WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE POST 2020 ELECTION FORSENIC AUDITS PROVE BIDEN CHEATED

Jarod said:
The "Audits" are not being conducted by honest people. Nothing will be done.

If objective audits were conducted that proved such a thing, still nothing would be done with relation to Biden being president, because he became president by the Constitutional process of Congress certifying him as President. What might happen in such an unlikely case is a lot of new voting restrictions and hopefully some arrests. Are audits going on in Pennsylvania; Michigan; Wisconsin, etc?
Click to expand...

Not in PA. They're still trying.
 
katzgar said:
the problem with you being a moron is you are a moron. When the judge asked trumps lawyer if the case had merit none answered in the affirmative, if they lied and said yes and the case turned out to be BS as they were the lawyer would be disbarred. Holy crap why is being a moron ro important to you?
Click to expand...

^ And this is the money quote. Those lawyers aren't dumb enough to lose their livelihoods over trump.
 
DEMOCRATS like to claim that "Trump lost all the legal cases".

Let’s take a look.

The majority of the lawsuits were about constitutional issues, mail in ballot deadlines, insufficient poll observers, etc.

The most important of the fraud lawsuits was Texas v Pennsylvania.

That wasn't lost - it was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Pirkle v. Wolf was withdrawn.

Metcalfe v. Wolf wasn't heard because of a technicality. Supposedly the deadline to file a Class ll lawsuit had passed.

In Michigan, Bally v. Whitmer was withdrawn after the judge denied a request for an independent audit.

King vs. Whitmer was denied a hearing because it was "too late" with the comment that the “ship has sailed.”

Feehan v. Wisconsin was denied a hearing due to a lack of standing.

Trump v. Hobbs was dropped because Arizona finished counting their votes before the case could be heard.

Bowyer v. Ducey was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Burk v. Ducey was dismissed due to “lack of standing and the failure to file a timely verified election contest.”

Pearson v. Kemp was dismissed as moot because the court lacked jurisdiction.

Wood v. Raffensberger was denied for a lack of standing and because it was filed too late.

None of these cases were rejected on merit or evidential grounds.

These cases were rejected or withdrawn for procedural reasons, time constraints, etc. Not one was "lost".

Every state had to certify their results by December 8th.

On December 14th the Electoral College had to vote.

On January 5th Congress had to certify the results.

Of all this would have been fine, except that the DEMOCRATS extra-legally extended balloting way past the statutory limits in key states - by design.

That left very short timeframes to gather evidence, file suits, and then argue it before (mainly hostile) courts. Multiple state elections had to be challenged to overturn the results.

SCOTUS refused to get involved.

So here we are, and now that the dust has settled, DEMOCRATS refuse to allow a second look.
 
Drummie123 said:
If the mainstream media has greater influence and has more networks and newspapers and reporters and resources than the patriotic RW media ...

And if it is proven the mainstream media lied and obscured and spun their coverage of Trump to report 96% negatively about him ...

And you eschew* the RW media and only consume the mainstream media news ...

But, because the mainstream media pervades our society and culture to the point where it is almost impossible to avoid, even RW'ers know what they are saying ...

So, who do you think has a more accurate grasp of what's going on and how well Trump presided vs how creepy Biden is?

* es•chew ĕs-choo͞′►
transitive verb To avoid using, accepting, participating in, or partaking of:
Click to expand...

I believe Faux News is mainstream media.
 
christiefan915 said:
I believe Faux News is mainstream media.
Click to expand...

And that's why someone claiming to get a complete or even an adequate picture of the news about Trump or of the current news of the world by asserting that they watch msm AND FOX news is likely under-nourished informationally and unaware of what they are missing.

Therefore, they are in no position to tell us anything but their own description of what the elephant looks like from their limited perspective.

6-blind-men-hans.jpg


The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk.
Click to expand...
 
Legion said:
DEMOCRATS like to claim that "Trump lost all the legal cases".

Let’s take a look.

The majority of the lawsuits were about constitutional issues, mail in ballot deadlines, insufficient poll observers, etc.

The most important of the fraud lawsuits was Texas v Pennsylvania.

That wasn't lost - it was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Pirkle v. Wolf was withdrawn.

Metcalfe v. Wolf wasn't heard because of a technicality. Supposedly the deadline to file a Class ll lawsuit had passed.

In Michigan, Bally v. Whitmer was withdrawn after the judge denied a request for an independent audit.

King vs. Whitmer was denied a hearing because it was "too late" with the comment that the “ship has sailed.”

Feehan v. Wisconsin was denied a hearing due to a lack of standing.

Trump v. Hobbs was dropped because Arizona finished counting their votes before the case could be heard.

Bowyer v. Ducey was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Burk v. Ducey was dismissed due to “lack of standing and the failure to file a timely verified election contest.”

Pearson v. Kemp was dismissed as moot because the court lacked jurisdiction.

Wood v. Raffensberger was denied for a lack of standing and because it was filed too late.

None of these cases were rejected on merit or evidential grounds.

These cases were rejected or withdrawn for procedural reasons, time constraints, etc. Not one was "lost".

Every state had to certify their results by December 8th.

On December 14th the Electoral College had to vote.

On January 5th Congress had to certify the results.

Of all this would have been fine, except that the DEMOCRATS extra-legally extended balloting way past the statutory limits in key states - by design.

That left very short timeframes to gather evidence, file suits, and then argue it before (mainly hostile) courts. Multiple state elections had to be challenged to overturn the results.

SCOTUS refused to get involved.

So here we are, and now that the dust has settled, DEMOCRATS refuse to allow a second look.
Click to expand...

Weren't most or all of those cases heard BEFORE the election?

If so, they wouldn't reflect illegal election acts which took place on election day.
 
Drummie123 said:
Weren't most or all of those cases heard BEFORE the election?

If so, they wouldn't reflect illegal election acts which took place on election day.
Click to expand...

Not most, and certainly not all.

Check the dates:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pamdce/4:2020cv02088/127069

https://www.pacourts.us/news-and-st...n-et-al-v-wolf-and-boockvar-et-al-636-md-2020

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miwdce/1:2020cv01088/99603

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-859/164740/20201224100828535_WI Petition FINAL.pdf

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/cv2020-014248

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-858/164743/20201224112004358_AZ Petition.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1243.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20417863-order-in-pearson-v-kemp

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2020cv04651/283580/54/
 
Legion said:
Not most, and certainly not all.

Check the dates:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pamdce/4:2020cv02088/127069

https://www.pacourts.us/news-and-st...n-et-al-v-wolf-and-boockvar-et-al-636-md-2020

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miwdce/1:2020cv01088/99603

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-859/164740/20201224100828535_WI Petition FINAL.pdf

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/cv2020-014248

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-858/164743/20201224112004358_AZ Petition.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1243.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20417863-order-in-pearson-v-kemp

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2020cv04651/283580/54/
Click to expand...

How do I indicate I have seen your post without having to type this sentence?
 
Legion said:
DEMOCRATS like to claim that "Trump lost all the legal cases".

Let’s take a look.

The majority of the lawsuits were about constitutional issues, mail in ballot deadlines, insufficient poll observers, etc.

The most important of the fraud lawsuits was Texas v Pennsylvania.

That wasn't lost - it was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Pirkle v. Wolf was withdrawn.

Metcalfe v. Wolf wasn't heard because of a technicality. Supposedly the deadline to file a Class ll lawsuit had passed.

In Michigan, Bally v. Whitmer was withdrawn after the judge denied a request for an independent audit.

King vs. Whitmer was denied a hearing because it was "too late" with the comment that the “ship has sailed.”

Feehan v. Wisconsin was denied a hearing due to a lack of standing.

Trump v. Hobbs was dropped because Arizona finished counting their votes before the case could be heard.

Bowyer v. Ducey was rejected due to a lack of standing.

Burk v. Ducey was dismissed due to “lack of standing and the failure to file a timely verified election contest.”

Pearson v. Kemp was dismissed as moot because the court lacked jurisdiction.

Wood v. Raffensberger was denied for a lack of standing and because it was filed too late.

None of these cases were rejected on merit or evidential grounds.

These cases were rejected or withdrawn for procedural reasons, time constraints, etc. Not one was "lost".

Every state had to certify their results by December 8th.

On December 14th the Electoral College had to vote.

On January 5th Congress had to certify the results.

Of all this would have been fine, except that the DEMOCRATS extra-legally extended balloting way past the statutory limits in key states - by design.

That left very short timeframes to gather evidence, file suits, and then argue it before (mainly hostile) courts. Multiple state elections had to be challenged to overturn the results.

SCOTUS refused to get involved.

So here we are, and now that the dust has settled, DEMOCRATS refuse to allow a second look.
Click to expand...

Proving it was all done legally despite the whining from TrumpCo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top