Anyone can argue anything they want in court until the judge smacks them down. You keep arguing intensions and statements when that really doesn't matter when it comes down it it. If Trump had actually subverted the checks or balances and actually refuses to leave office you and I will probably have something in common. Until then it is hard for me to take you seriously based on your arguments to this point.

Sure anyone can argue what they want. But theres not a very good reason to try and get immunity for murder unless you want to do the thing.

Did he actually do the thing?

@linuxace, you just advanced to level 10!

The judge said no you dont have immunity from murder so no he didnt do the murder

Dang. If I lived life like that, I would be driving myself crazy fighting with my wife and being like, you could have cheated on me. How could you?

You honestly believed Trump, who you claim to be a pathological liar without shame, when he said I could shoot someone and no one would arrest me.

Hes honest about the horrible things he wants to do and when he fought for it in court yeah

What any rational person has learned in the last few years, is that you can never rely on what Trump says and only consider what he actually does for any basis of judgement

The guy will literally say something and do the opposite

Did you think he was lying when he said he would build a wall to keep out mexican rapists?

@linuxace What's your take on the Act 77 case in PA? Do you think that the US SC will take on the case to invalidate the election because the legislature did not amend the PA constitution?

@TaLoN132, you just advanced to level 26!

and so far he's deported less immigrants than Obama 😂

As a Mexican I can personally tell you that me and my hundreds of family members took absolutely no offenese at that statement.

Hes just keeping them in Mexico to be victims of crimes and sending them to central America and not calling it deportation and throwing legal asylum refugees out of the country?

I hope they take it on. Not necessarily because I want Trump to win but because I feel that the legislative controls were subverted. I don't like the fact that there has been an imbalance where courts have gained legislative power that they shouldn't have. I want that addressed no matter how the election turns out.

Hard to say when you get threats to you life for trying to do your job and follow the Constitution and other legitimate laws.

At the very least, he should appoint an election reform committee before he leaves office.

There should no doubt of integrity in any election, other than when the difference of margin is less than 1%

You clearly are not paying attention. To facts. Just sounds like a bunch of whining and rumors

@Alondraz, you just advanced to level 4!

What facts? What are you talking about? 😂

You've already proven yourself to be quite immature in all this, that's one fact. We're not gonnah bother with entertaining you anymore.

He is talking about the fact that your statements are driven more by emotion and feeling than fact. You can't prosecute someone based on your feeling that you are an awful person. You have to have an objective standard that is as universally applicable as possible.

Did you have a different interpretation of what trumps lawyer and the judge said? Seems more like you are the ones being immature.

Saying I have undisclosed facts not bias is a sad intellectual argument.

I mean no honest critic of Trump would act like this, they would provide something of substance more so on how policy was passed and what the results were. All you've done is fish for statements for whatever fits your narrative.

You might have a shot working with Don Lemon at CNN, but who knows.

I agree. Plenty of legitimate criticisms for Trump.

I wonder how they will consider the fact that voters participated in the election in good faith and since the Primary was not contested, they had every reason to believe that they were voting legally. Also, the Reps even cited Act 77 to dispute the Boockvar had the power to extend the acceptance of mail-in ballots for 3 days. Wouldn't the use of Act 77 by Reps to block the deadline be seen as supportive of them believing they had acted appropriately in passing Act 77?

I might see arguments of 1st amendment violations in an effort to disqualify mail-in ballots.

Republicans passing a law wont make it immune to Republicans filing a lawsuit against it.

Optics are bad

All I know is that they intend to use its current iteration to change the outcome in their favor, of that I can be certain. Cause the lawsuit filed under act 77, doesn't really cite fraud or impropriety that arises due to mail-in ballots, but solely on how it was passed

I'm just one of those guys where I want Trump to win, but it has to be a clean win.

Anything less would just result in another impeachment fiasco, and he could lose a majority in either chamber that way

In fact it would be likely he would lose both

I don't think the issue is whether or not the election could be extended, it is the proper controls in making that decision. From everything I've read up until this point, that is power the soley rested with the PA legislature. Even Act 77 doesn't seem to delegate the power to change deadlines, but I admit I've only scanned Act 77 and haven't gone through it in depth so I admit I may be wrong.

They could probably win the act 77 is they file after there arent votes on the line but they want votes on the line

All I know is that before, the judge wrote they had no standing because there were no injuries and that was prior to the election. After the election they filed again but wrote they filed too late.