future. And there was a shit ton of illegal shit that occurred in 2000, but with no definitive way to quantify it, it can't be reversed. What we do know is, 9-15% of xiden voters said the hunter story would have changed their vote had they known about it.

News outlets were acting responsible for not releasing dirt that could sway an election based on that laptop when there was no clear chain of custody and anyone in possession of it could have put anything on there.

 

[Faun]

Cowardly judges would not allow the proof to be presented.

Oh? What legitimate evidence was there that judges wouldn't allow?

 

[Lastamender]

News outlets were acting responsible for not releasing dirt that could sway an election based on that laptop when there was no clear chain of custody and anyone in possession of it could have put anything on there.

No they were not. The FBI knew the laptop was Hunter's and they were helping to censor the news. There is no way to justify these actions. Don't you ever use the word "fair" again.

 

[Slade3200]

Why are denying what everyone watching TV on Jan.6th saw? They saw Congress with the chance to investigate the election and refuse to do so. That put them on the side of the alleged fraudsters. That clearly violated their oath of office.That simple.

That is absolutely absurd. They were under no obligation to investigate what had already been investigated and settled. States, election boards, courts, trumps own FBI and DOJ. All said no widespread fraud. Congresses job was to certify that day. Not illegally delay or overturn an election.

 

[Slade3200]

Empowered? You?

Yup

 

[Faun]

What I have is a winning argument that a child could understand. Find one and have him or her explain it to you.

LOLOL

By winning argument, you mean the argument shot down by every court which reviewed the merits of the case.

 

[Lastamender]

That is absolutely absurd. They were under no obligation to investigate what had already been investigated and settled. States, election boards, courts, trumps own FBI and DOJ. All said no widespread fraud. Congresses job was to certify that day. Not illegally delay or overturn an election.

Our government is not obligated to investigate an election people are saying was fraudulent? Kind of defeats the whole purpose. They fucked up and your argument means nothing on top of being very fucking stupid.

 

[Lastamender]

LOLOL

By winning argument, you mean the argument shot down by every court which reviewed the merits of the case.

Not the Supreme Court wonder baby.

 

[Faun]

They are going to hear the case. They are not laughing.

Doubtful they are going to hear it.

 

[Faun]

Not the Supreme Court wonder baby.

They haven't reviewed it and will probably not grant cert. You'll maintain your perfect record of being shit out of luck.

 

[Slade3200]

Our government is not obligated to investigate an election people are saying was fraudulent? Kind of defeats the whole purpose. They fucked up and your argument means nothing on top of being very fucking stupid.

Only brainwashed wingnuts were saying fraud. Courts, legitimate authorities, states and trumps own people were saying the election was good. Wingnuts don’t get to demand illegal congressional action by lying about a stolen election. The system doesn’t work that way nor should it.

 

[Faun]

They screwed by voting against an investigation of the election. That is all this concerns. They violated their oath by siding with the people who would be investigated. They were the alleged enemy.

Yet the Republican-led Senate also chise to not investigate and you never condemned them. Your hypocrisy is an indication of what SCOTUS will do with this case.

 

[OKTexas]

And I pointed out that even if true, the courts would not upset the results of the election, held under rules later found to be illegal or unconstitutional.

And if you had bothered to read the thread, you'd know I said something similar in post 593. Carry on commie.

.

 

[Faun]

Not when there are FACTUAL allegations of fraud. The members of Congress said they had factual evidence. How is not investigating that defending the Constitution? This should be good.

You morons think we are ruled by "because we said so". The Constitution was written to make sure we never got that kind of government. You can revise history but not what the Constitution says. This actually be construed as treason and criminal charges could be bought.

If they said they had evidence, they were lying. To this day, there is none.

 

[Lastamender]

Doubtful they are going to hear it.

I heard they will hear the case Jan.5th, 2023. I did not get a source so do not ask. But it is not that far away.