7254
Comments (400)
sorted by:
340
deleted 340 points ago +343 / -3
176
deleted 176 points ago +180 / -4
107
WalkedAway2018 107 points ago +108 / -1

Tbh, we aren't sure if Roberts identifies as a fella or not.

69
deleted 69 points ago +69 / -0
24
TheG00CH 24 points ago +26 / -2

he was also caught on the lolita express thats why he constantly sides with the democrats...they are holding that info and him hostage...he is a turncoat now

12
Licensetomeme 12 points ago +12 / -0

I've been thinking. Would it be better if people who have information that lead to greater criminaIities are let off the hook? Lots of people with bIackmaiI, it looks. And lots of people who'd turn coat if they could get out of it. But the idea makes mesick.

0
ClokworkGremlin 0 points ago +0 / -0

Sometimes.

-32
deleted -32 points ago +1 / -33
3
PITPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Different person - His adopted children from Ireland is the issue apparently - bad paperwork or something, so he more or less kidnapped children from Ireland to be his in the US.

2
UrShulgi 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is long debunked. John Roberts wasn't on the lolita express, there was another man named John Roberts who worked for a college and flew on it's private jet by a pilot that also sometimes flew for Epstein. Here's the sauce: https://thedonald.win/p/HXk4T0ae/scotus-justice-john-roberts-wasn/

1
InRevelation12now 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here's what HASN"T been deboonked: 'The Hammer' was weaponized by Obumer/Commie Brennan and used against whole US. Justice John Roberts in particular was targeted.

It's also long been rumored that adoption process for his kids was (and possibly still is) a soft spot.

1
Sugar4Brains 1 point ago +1 / -0

how can they ever release any blackmail goods? If everyone is blackmailed then no one is

18
Hairy_Mouse 18 points ago +18 / -0

Actually, Roberts was the one who assigned all the conservative justices to the circuit courts in all the key states we need... which really surprised me.

4
Vla1ne 4 points ago +4 / -0

they might have him on some shit, but he's trying, so there's at least that much.

3
sociopathix 3 points ago +3 / -0

Couple of theories about this. It could be the ultimate fence sitting move of the decade.

Move these pro-Trump or Trump-appointed justices into these districts, and stay the hell away from them. This move does a number of things:

  1. Forces the Trump appointees into a position to make a decision about the president who appointed them.

  2. Removes/insulates liberal judges (mostly) from the situation.

The first move is a "gauntlet of fire" kind of move. Prove to the country if you're unbiased and going by the law or if your rulings will come from any political biases. It's fence-sitting because it puts them in the hot seat for any cases coming up through the courts for those districts. And if Biden takes over in January, the judges could be in the hot seat again for how they acted during the election.

Taking the liberal justices generally out of anything important to the election insulates them from fallout if this thing gets crazy. He probably wants them to be free and clear of any potential stains that this election may cause. He may also recognize that Trump or any Republican would never get a fair shake or even be heard by those justices, so it has its benefits. And we can't say that an appeal landing on the desk of Clarence Thomas and being denied was motivated by political bias.

It's a very complicated situation, but for those reasons and more, I feel like it's just more fence sitting. Which I guess is better than EVERY institution automatically lined up against us at every turn, so I'll take it.

2
BigleaguendTouchee 2 points ago +2 / -0

IT’S MAAM SOYBOI!

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
18
FliesTheFlag 18 points ago +18 / -0

Roberts gave us ObungoCare, fuck him, hes a Rino.

9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
WarTurtle 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lets not make any assumptions either, wouldn't want to wind up in prison.

2
RangerGently 2 points ago +2 / -0

Figures

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

NOT! How do you like the idea of 5 justices for a while?

13
Canlog96 13 points ago +13 / -0

We could always do like we did with “guys” and consider it technically gender neutral

6
Dudemanfoo 6 points ago +7 / -1

Some of those fellas look like donkeys...

5
ChinaVirusBigly 5 points ago +5 / -0

I thought there was some lady Obama appointed too

6
heightnoise 6 points ago +6 / -0

There is, Justice Sotomayor. This guy just posted without researching for upvotes is all.

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not a lady. A "wise latina" that "rips conservative colleagues over covid-19" REVOKE YOUR CONSENT!! Revoke HER.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sotomayor has more lip hair than Burt Reynolds.

5
solomonwiebe 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's fellete you bigot.

2
Ogcarvattack 2 points ago +2 / -0

its fellate you prude.

117
TheDynamis 117 points ago +117 / -0

This is the Trump strategy. It has probably been the strategy since COVID happened. He knew the Dems would try and abuse their power, as mail-in ballots are considerably easier to defraud. Get everything in place, tell every American to vote in person because mail-in voting isn't secure, then absolutely invalidate EVERY LAST MAIL IN BALLOT and say "I told you so!"

Why are the Dems against the Constitution so much? It's going to bite them in the ass hard, here.

61
congruent 61 points ago +63 / -2

Only downside is, Left/Media will claim "muh disenfranchised voters".

And voters will be being disenfranchised. In a perfectly legal way.

However, this might be an "out" and a "deal".

As in, Trump agrees, no one goes to prison. Instead this is the perpetrators "out" the apparently legal avenue how we win. And I (Trump) get to pass my entire 2nd term agenda.

You can scream and shout all you want. You can special council. And investigate. But when it comes to congress, it gets passed (Like the USMCA).

63
CrankHandler1991 63 points ago +63 / -0

Honestly I'd be one disenfranchised Pede if no one goes to prison. Or if the only ones going to prison are the insignificant commie foot soldiers.

I'll be very unhappy if the administration allows the swamp the chance to keep swamping after this.

48
MGP911 48 points ago +48 / -0

I don’t even want prison time. I want them hung in time square on the 4th of July.

14
FloridaACguy 14 points ago +14 / -0

With fireworks.

6
John_Smallberries 6 points ago +6 / -0

And the Rockettes.

1
DoubleTrumpPumpBump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Up their ass, then lit

1
Fecal_Fetus 1 point ago +1 / -0

twice. 😂

28
diversityisghey 28 points ago +29 / -1

This is treasonous behavior and must be met with trial and hangings. These people cannot be allowed to infect our system any longer. We can only exist as a country with the rule of law enforced.

14
Grady_Wilson 14 points ago +14 / -0

Agreed.

The traitors need to face such serious consequences for their actions that no one in 10 generations would ever dare to attempt another coup.

The punishment needs to be very severe and very public.

24
Tucso 24 points ago +26 / -2

Military tribunals

5
HateEngine 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't understand how a military tribunal is any better than just charging them in court?

16
ThePowerOfPrayer 16 points ago +16 / -0

The Deep State controls the courts.

Military tribunals are also swifter.

9
HateEngine 9 points ago +9 / -0

I guess, but the army has a surprising number of officers that are cucks. Still probably better odds in the end

4
heightnoise 4 points ago +4 / -0

Military courts do not have jurisdiction. And even if they did, recusal would be expected en masse, as the plaintiff would be the military's commander-in-chief and the defendants would be elected representative of the legislature. Even if it wasn't, it would look like such a kangaroo court the international community would find an excuse to not recognize the outcome if in DJT's favor.

4
Tucso 4 points ago +4 / -0

People will be tried for treason.

31
TheDynamis 31 points ago +31 / -0

It would be the Democrat's fault, however, for pushing through unconstitutional laws in the first place, then telling everyone to follow them.

22
ShiterallyLaking 22 points ago +22 / -0

Can't really be disenfranchised if you're dead or a piece of paper.

18
day221 18 points ago +18 / -0

The point of not allowing mass mail in ballots is that it is insecure and prone to problems. In other words, mail in voting causes legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. The election was run so poorly that no matter what judges do there will be massive disenfranchisement. The remedy for this is to have the representatives vote in the electors. Because without a valid election, that is the closest you can get to the will of the people.

17
Unapologetic 17 points ago +17 / -0

Their 'disenfranchised voters' are just paper, in some part.

17
InTheKnow 17 points ago +17 / -0

Obama outlined it in his farewell address. He said people give the power to the constitution, which is wrong. He basically said, get rid of the desire, and it goes away. He wanted to get rid of that document in the worse possible way.

9
Italians_Invented_2A 9 points ago +9 / -0

He said people give the power to the constitution

The left believes the 51% of the population is entitled to do whatever they want.

In contrast, we believe in the human rights of the minority.

12
Axiom502 12 points ago +12 / -0

Would be glorious if all mail in ballots were invalidated swept every state hahahahaha

3
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 3 points ago +3 / -0 (edited)

Will be from now on. Problem now is some may be LEGAL BALLOTS. They want to count all legal ballots. State blew up election, separated signatures, kept out observers, mixed naked ballots. Can remove counterfeit one-mark ballots to determine President but rest are do-over - - unless Amazon server in Germany has original un-massaged tallies and can be unwound -

5
donaldismydad 5 points ago +5 / -0

i believe the demoncrats were well aware their attempted election fraud/theft would not stand up in the Supreme Court; they also likely knew President Trump was unbeatable for reeeeeeelection, so their TDS compelled them to take a giant heaping donkey/rino dump on this election, just to spite and taint DJT45's remaining 4 yrs in office, imho.

5
Butter_and_Meatloaf 5 points ago +5 / -0

And this would also be why he told his supporters to vote in person, to further separate his votes from the fraudulent votes.

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +3 / -1

But then at polls (CA) they made us use felt-tip pens which reject at machines - hand inspected. Biden votes get counted. Trump votes stay rejected, removed from recounts too. This and every machine with software --> redo everywhere.

39
DickinpantsMAGA 39 points ago +43 / -4

Dems are literally shitting themselves right now. Man the salt mines!!!

25
RiffFantastic 25 points ago +28 / -3

Are they? I haven’t seen that, but I’d like to.

14
GrayGhost 14 points ago +17 / -3

You haven't seen it? Someone's coming to get you out here to see it, hold on. Kevin, get - go get the car warmed up. We're going - no, we need to get a crowd. There are shitty Democrat pants hanging from lamp posts, it's a bonanza. They're shitting all over.

25
RiffFantastic 25 points ago +27 / -2

Nope. They seem unusually confident every time I turn on the radio or tv. I don’t know what to believe anymore, but I never count President Trump out.

21
TheDynamis 21 points ago +21 / -0

They are still confident. Nobody in the public is shitting their pants yet. The media and the Democrat officials are, though.

15
Ask_If_Im_A_Cactus 15 points ago +16 / -1

They're literally screaming and throwing things at press briefings, then reporting on their own tantrums and calling them justified.

What have you been watching?

4
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 4 points ago +4 / -0

Throwing things? Nah.

2
Hairy_Mouse 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

Yeah, one guy threw a pen at the chair.

Or it may have been a small mic.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
13
MAGAA2020 13 points ago +13 / -0

The media never projects reality. They project what they want you to believe.

Right now it's like they're shouting "everything's fine!" in front of a burning city. Which they've done literally, if I recall the BLM riots.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
TwoStar 3 points ago +3 / -0

Remember how confident they were that "the walls are closing in" on Trump and that he would be out of office any day now?

That's not confidence, it's hubris.

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
EyesInTheHills 2 points ago +2 / -0

Drive through San Francisco sometime.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
11
Itype33 11 points ago +11 / -0

Would this even go to the SCOTUS? It's a state constitutional challenge.

8
Hairy_Mouse 8 points ago +9 / -1

Doesn't have to I guess, but likely will because all the lower judges are faggots who can't do their jobs.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +7 / -4

Ya, but I don't think it can. This is a question of state law, the state supreme court is the highest court for those matters.

6
jdtiger 6 points ago +7 / -1 (edited)

A state supreme court ruling can be appealed to SCOTUS

Edit: to add a source

1
Itype33 1 point ago +3 / -2

That same source says the state supreme court has the final say for state laws.

4
jdtiger 4 points ago +4 / -0

Digging further, it appears SCOTUS generally only hears the state supreme court cases that somehow involve the US Constitution or federal law, so yeah you may be right about this particular case not going to SCOTUS

4
Thekraken 4 points ago +4 / -0

they didn’t follow the process to make it legal why wouldn’t it’s be appealed to the sc if state shoots it down. It’s a perfectly legitimate argument to drop all mail in votes

3
crypticreptile 3 points ago +4 / -1

States rights are great but national elections are a matter of national security.

3
Itype33 3 points ago +4 / -1

That's not part of this case, this is a simple legal challenge that says act 77 needed to be a constitutional amendment.

7
Taupkek 7 points ago +8 / -1

Yes, it could and probably will go to SCOTUS. The issue is twofold. Who has the right to make and change the laws governing Presidential elections, and the severability of the sections of the law. The first is clearly a Constitutional issue, as it clearly states that ONLY the state legislature can make or change election law. But in PA the Gov, SOS and court made changes. The VBM law, however, was quite clear that ANY changes made to ANY part of the law nullified the whole law. By changing the law, which was written to say that only those votes received by 8pm Tuesday 11/3 could be counted, to allowing ballots mailed by the 3rd and received days later, the law became null and void, and literally every single mail-in ballot rendered invalid.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-trump-will-triumph-pa-litigation

2
Itype33 2 points ago +5 / -3

You're not wrong, but you're commenting on a different case. This case argues that act 77 passed last year needed to be a constitutional amendment. The fuckery pulled by the SOS is separate.

1
Hairy_Mouse 1 point ago +1 / -0

So what the status in THAT case, then? Is that in the one Rudy just appealed?

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

It was just filled, there's no ruling.

2
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 2 points ago +2 / -0

PA all moot with new case. Requirement for absentee eligibility in state constitution. Yes Legislature passed 77 to change absentee to no reason but they did not amend constitution so yes ALL mass mail ballots (including counterfeits) excluded. Trump won by 800K votes. Those that followed all old rules should get counted. 2016 the number of these was a couple of thousand. If there are any real absentees, they may not get counted, yes but they know who they are and they can do replacement ballots. Yes that is a good remedy. But do they still have vote flipping machines working on in-person ballots?

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
Itype33 2 points ago +2 / -0

This isn't a federal law, this is a case arguing that a state law needed to be a constitutional amendment.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)
1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

They would have to make that claim in the case for it to be a basis of appeal.

1
Ande 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, not the U.S Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution.

States have their own. This is a matter of state law.

0
Italians_Invented_2A 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think the case is that the state didn't follow the federal Constitution because they didn't respect the state legislature being in charge of deciding how to do the state elections.

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

no they violated their own constitution with change by legislature. change invalid. if we can understand it b&w like this, if the court doesn't enjoin cert they should be terminated.

1
Italians_Invented_2A 1 point ago +1 / -0

No this doesn't go anywhere I'm afraid because it's only the PA Supreme Court that can decide on what breaks the PA constitution.

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, there are provisions in the PA constitution that lists groups of people the state must offer absentee ballots to. The constitution instructs the PA legislature to pass laws to allow this. The case argues that act 77, that allows no excuse absentee ballots violates that provision of the constitution, thus those extra ballots are invalid. It's a great case and based on sound theory, but it's not a violation of the federal constitution.

1
Italians_Invented_2A 1 point ago +1 / -0

Act 77 says that mail in ballots have to return within election day, or all ballots are invalid.

Therefore the PA authorities have violated Act 77, relying on activist judges' decisions, and this is what violates the federal Constitution.

In PA they are not applying Act 77, which is what the federal Constitution indirectly mandates.

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

new case state constitution invalidates 77

1
Itype33 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ya, that's a completely different case. This thread is about a case challenging 77 on the fact that it needed to be an amendment instead of a law.

1
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right. Hard to argue when constitution says one thing and you do another. But "liberal judges" are illiterate when reading docs that have "Con...." at top.

1
DoubleTrumpPumpBump 1 point ago +1 / -0

The left: cries in RGB, may all fuck be upon her.

148
Tryhardneckbeard 148 points ago +151 / -3

You know the only thing that pisses me off about this is

THE GOP COULDA DID THIS SHIT BEFORE THE FUCKING ELECTION EVEN STARTED!!!!

99
DixOut4Donald 99 points ago +101 / -2

Or you can catch the fucks with their dicks in the cookie jar

35
NinjaSquirrel 35 points ago +35 / -0

This. Can’t prevent it from happening again unless you catch them

5
esheki808 5 points ago +5 / -0

Drain the swamp

22
GrayGhost 22 points ago +22 / -0

Every time I see someone questioning this stuff, I keep wondering if they've ever worked in an office, or seen a mafia movie before. Or played cards. Or questioned a thief. Or fumigated a house. Watched an episode of Mannix. "Why don't/didn't they just ______" is the single most annoying thing I read on a daily basis.

You have to let things happen to make other things happen. When you're politicking with traitors and slimeballs, spoons have to get bent. So few people can appreciate that. It's so much armchair football that I'm getting an edge I don't like.

14
DixOut4Donald 14 points ago +14 / -0

Why didn’t Joe Biden’s mom just swallow?

13
marishiten 13 points ago +14 / -1

Why didn't Joe and Hunter die in that car accident instead of his wife and daughter? The would would have been a better place.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
6
DixOut4Donald 6 points ago +6 / -0

Hungry?

6
DahRage 6 points ago +6 / -0

For dick

34
sully 34 points ago +34 / -0

They weren't aware that the Secretary of State/Biden's lawyers/whoever else snuck in behind their backs and somehow managed to change the law before the election. Same with the other states like GA, MI and WI

37
CaptainPatriot 37 points ago +37 / -0

as far as i know they never actually changed the "Law" which is the main reason it will be thrown out. That is why Alito told them to separate the ballots which they ignored...

14
LiberalismIsTheVirus 14 points ago +14 / -0

The law was never actually changed. The PA supreme court was in on it also ruling in a way that was not actually legal. I understand that the lawsuit was filed yesterday so it's news but I thought there already was one for this or was it something similar?

4
Cakes4077 4 points ago +4 / -0

The other case that the PA Supreme Court ruled and made changes was that mail in ballots could be received up to 3 days after the deadline, 8 pm on Nov. 3, and still be counted despite what legislation said.

22
deleted 22 points ago +22 / -0
13
leakmouth 13 points ago +14 / -1

Trump can’t even get support from his own fucking party with most of those faggots wouldn’t even be there without him

11
Littleirishmaid 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yup.

127
deleted 127 points ago +128 / -1
103
Wrexxis780 103 points ago +104 / -1

Mods are awake.

56
2020_DJT_ 56 points ago +57 / -1

so WOKE

32
deleted 32 points ago +33 / -1
8
CrankHandler1991 8 points ago +8 / -0

Not the Black Rifle kind, either.

39
Empty_Brain 39 points ago +49 / -10

Mods are compromised. One mod received up to $25,000 for stickying a meme on the top

42
deleted 42 points ago +43 / -1
21
Lenguado 21 points ago +21 / -0

I just registered 393,587 UPVOTES!

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
6
Lenguado 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah, and why do any of my posts praising Trump get reduced to 75% of what I posted???

1
keaster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Match me! Chip in!

10
sunnyingreenfield 10 points ago +10 / -0

That was Reddit, my good Xir.

2
MAGAA2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hear the mods are from Serbia.

10
MakeAmericaLegendary 10 points ago +11 / -1

I'm in the wrong line of work, apparently.

7
deadbugdale 7 points ago +7 / -0

Less 10% to the big guy

2
Rainman 2 points ago +2 / -0

You broke the code on how TD.WIN pays for all the servers

23
Shitposter69 23 points ago +23 / -0

High quality mods my fellow pede

8
bootsy_two_scoops 8 points ago +8 / -0

HIGH ENERGY MODS!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
89
TheDynamis 89 points ago +91 / -2

IT BEGINS

This is the REAL plan of attack. Invalidate every single mail in ballot that was unconstitutional.

62
RuthBGinsburgsTumor 62 points ago +63 / -1

Something to think about: Trump screamed off the rooftops for his followers to vote in-person and not by mail. Really activates the ol' almonds, doesn't it?

21
deleted 21 points ago +22 / -1
6
MakeAmericaGreat9 6 points ago +6 / -0

Which means we need to flip more blue to red in those areas. I'm deep blue and my polls were lined with MAGA

5
Lovepede 5 points ago +5 / -0

Actually he said mail it in, then go and verify in person. He specifically said they were going to tamper with it. Tik tok was filled with videos of people throwing away ballots for Trump.

Either way, the 10 or so counties that stopped counting at midnight is also the counties with mail ballot return ratios well in excess of demographically and politically similar areas, i.e. in most of the nation you've got 50-60% ballot return rate, and in the same 10 that shut down and sent poll watchers home, you've got 85-98% return rate, and some precincts claiming vote totals in excess of their registered voter total.

The overlap between their statistical irregularities and their unprecedented and coordinated conduct on election night, is enough evidence of a preplanned method to rig the election in those precincts. To get turnout/return rates to approach 100% is insurmountably difficult. To go from 65% to 70% would have required millions invested in campaigns, door to door ops, return boxes and parking lot chasers.

1
Two_Scoops__ 1 point ago +1 / -0

He told us to vote by mail and then show up election day and make sure your vote got recorded. Hmmmmm

11
deleted 11 points ago +12 / -1 (edited)
3
MakeAmericaGreat9 3 points ago +3 / -0

In PA the voters get to vote on amendments... We didn't. Mail in ballots gotta go. Even the ones for Trump.

1
Hairy_Mouse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, all 6 of them.

0
MakeAmericaGreat9 0 points ago +1 / -1

exactly

53
MAGA_Master 53 points ago +54 / -1

I don’t understand what this means but anything to keep those Dems busy is fine by me.

86
thxpk 86 points ago +87 / -1 (edited)

They passed changes allowing no excuse abseetee ballot requests but they only did that as the first step to changing it in the PA constitution, problem is, they never got around to that second part of changing the PA constitution so the entire thing is invalid.

45
ontothefuture 45 points ago +46 / -1

The PA State Legislature cannot let this slide.

25
debacle 25 points ago +26 / -1

We're probably going to see a split outcome in that regard. It's likely the SCOTUS verdict will strike down the law, but not all of the ballots. It's hard for a court to dump ballots at that scale. We might see a re-vote, but the precedent there is complex.

24
RuthBGinsburgsTumor 24 points ago +25 / -1

A re-vote without the mail-in vote shennanigans is a Trump landslide.

8
debacle 8 points ago +10 / -2

It's incredibly unlikely we see a re-vote since this is a PA constitutional issue not a US constitutional issue. SCOTUS and federal courts have no jurisdiction.

8
RuthBGinsburgsTumor 8 points ago +8 / -0

I believe you. There's precedent for re-votes due to fraud, but I don't think that's even been the case for a presidential election (and also it was in other States).

Regardless, this is popcorn worthy.

6
day221 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think PA state court is 5-2 for Dems so this wold be a waste of time if that's the case.

3
Hairy_Mouse 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't understand how they CAN disagree, though. They should be immediately let go of they do. It's literally the law.

That's like PA just making up a random number, and the court say they allow it. They CAN'T.

If a judge HAS to rule according to law, I don't see how they can actually dismiss this?

1
day221 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because they are Democrat hacks. They lie about the law all the time to get their way. It's sick.

5
RexCollumSilvarum 5 points ago +5 / -0

Can you imagine the vote totals if there were a national re-vote, with everything in-person and being filmed? Would Biden even get 30 million votes?

I'm not sure if the Constitution has any provisions for a re-vote but if there were one it would be the biggest landslide imaginable.

3
MakeAmericaLegendary 3 points ago +3 / -0

Impossible for a Presidential election, no?

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
Balzenburg 4 points ago +4 / -0

Constitutional Autist Alito is not happy

23
Wrexxis780 23 points ago +23 / -0

Potentially could make all their mass mail in voting illegal.

16
Vadernocturnus 16 points ago +16 / -0 (edited)

PA democrats ramrodded expansion of absentee ballots "ACT 77", and even though it was properly amended, passed by House and Senate, then signed into law by Gov. Wolf, - It did not meet PA's constitutional process because it wasn't passed in both houses of assembly in two consecutive sessions, and then added to the ballot to be voted on in PA's general election.

PA's new amendment struck out all the enumerated grounds of absentee voting, and added, "their could be no law pursuant to require citizens to vote in person"...at all. They did not follow through PA's entire constitutional amendment process and rushed the law, So all absentee votes relying on the State's new violations of PA's constitution can be thrown out.

PA of course will not recognize this as the judges have already been stating with prejudice. So we'll see how far the complaint goes.

3
nowrongwrong 3 points ago +3 / -0

Simplest way to put it: you can't make a law that that changes an amendment unless that law is itself an amendment.

For the United States, the Constitution says that the only way to amend the Constitution is if 2/3 of both House and Senate agree and then 2/3 of all States also agree. You can't make an amendment just by getting a slim majority for one election cycle. You need overwhelming majority agreement.

State legislatures also have similar models that raises the bar for an amendment. For Pennsylvania, they would have had to pass the new amendment two sessions in a row and then have the voters also approve it at the next election.

47
deleted 47 points ago +49 / -2
6
debacle 6 points ago +7 / -1

What happened after April with the proposed amendment? Did it get tabled, did it get voted against, etc? Might be very material to the case.

9
OC_is_an_island 9 points ago +9 / -0

It doesn't matter. To change the constitution in Pennsylvania the public has to vote on it like a Californian proposition.

They didn't even meet the first step: passed in both houses in two consecutive sessions.

4
debacle 4 points ago +4 / -0

If it was VOTED on twice but only PASSED once, that gives a lot more credence to the act being illegal (and takes wiggle room away from the justices). If it was only voted on once for some COVID related reason, etc, an activist justice is going to make a "Will of the People" style argument.

1
MakeAmericaGreat9 1 point ago +2 / -1

The will of the people didn't get to vote on it so that judge can fuck off.

Any judge that attempts to uphold this law should but put in jail. One judge doesn't decide for millions of residents.

3
debacle 3 points ago +3 / -0

One judge doesn't decide for millions of residents.

They literally do though.

0
MakeAmericaGreat9 0 points ago +1 / -1

Based on the Law, not their fucking feelings

2
debacle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Would that that were true, but for almost 100 years we have had a slowly worsening cycle of: breakdown in the legislature -> increased executive action -> increasingly activist judges.

32
deleted 32 points ago +34 / -2
28
YoullReadThis 28 points ago +29 / -1

I think they're trying all types of avenues just in case one falls through.

22
leakmouth 22 points ago +23 / -1

All the states that suddenly stopped counting need to have all those votes thrown out after that point when the counting stopped

11
zippy3 11 points ago +12 / -1

Equal protection clause

10
inquimouse 10 points ago +11 / -1

Maybe by now there are too many batches of ballots that are being challenged to ever separate the good from bad.

4
deleted 4 points ago +7 / -3
26
TrumpsBestFriend 26 points ago +27 / -1

The conclusion should not be that Trump would have won. In a legal battle with hostile judges, they're going to view that argument through a partisan lens.

It's harder to prove how the election should have gone than it is proving that the results aren't credible.

The argument that Rudy is refining makes sense: there's enough irregularities and misconduct to throw the outcome into question. Contingency elections are the Constititional solution. At that point the judge has to explain why they believe actions like kicking out observers isn't justification for investigation. But that means their words can be used against their own partisan interests in the future.

15
congruent 15 points ago +16 / -1 (edited)

Getting to contingency election as is spelled out in the 12th amendment that created the electoral college may very well indeed be the play.

And that's the new house of reps, but 1 vote per state, which is 27 R - 23 D I think. As long as RINOs don't stab him in the back.

8
Lionkitty 8 points ago +9 / -1

If it comes down to the house voting Barr needs to make it clear that any acts of harassment or intimidation will be prosecuted, and since FB, twitter and other forms of social have taken the on responsibility of censoring if harassment and intimidation is allowed on their sites they will be liable, same with MSM.

6
ADAM_SCHITT 6 points ago +6 / -0

Lol yeah I'm sure Barr will get right on it.

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1 (edited)
3
Disagreeable 3 points ago +3 / -0

Actually it is now 31-19. Many new seats won.

2
Jaybird91 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s a party line vote I believe

2
Hairy_Mouse 2 points ago +2 / -0

In that case, don't the Rs HAVE to vote for the R candidate?

1
congruent 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nope. They just "get a vote" however they want.

26
_Ghost_Void_ 26 points ago +28 / -2

This is how we win. Not larps... Raw data. Raw facts.

17
darkhorsereddit3 17 points ago +19 / -2

I’m pretty sure Sydney has tons of facts and raw data on her side. Why we dooming on her already?

8
deleted 8 points ago +12 / -4
1
crypticreptile 1 point ago +1 / -0

The entire election could get blown the fuck up really fast if the kraken is the program from the CIA wikileaks documents. If she has real hard evidence of the dominion shit it will be world shattering.

That being said none of us have any influence on that. All we can do is wait and see what she has. We must focus on demanding that the laws are followed. I trust in sidney but I don't think discussing things we have no influence on really matters much. If she has it she has it and if she doesn't she doesn't.

1
thunderstorm 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point is that a case like what she is bringing is going to be a jury trial. Dominion is going to fight it with tooth and nail because an axe is hanging over their head. It will drag out beyond the deadline.

0
_Ghost_Void_ 0 points ago +2 / -2

Not dooming on her. I just think the servers in Germany are a distraction and misdirection until proven otherwise.

-4
darkhorsereddit3 -4 points ago +3 / -7

According to her she could file a month from now and overturn the election results. Seems like she knows what she’s talking about. Idk why she would say that.

And don’t we NEED Georgia too? Is Lin Wood part of Trumps team? Because he’s been pedophilia and satanic worship lately. Doesn’t that sound like a larp too?

5
Cincinattus1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

Lin Wood, like Sidney Powell, is operating independently, but alongside the Trump Legal Team.

0
darkhorsereddit3 0 points ago +2 / -2

So realistically, not a single thing we’ve been talking about or doing on this site matters in the slightest if Rudy and Jenna don’t win?

15
GravityBounce1976 15 points ago +16 / -1

If they don't win this at the State Supreme Court, they will definitely win at SCOTUS.

2
TheTrooper424 2 points ago +3 / -1

It won't go SCOTUS if it's a state constitution issue. Wrong jurisdiction.

5
uniformist 5 points ago +5 / -0

If the PA SC upholds the law, it will be appealed to the US SC on the Constitutional issue that State Legislatures are given the power to set election laws, not State courts or executives.

3
thunderstorm 3 points ago +3 / -0

If the PA Supreme Court changed the Constitution, it might be ruled on by SCOTUS, if there is enough time to get it there.

2
FirstFlamingo 2 points ago +2 / -0

SCOTUS can take cases that are appealed beyond a state level supreme court

Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

From: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

12
spezisacuckold 12 points ago +13 / -1

I’ve been saying this for months, check my history. Legally, either EVERY “no excuse” mail-in ballots NEEDS to be disqualified — OR — EVERY ballot received after 8PM on Election Day (Trump was winning even considering the ballots received right before 8PM and not counted until later) NEEDS to be thrown out.

Either way, Trump wins.

2
50red 2 points ago +2 / -0

What if a large portion of supposedly mailed in ballots was comingled with the in-person ballots, which probably happened knowing all the fuckery that went on.

3
Hairy_Mouse 3 points ago +3 / -0

They look different.

1
50red 1 point ago +1 / -0

There were pristine ballots arriving by truckloads. Who knows what they were...

11
PatFenis 11 points ago +12 / -1

WE WON!!

11
MakeAmericaGreat9 11 points ago +12 / -1

But before a proposed Constitutional Amendment can be submitted for approval by the voters, it must be passed by both houses of the Assembly in two consecutive sessions — and that has not happened. Only after that happens can it be placed on the ballot of a general election for approval by the voters.

Seems pretty fucking clear to me. If the PA Supreme Court can't even follow their own rules, then judges need to be impeached. This activist judge shit has gone way too fucking far.

8
dahdahdah_dahditdah 8 points ago +8 / -0

Even if vote certifications get blocked or reverted by this means, Republican state legislatures are likely to choose their electors for the EC based on how they perceive people voted. They will consider it bad form to go against the "will of the people". In other words, there's a risk Repub legislators will still hand this to the Democrats.

This is why it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to trace out, document, and prove the vote fraud that occurred. We have to show the public, the legislatures, and the world that Trump won fairly but the Democrats cheated. Then legislators won't feel guilty giving the win to Trump, since legitimate voters really gave it to him.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
aaafirefly123 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are in on it

7
Agreeable_Hamster 7 points ago +12 / -5

This may be so, but even if the judge rules the act unconstitutional, that's different from invalidating the votes, because one could argue that voters acted based on info they had at the time. I doubt any judge will toss that many votes because the legislature fucked up.

The real question is why the PA legislature, which has a senate majority being GOP passed this absurd Act. Am I missing something? Republicans must really love losing, ffs.

9
My2SonsAreMarines 9 points ago +10 / -1

Votes are either lawful or unlawful as as stipulated by state law. The legislature passes laws re: election ballots. If what voters cast were unlawful ballots it does not matter what their intent was.

Mail-in ballots may be deemed entirely unlawful simply becase the Gov, SoS + PA Supr Ct allowed votes to be received past 8 PM 11/3.

In PA the SOS and Governor mis-represented the terms of voting by mail to the public. The deception commuicated by them about receiving ballots past 8 PM as legitimate is totally on them.

Legilature said Act 77 passes allowing mail-in voting only if all ballots are received by 8 PM 11/3. Law is non-severable. For Gov and SoS + PA Sup Ct to say receive past that time is OK, it voids the law, therefore voiding ALL mail in ballots.

2
TylerD 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why would this violate all mail ins and not just the ones that came after 8pm election day?

4
IridiumForte 4 points ago +4 / -0

Because almost all mail-in ballots are written in as unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, with few exceptions (disability etc)

They tried to put through an amendment to the constitution to change that, but they didn't follow the proper procedure, so the amendment isn't even in place.

1
aaafirefly123 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Pennsylvanian Supreme Court will rule it constitutional because Orange Man Bad.

1
IridiumForte 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah well, is that not the end of the road then?

1
TylerD 1 point ago +1 / -0

I believe Act 77 was passed by the state legislature. The constitution gives the State Legislature all the rights to decide the election. But the violation is itself is only of PA Constitution, so this wouldnt necessarily go to SCOTUS. And PA Supreme Court is already stacked and in favor of changing voting laws.

1
IridiumForte 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unless I'm mistaken, I was under the impression that Act 77 being invalid was the argument of the case. I'll have to re-read it

1
My2SonsAreMarines 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because the provision in Act 77 states was that if Mail-in was going to be allowed to happen at all the only ballots that could be considered valid are those received by 8 PM. The Gov, SoS, and PA Supr Ct violated the provisions of Act 77, and by co-mingling the pre-8 PM with post 8 PM they have poisoned the well to the point that what ballots came in before or after 8 are indistinguishable. The 8 PM requirements have been offended in practice; therefore, the legislature themselves would be in the position of refusing to allow any mail-in ballots from being considered for electoral college purposes.

The Gov and SoS and PA Supr Ct took it upon themselves to make the 8 PM 11/3 requirement of no effect, but since the law itself was not severable it was either the whole law was operative or none of the law was operative. Since the Gov , SoS, and PA Supr Ct tried to render a portion of the law inoperative, NONE of the law is therefore operative. Therefore NONE of the mail-in ballots made possible only by passage of Act 77 are lawful and countable

0
samson1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

Agreed. The right to vote will likely supersede in the court's mind. I'm no legal scholar but I just don't see a judge invalidating that many votes based on this violation.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
7
victory2024 7 points ago +10 / -3

Unfortunately SCOTUS won't get into a state constitutional issue, they'll defer on that to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is cucked beyond belief. We need federal claims to have a chance of SCOTUS relief.

0
Luckyladypede 0 points ago +1 / -1

Wouldn't that be where Sydney comes in with Dominion used in 29 states?

6
inquimouse 6 points ago +7 / -1

The more suits, the better the chance of gains. If Barnes wants to take a signature verification strategy he can certainly do so, and leave Sydney to follow her own theory.

5
pup1pup 5 points ago +5 / -0

The problem is judges don't care about the text of the law unless it suits them. John Roberts is going to read what the New York Times is saying about "voter suppression" and base his decision on that.

5
PGM92 5 points ago +5 / -0

We don't need lost causes like John Roberts. Pray the five conservative justices do what's right.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
lanman 3 points ago +3 / -0

On first blush, this seems an awful lot like what happened in VA. Before 2020, in VA you had to have a reason why you were requesting an absentee ballot.

3
RussianAgent13 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's also a violation of federal law which designates an election day, not election month.

3
trumpdevops 3 points ago +4 / -1

Wanted to reiterate what I posted in another thread, but Dems pulled the same stunt in Wisconsin back in April 2020. Activist district judges allowed mail in ballots to be mailed & counted past the election day of April 7 until April 13. Now, it's slightly different than PA because in PA's case, the mail-in ballot had to be postmarked by a certain date extension (I forget now the date). But, it's very, very similar in nature in that dems used the China flu as a means to push thru all sorts of fraudulent-esque last minute state district court rulings.

The RNC asked SCOTUS to step in and they struck it down - here is Kavanaugh's words (from the 6 page pdf linked below, worth a read). Of course, 4 democrat justices dissented LOL - these people are quite stupid or outright malicious, it clearly states in the US constitution that election law is a states right's legislature issue meaning activist judges can't make or override legislated election law 5 days before an election.

Nonetheless, five days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters— for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election

Second, the dissent contends that this Court should not intervene at this late date. The Court would prefer not to do so, but when a lower court intervenes and alters the election rules so close to the election date, our precedents indicate that this Court, as appropriate, should correct that error.

Therefore, subject to any further alterations that the State may make to state law, in order to be counted in this election a voter’s absentee ballot must be either (i) postmarked by election day, April 7, 2020, and received by April 13, 2020, at 4:00 p.m., or (ii) hand-delivered as provided under state law by April 7, 2020, at 8:00 p.m.

The Court’s decision on the narrow question before the Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in light of COVID–19 are appropriate. That point cannot be stressed enough.

The stay is granted pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
mikethemarine 3 points ago +3 / -0

So I was right, the dems worked with China to do this, why else would they implement this a year in advance, this whole thing is the insurance policy and I mean all of it, from the riots to the pandemic and all the bullshit. remember Bill Maher saying bring on the recession, and Chucky saying don't mess with the spooks all have been used

3
RogerThat1 3 points ago +3 / -0

The thing that seems to be under played in this story, is why the Governor was pushing this through in 2019, BEFORE Covid hit. Hmm, did he know something we didn’t??

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
Mattw108 2 points ago +2 / -0

With these state judges completely ignoring constitutional laws right now the Dems are hoping to cast doubt on the validity of case, before it gets to Supreme Court. That is them showing fear if you think about it. As big media, big tech ramp up censorship and trying to “fact check” everything on the news and twist it into misinformation that is being scared. They wouldn’t be throwing all their resources toward trying to squash it if they weren’t. They know there is validity to the charges. They know constitutional we are right.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Izzil 2 points ago +2 / -0

State Supreme Court has final say on interpreting state constitution and it is 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans. In court, one side argues A the other side argues non-A. The state Supreme Court has arguments to justify Democrat win. This is failure theater.

2
Sempiternus 2 points ago +3 / -1

The problem is that is a violation of state law where the SCOTUS will defer to the state supreme court. That court has already proven to be cucked.

3
FORMERCHILDSTAR 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe, but not if the supreme court detects a violation of the equal protection clause. Then scotus will make a remedy.

2
Guru 2 points ago +2 / -0

Let’s go Supreme Court. Last bastion of this free and beloved country!

2
jamesjk1234 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why did they wait till now?

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
Litehouse 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exact same case L Lin Wood filed regarding GA on 11/13 that will likely end up At SCOTUS

2
NighT93 2 points ago +3 / -1

gottem.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
Prairie_Dog 2 points ago +2 / -0

All your votes are belong to us

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Hairy_Mouse 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wouldn't it just be PASC?

1
DontTouchMyGuns 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, was tied up. Brain malfunction.

2
big_league 2 points ago +3 / -1

This is probably the best change type of lawsuit we have, but it is most likely to cause a civil war

2
yanksali 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why do many assume the law still matters and the SC is some virtuous neutral arbiter of the truth and the law? You can have great evidence, the facts and the law on your side but if you present it before a kangaroo court, you lose.

Courts are supposed to be like baseball umpires who don’t care which team wins. So should the media. Sadly, neither are. Courts have been politicized just like the FBI.

1
Tiocfaidh_ar_la 1 point ago +1 / -0

This. The pa courts have already made illegal rules and over stepped their powers. What recourse is there when courts are ruling illegally?

1
fapoo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isnt this what Trump team has filed anyway?

1
Tiocfaidh_ar_la 1 point ago +1 / -0

I firmly believe this is a strong case. There are several issues though. Is there any course of action when the extremely bias PA Supreme Court strikes this down? Has a court ever tossed out so many ballots? This is a horrible situation where the law is clear but it will cause a huge uproar and dise franchise a fuck ton of voters.

1
trex554 1 point ago +2 / -1

No more vote by mail Demoncrats use it to harvest ballots and fraudulently fill them out for Seniors in nursing homes and dead people as the USPS holds ballots undeliverable and gives to DNC operatives. USPS Union endorsed Biden.

0
HumasTaint 0 points ago +1 / -1

And going block to block knocking on doors to collect ballots from people that would never have voted.

1
EndPoliticalCareers 1 point ago +2 / -1

It’s like these states view their Constitutions as irrelevant. Toss the ballots or run an election again under Constitutional rules.

1
Filetsmignon 1 point ago +2 / -1

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like a slam-dunk win right there. Justice Alito is in charge of PA. I've said since before the election that the Keystone State is aptly named. That's why I hung the PA State flag out in front of my house on election day, and it will stay there until Trump starts his 2nd term. I don't live in PA.

1
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Alito isn’t the judge that will be judging the case tho.

1
thunderstorm 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is going into the state courts over the state constitution.

1
1andrac3 1 point ago +1 / -0

THIS IS FUCKING BIG!!!

BC from my understanding, it was only the legislator could've challenge PA supreme court.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LibertyPrimeWasRight 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the challenge is based on the Pennsylvania state constitution, is it even eligible for SCOTUS? They only handle matters of federal law.