He probably will be.

Fucking disgusting

just listed the one Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar seems it is sitting waiting on something but they narration on the case looks way different then what i see in the case what they have in a summery But yea next it seems to be moving forward still. But yea Nice of BP to put up a page like this makes it allot more ez to see them...

Uh, that one appears to be dismissed -- **with prejudice**.

As I've suggested with the ruling above.

https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/files/20-2078_203.pdf

`Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.`

This means it's concluded. Indefinitely, never to be brought up again to the court, period.

yea looking still maw why am i reading Pending on Trump v. Boockvar humm not reading this cart correctly it seems

The one on BP shows it is in the US SC - possibly on appeal filed 12/19/20 - possibly of the decision in the 3rd circuit.

Chart

@leftingfighter33 the guy in the picture looks like a midget...

Is that still okay to call people midgets?

little people

TY @TaLoN132 just trying to see why i am not seeing the same stuff than i had been looking at for the last Mo on the case. But yea looks like thats where that 1 is

I've posted it.

This will not work on appeal, almost guaranteed. This judge was very strong in his conviction.

so many different vrs Boockvar LMAO

yea with prejudice. ouch!

`This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens` Like it's a very strongly-worded opinion.

`That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.`

That judge was big mad.

Sounds like for good reason.

It'd be very interesting to have some older dictionaries...I'm almost positive these words don't mean the same thing that they mean today....

Some words

yea that was the big one Trump chances dwindling but time will tell

Trump's chances have been close to nil for a while now.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/03/t-mobile-call-records-data-breach/

@ShittyKitty I'm always disappointed when my Dad Jokes are ignored... https://discordapp.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/795377978590494730

I dont see how this relates to what I said. Labeling me as frustrated is presumptuous.

and @TaLoN132 i was in no way trying to negate all the hard work BP put into they page just wondering why those few didnt seem correct. that and the math didnt work. But yea it just seems they mixed up or more than likely i did 2 different Boockvar cases...

No worries... I was just reacting to the comment about them being no better than the MSM. It seemed liked they put a lot of conscientious effort into this and it did not smack of partisanship to me.

They aren't partisan, no.

As they did but it does seem a little slanted to the left just like some of the court findings

I use Ballotpedia for a lot of stuff.

... dunno how this seems slanted to the left.

This is literally nothing about opinion.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) It's just factual stuff.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York's_14th_Congressional_District

Some of the stuff I've used it to look up.

It may have been presumptuous in assuming that your 14 posts about "orange man" was the result of frustration on your part. My apologies if I mischaracterized your motivations at all.