The law firm was threatened both personally and professionally. The threats were significant and credible enough that they felt it was in their best interest to not represent the president. is this appropriate and can you see how it could leave the president without council if all lawyers were as gutless?

I was threatened. Therefore fraud.

That's exactly what I've been saying but the courts won't hear the case... see the problem?

I don't think there was even this amount internal fighting several years ago.

Trump can always blame it on people who are alleging fraud

Lol, you know better than to reason with someone who worships Marx

@Soburin Courts know what cases qualify. They don't indulge willy nilly. It's not random.

It's working REALLY well.

Hahaha yup

Listen to this from 4:34 already coming up with excuses as to why they wont believe the dominion machine audits. These people don’t want evidence they just want to win and when they are shown to be wrong they will just dismiss it as a conspiracy the democrats are doing https://youtu.be/MlO1UtywL6o

Ah, so now it's ok for the courts to deny due process.

There are 2 different cases - the previous case about extending the deadline by 3 days ended up being moot because of it only amounting to about 10k votes.

It's ok for them to reject junk cases on process grounds, yes. They do it all the time.

Not sure where you're getting that number. As I recall it was 268k

Sean hannity looks like he's ready to take Trump back in his mouth

Maybe just a picture

Fraud challenges and Election challenges are very different standards. Who can bring them and the damages and Remedy are very different.

If they take cases that can't legally be there, the rulings are not valid, amongst other problems. This shouldn't be an elusive concept.

Threats of personal/physical harm are reprehensible - regardless of which side is doing the threatening. Professional threats are part of doing business - companies and individuals vote with their pocket book all the time. Everybody does it - even the President.

Honestly the president shouldn't have tried to boycott/hold up private companies, I will fully admit this.

It’s not moot. Still pending in front of SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-542.html

But specifically boycot.

I would say if the threats rise to the degree that it deprives a person of council that's beyond legitimate

There was about 10k mail-in ballots in PA that were postmarked by 11/3 that arrived after 11/3 and before end of day 11/6. These were set aside per Boockvar's and later Alito's orders.

It’s still pending. There’s now two cases in front of SCOTUS on PA issues.

Has anyone ever outlined how the voter fraud actually occurred

Not really.

Only if you trust their count of 10k

They chose not to weigh in before the vote certification. For purposes of this election, it is moot.

Magicians

That's the big "????" in the "fraud ???? profit"

Ninja magicians

Reptilian ninja magicians

I think the issue in most dissonance in politics these days don't even come policy objectives as it does from these culture wars that gained magnitude over the last several years. Just read a story about a brawl breaking out in a high school football game in Florida when one team waved a **Blue Lives Matter** flag on the field while the other team took a knee during the national anthem

I'm a professional ninja that practices the dark art of election magic.

@busillis fraud is an overused term. Ballots submitted or counted in violation of Law is not necessarily Fraud Per Say.

With fraud you need to establish intent right?

@Adam135 Don't believe so, no.

Only possible in one or two states

What about negligence? @Maw

or impropriety