Message from @Tneedels
Discord ID: 787537199150137384
There is , you can’t just proclaim yourself a constitutional lawyer
@Doc That is because you have never understood what it is to be a principled American. Here is a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&t=14s
The cases that have been heard on merit have not stood up to scrutiny. Look at the NV case. They had witnesses and experts give testimony under oath with cross examination. They did not hold up at all. It was not even close. I highly recommend that anyone who thinks the cases are simply being dismissed to watch that case and read the filings/rulings. It is eye-opening. The RWM is lying to you that the merit of these cases are not being considered.
He didn’t write that section on Wikipedia
simply because he is not a politician. He can't be bought. Finally, he hasn't accepted a single penny for his job as POTUS. . . First time in history refused payment. Not only that, he lost money by the millions if not billions
@AOH_Assassin how about this
This is why they lost in lasches
They had a year to bring up this issue
Nothing has been heard on merit, except in a local court in Pennsylvania
That they started and didn’t finish
first president from outside of politics and a billionaire that cant be bought and paid for, thats who i voted for over the 50yr corrupt flip flopping politician that had open brain surgery
That judge ruled in favor, and accepted the on the basis that it would "likely win"
@james j They lost under a provision that does not apply to persons that are enemies of the nation.
@AOH_Assassin do you accept the official pa site?
then the pennsylvania supreme court stepped in, took it from her, and dismissed because of latches
Act 77 was a statute. It was never an amendment.
Act 77 doesn't have shit on
The Pennsylvania Constitution
Check out the Nevada case, if you are so sure.
And not even close to the Amendments
The party’s affiliation with regard to the law passed does not invalidate arguments about constitutionality
And if you truly believe that an act passed a year ago touches teh Constitution, you're worse than i thought
@Whithers no it’s a law the PA gop started and never finished. That’s why it’s unconstitutional under state law. However the remedy the asked for was ridiculous. And they lost to laches. Because they had a year to address it and had a election under the GOP rules
Is there a list of the cases somewhere along with some analysis of what occurred in the cases?
@Whithers Im not starting anything. Sorry. I am looking for a person to explain to me why they voted FOR someone, as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils. I think we can conclude I still have not found such a person.
I have watched it all. Read the dockets, Researched what I didn't know. Watched this guy's interpretation. Asked a relative who is a federal attorney. And read some more.
You’re attacking people’s credentials because you don’t have a response
All i'm saying, do yourself a favor, a research what you're speaking
@AOH_Assassin it’s important Becuase it’s trumps party making the claim. They caused it then complained about it when their guy lost. They had a year to fix it
i repeat... first president from outside of politics and a billionaire that cant be bought and paid for, thats who i voted for over the 50yr corrupt flip flopping politician that had open brain surgery
You want to hold the remedy ridiculous because you want the USA to be suborned under China.
fearless, arrogant, human, not a puppter
I'm right here @Doc I voted for a third party candidate who I think would make an excellent president but had no chance in you know where of getting elected.