As we said umpteen times four years ago, the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia didn't impact the actual vote. Trump won the vote fair and square.
Its only silence to you because you refuse to listen to any of the claims. Head in the sand.
Why entertain conspiracy theories with no evidence backing them up? Trump lost republican controlled Georgia if a republican loses georgia its not that outlandish that he could lose actual swing states too.
The reason is they were tossing many minority votes because of signature many Were thrown out But Stacy Abrahms helped change that now if your vote is tossed u can fight it and your vote must be counted
Me? Try the nation and the world. The only people "listening" are Trump's wacko conspiracy theorists.
Yep, it's far easier to claim fraud than admit you and your blowhard leader screwed the pooch with covid and lost the election.
Looking forward to Trump taking losses every day until 1/20.Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution
UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.t.co
Another judge that doesn't know what they're doing
I actually dug into this...Guiliani is greatly misleading people...1.8 million mail ballots were sent out for the primary election, and 1.4 were returned for the primary election...2.5 mail million ballots were returned for the general election...you can find all this data on PAs government data website...
Here is the site that has ballots requested and returned for the primary election. It matches up perfectly with what Guiliani is claiming (1.8 mil requeted, 1.4 returned). It's a very large excel file so you may need some statistical software to view it in it's entirety. Click export at the top, then CSV for excel.
I agree with the ruling, but it was kind of a chickenshit opinion. They basically said that the plaintiffs have standing but offered no remedy moving forward. Why not just say "we can't delegitimize the votes in this election because it would disenfranchise voters but the law passed is in fact unconstitutional and is overturned". Now it has to be relitigated and the plaintiffs will win but they could have avoided that here and now.
That's because the court was addressing a chickenshit lawsuit.
Any ruling in this case would have been a lose/lose proposition. As the court -- wisely -- stated. If you feel this is an issue, there is an appropriate time to bring this forward -- and NOW was not the time. Doing what you are suggesting would have created a whole new controversy--and you know it.
The lawsuit was, and is valid. The remedy is what I am questioning. They should have said that its too late this time but from now on it can't stand. They bailed out of fear of repercussions.
Duh. Every judge in every state knows what these lawsuits are really about. So why feed the beast?
It shouldn't be necessary for them to refile, its already been brought to the court. Dont say "I dont want to rule on this now, spend more money on your lawyers later on and I'll consider it". That tactic is what pissed off justice Thomas last year when he told defendants to knock it off.
If the plaintiffs REALLY wanted a ruling on it, they would have filed it BEFORE the election.
Yes they should have, but the current election being processed shouldn't lead to a judge saying come back another time. His judgment on it should be the same whether it was 6 months ago, today, or 6 months from now. By dismissing it for political reasons displays his impartiality and should probably lead to removal from the bench. Judges aren't supposed to weigh public response when they produce a verdict.
Nah. Nobody should be removed from the bench for tossing these shitty lawsuits. The lawyers bringing them should be sanctioned.
Thats foolish thinking. A law that he basically identified as being unconstitutional still stands because he didn't want to rule on it out of fear of public backlash. Saying that they should have brought it up earlier doesnt change the merits of the case.
There is no evidence to back up the case. It's why the case is not seen. Also no mention of Fraud. The judge states this law is a year old. No one brought it up then. It was only brought out only till the plaintiff lost. This case has no merit.
The case wasn't about fraud, it was about whether the law PAs legislature passed was unconstitutional. Go back to the nino table
Well that's why it had no merit in the case. I am at the Nino table. Giuliani and Lawyers are here with me. Giu head is leaking.
