You should check out the NV case last week... They had testimony where the Trump campaign's best witnesses and experts were deposed under oath and cross examined by the defense's lawyers. It really is eye opening to see it in action. Watch the case, read the depositions, and read the ruling... and tell me that they did not get a fair hearing.

I can save you!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-executive-order-coronavirus-vaccine-america-first

(send money)

AMERICA FIRST

Fuck globalists

Shadow Pockets not to be confused with assless chaps.

I think we were talking about 2 different things. My point is that the Congress was intended to get involved when the majority of electors had not been reached. Not decide on their own to make sure that a candidate did not reach the majority by invalidating them. The fact that they can does not mean that they should.

SMH

Comedy gold

NV case was pretty fantastic but it's just a narrative anyways

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/534/

I just think that anyone who thinks that the courts are just summarily dismissing every case out of pocket would benefit from seeing that case. I expected it to be a clash of Titans (sorry, had to) , but it was a complete mismatch. I don't know where all of Trump's defense money is going, but it is not on hiring the best representation. After watching that display, I would ask anyone who they would want to hire if they needed a lawyer... The lawyer for the defense (I forget his name) owned the courtroom and he wasn't even in the room. He did it remotely. Just impressive to me - a casual observer.

I had an acquaintance who went through an assless chaps and power sprayer enema phase, nearly disabled and disfigured him for life.

We aren't talking about states that were decided by a clear majority. We're talking about winning a non-majority by a rounding error. This is EXACTLY the situation where congress should get involved.

to me its less of a clash of the titans and more of a

https://tenor.com/view/rickandmorty-showme-gif-7658980

So... this should have happened in 2016, too... The margins were even tighter. Would you have been as supportive of this effort if the Dems had control to dictate that outcome?

Wisconsin was 1%

There have been close contests every election. 2000 was decided by 567 votes. We somehow managed to get through that without having the US Congress invalidate the state's vote.

PA was >1%

FL > 1%

The only one <1% was Mich

Congress didn't get involved in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court did and that was a fraction of fraction of a rounding error (less than 1k votes in a single state) ... no hope of Congress getting involved here but that doesn't mean the grift can't go on right up until and just after Biden is sworn in https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-inauguration-day-rally

Congress should have gotten involved in 2000.

I'd have been happy for Gore to win.

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/reporty-2

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6509496-Attorney-General-Memo-Implementation-of-National.html#document/p1

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about. We have 3 states <%0.6. There's only 1 in 2016.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-keynote-address-international-conference-cyber

https://thecitizen.com/2018/03/29/cutting-edge-fayette-911-will-aid-locating-victims/

What is your arbitrary, fictional threshold for warranting Congress to override the will of the people because their candidate did not win??? You haven't provided a justification for any of it - other than the sore loser should do it if their party has the votes for it.

Goal post shifting

Proven wrong

Bad faith

Fuck off

Man... Logic is so hard to overcome. So, attack me instead of my position. Brilliant.

https://vimeo.com/447225639

I attacked your position. It moved after I showed it was wrong.

Simmer down bud, it's a conversation no need to rage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyU6pLZMRxw