I said the topic of civil war isn't allowed. Balkanization is a little different, and it largely depends on how you utilize the topic.

Telling people to get out of your country and stuff isn't regarded very highly.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same issue. The case was originally taken to SCOTUS before the election but because ACB hadn't been seated yet there was a 4-4 tie and it went back to the state. Alito then told PA to segregate the votes that came in after the deadline so that the case could be reheard after the election.

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/06/breaking-georgia-senators-introduce-petition-calling-for-special-session/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

> I think you're right... so basically the PA court potentially disenfranchised all the mail in voters in PA that meet those criteria.
@Soburin As long as those American voters' votes count, they aren't being violated. That's how elections work.

“Believe” more like pretend because he knows the Trump base have been gaslit to believe what they want to have happened

Everyone has been gaslit by each other.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said... I think law firms choose who they would like to represent all the time. There is nothing compelling a law firm to represent anyone they don't wan to. Are you suggesting otherwise?

You're missing the problem. The problem is having that amount of time allowed the cheating to occur. They had 3 days to manufacture votes which appears to be what happened.

This isn't trump-exclusive.

No this is the case brought by congressman Kelly from Pa. lost on laches in PA SC and is asking SCOTUS to hear it. The case you are referring to is also still pending.

@Soburin. I believe you are correct. Accepting Absentee Ballots after Election Day?

@Soburin Nope. You have to prove that those votes were manufactured...and then it's not a function of the extension. They could have been doing it for months prior.

The democrats are going through a civil war between establishment and progressives, the Republicans are sitting on the fence about Trump because they have to prioritize their seats in congress.

This gas-lighting cuts both ways

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