@Free2Think Thanks for the link!

“Aside from the obviously tortured reasoning of this argument, there are three additional problems with Pennsylvania’s argument.” Page 9 of the Texas reply. It just gets better the more I read! Lol

NP

well you know who the real men are 💪 I'll be watching too.

“With respect to Pennsylvania’s non-legislative changes to the signature requirements of state laws, the Pennsylvania brief bends the meaning of words to the breaking point.” Page 12 Tx reply. I’m in hawg heaven y’all! Lol

Best part of their reply is they filed it less than 24 hours after the responses of the problem states (defendants). They addressed every argument every state made in detail complete with case precedents to support their argument AND explanation ms as to why the court precedents used by the defendants in their responses don’t hold water! GOD BLESS TEXAS!

Sounds very favorable

God bless Texas and America 🇺🇸

Wow! They were quick. Trump ét al were well prepared for all of this.

👏 👏 👏 👍 👍 👍 <:biden:786404256261079040> 👎

Yes i read that CA and Nevada want to secede from America, Good luck with that lol

Sign of the times!? TX AG cited a YouTube video in the reply to the defendant states responses, lol. Page 20 😂🤣😂 LOVE IT!

They even included the specific min and sec time mark for the vid 🥰

“I just want to stop the world from killing itself” - The Don <:trump:786404250061766656>

🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 Well said President Trump

“In sum, Georgia’s claim that “the State and its officers have implemented and followed” the laws enacted by the Legislature is false, but at least Georgia acknowledges in its (own) brief that it is the Legislature that has “plenary authority over voting procedures.” Georgia Br. at 11; see also id. at 12 (citing McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35). Neither Texas nor Plaintiff in Intervention Donald Trump seeks to usurp the Georgia Legislature’s plenary authority; they merely ask this Court to uphold that plenary authority against violations by non-legislative officials that have resulted in an illegal and unconstitutional election certification, to the detriment of the electoral votes legally certified in states such as Texas, and the even greater detriment to the Plaintiff in Intervention (President Donald J. Trump). 😆

Thanks

It gets better, here’s part of the response to WIs reply. According to Wisconsin, it is simply “axiomatic” that “executive branch officials, in order to carry out their constitutional function of executing statutes, necessarily must interpret the meaning of those statutes and must exercise executive judgment.” Wisc. Br. 25. By “interpret” Wisconsin evidently means “change the meaning of.” And Wisconsin claims it is “equally axiomatic ... that the executive branch’s interpretation and application of state statutes in particular situations are subject to review by the judicial branch.” Id. 26. In other words, according to Wisconsin, by being part of this three-branches-of- government arrangement, the legislature conceded the power to modify statutes to the other two branches. Under this theory, Electors Clause violations would never occur, because every change wrought by the judiciary or the executive branch always has the implicit approval of the legislative branch. Such a view would render meaningless the grant of authority to state legislatures in the Electors Clause.

Almost done y’all I promise....just sharing the meat and potatoes lol

The defendant states also tried to disprove the statistical analysis present by Dr. Charles Cicchetti in their responses. Well, Dr. Cicchetti also offered a nice rebuttal in the TX reply. Won’t bore you guys anymore with the exerts, but it is a great rebuttal lol.

I see my affectionate name for the man himself has caught on lol Good, suits him<:trump:786404250061766656>

Last one, I promise! (From Dr, Cicchetti’s reply to the PN response regarding his statistical analysis and preliminary conclusions) “The Pennsylvania Brief actually repeats what I observed “could” be an explanation related to the types of ballots and location, but the authors do not offer any data or supporting facts that explain what “might” have happened and why. I continue to recommend that more investigations and ballot audits are necessary before the unusual and yet similar differences across all four states could have occurred coincidentally.”

Why is nobody watching on fb?

You don't have a fb account?

Thanks, again

Allergic to FB and Twitter

That's a shitty excuse. TMC is trying to get the events out too us.

I expect it will be dealt with soon

I have another case open with a staff member at YouTube.

I tried to page you on about 4 different WI live-stream chats to let you know TMC is temporarily suspended. I literally wrote “paging Mr. Phil Whitehead, is there a Mr. Phil Whitehead present” lol. Figured you would wander off here eventually

If you want some help with your challenges/appeals please let me know. The trick is using their own wording against them.

Word of the day: ob·fus·cate
/ˈäbfəˌskāt/
verb
1.
render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible:
"the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate their etymological origins"
synonyms
obscure, confuse, make obscure/unclear, blur, muddle, ... moreantonyms
clarify
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

The fact that, the video is floating around EVERYWHERE but WE are the ones that get penalized is nuts

So bias

I've seen Cynthia's rant on three other sites, now

You can use that in your challenge. What did you say when you appealed the suspension?

There’s HUNDREDS of YouTube videos of it

@Free2Think i literally just woke up and saw the feed

Agreed! Of both her first AND second FB video

A YouTube BOT took the video down and when appealing it a YouTube BOT rejected the appeal. It’s a lose lose situation. However I was able to create a case with a human at YouTube and let’s see, the case is still open they told me after I got the rejection email