Facts which will not be mentioned by MSM, nor by Trump-haters.....
...of the 80 total lawsuits, 34 have either been withdrawn, consolidated with other suits, or dismissed due to legal technicalities such as lack of standing, timing, or jurisdiction. Those judges who dismissed suits never heard the actual evidence of election irregularities and/or fraud, since they did not allow it to be presented in their courtrooms. Such cases cannot be counted as a loss for Trump. If anything, they are evidence of a failure of our judicial system to – at a moment of national crisis – actually address election fraud.
Of the 46 remaining lawsuits, 25 cases are still ongoing, so that the winner and loser of these cases is yet to be determined, while 21 have been completely adjudicated. These are cases where the court heard arguments, considered any relevant evidence, and then issued a formal ruling on the merits. ...\
You may be surprised to learn that, of these 21 cases, Trump has won 14 and lost 7. ...
We already know that this election was rigged; Time Mag-a-Rag printed the facts.
Will it be overturned?
Nope.
Better question: will the Republican Party figure out Who's On First--or will they continue their groveling to Tech, Pharma, and Red China's cat's-paw, the Chamber of Commerce?
5 comments:
"Those judges who dismissed suits never heard the actual evidence of election irregularities and/or fraud, since they did not allow it to be presented in their courtrooms.'
LOL, because Trump's lawyers never made those claims! It says so right in the source (the chart).
Perhaps your chart-reading ability is diminished by your blinding hatred for Trump. I cannot find corraboration of your claim.
But that's OK. Derangement is part of your syndrome.
4:40 PM 02/07/2021
Hey, Annie, you p/h/u/k:
Rules Of Evidence within American jurisprudence dictate that tangential evidence KNOWN OR SUSPECTED, even unto extraneous to that already presented OR NOT, whether as common knowledge AND/OR OTHERWISE, MUST be introduced AND considered in furthering TRUTH and justice, and that all officials and administrators of The Court AND PROCESSES are duty-bound to introduce such towards the attainment of justice within America's jurisprudence system. Failure to do so is usurpation of law.
These "judges" usurped their oaths.
These "judges" committed treason, insurrection, and sedition via collusion against America and WE THE PEOPLE, their bosses.
These "judges" are treasonous traitors of the highest order committing high crimes and misdemeanors of the highest order.
These "judges" are narcississtic cowards looking out for their own skin as opposed to doing their job of administering and enforcing TRUTH and justice, especially RE the federal felony, under treason laws, of MASSIVE and widespread PROVEABLE Federal Election fraud.
These "judges" ignored their oath, ignored justice, ignored their duty, and have committed treason. Every one of them, unto and through SCOTUS.
You, Anonymous, just like all public radio talking head pundits, under federal treason laws, are complicit, as a traitor, committing treason, according to US Federal Treason Laws And Mandates. Any who aid and abet, via propoganda or agreement, opinion or otherwise, to treasonous, insurrectionist, and/or seditious acts, are guilty by association and complicity.
Opinion is one thing.
Spreading insurrectionist propoganda is another thing completely.
Under laws of Citizen Arrest, any US Citizen, in good standing, has the judicious right, towards justice, of committing arrest upon seditious treasonous propogandists.
If I were you, I'd be careful which "right horse" you "back".
Jackass.
St. Revo--Except either Trump's lawyers did not introduce evidence of voter fraud, or, if they did, it did not meet the standards set forth by the law according to the judges that warranted further investigation. That is not "treason".
You talk a really good game, but you never play it well. At all. Just like old times.
Dad29--Of course you're not going to find corroboration, because you refuse to honestly look right in front of you? Tsk, tsk, tsk, God knows of your willingness to engage in deception.
4:31 AM 02/12/2021
Annie-Twinkie-Fannie-Stinkie:
How the f/v/k/n hell are you so completely obtuse to the point of being Xiden-dementia-ized?! After reading what I wrote you still pen your RIDICULOUS retort of indisputable idiocy.
Let me re-post, for what li'l grey matter you have left 'twixt those Dumbo flop ears of yers:
Rules Of Evidence within American jurisprudence dictate that tangential evidence KNOWN OR SUSPECTED, even unto extraneous to that already presented OR NOT, whether as common knowledge AND/OR OTHERWISE, MUST be introduced AND considered in furthering TRUTH and justice, and that all officials and administrators of The Court AND PROCESSES are duty-bound to introduce such towards the attainment of justice within America's jurisprudence system. Failure to do so is usurpation of law.
This means that if "judges", term used EXTREMELY loosely, have even a SMIDGEON SEMBLANCE of knowledge of evidence existing THAT HAS EITHER BEEN INTRODUCED OR NOT, WHETHER ENTERED BY ANY LAWYER OR NOT, these "judges", and any other "officers"/"administrators" of the court, are DUTY-BOUND to enter it and consider it themselves, if need be, and to remonstrate "lawyers" for not doing their jobs properly, ALL IN THE NAME OF SEEKING COMPLETE OBJECTIVE JUSTICE OF MATTERS, WHICH IS THEIR F/V/K/N JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE. Goes to both "amicus curiae" and "Obstruction Of Justice", as well as MANY other deep precedents. "Lawyers" are, BY FAR, not the only ones responsible to NOR able to introduce evidence.
You stupid ph/v/k.
Your reply to me, AS PER USUAL, makes ABSOLUTELY no sense in the context of my indisputable post(s) AND facts AND law.
How did you get this stoooopid, Annie?! You really gotta stop trying to squeeze that big toe you call your head up that moon-sized ball you call your a/$/$.
You need to just stop. Everything you're doing. You are a completely worthless ... ... ... there are no words ...
Post a Comment