1439
posted ago by Hagrid ago by Hagrid +1439 / -0

--- See Bannon's War Room Ep 531 starting at 10:42AM ET ---

Transcription:

(David Kallman, MI lawyer) “The request was a pretty narrow decision, remember, this was on a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the certification of the election results. What happened in Michigan yesterday as you probably saw on the news, our state board of canvassers certified the results of the election. Therefore, the Supreme Court said “Well, your request for an injunction to stop that is now moot, because the State Board has ruled”. But then, a number of the justices of concurring opinions and one of dissent, actually came out very strongly that the issues we’ve raised are still relevant, need to be addressed immediately, encouraged us to go back to the trial court and ask for emergency expedited hearings on the issue of the audit. And the justices made it clear that the audit was not precluded by the certification yesterday. So that's a huge ruling right there that's going our way. And furthermore, justices Zahra and Markman made it clear that they thought the evidence we put forward was very compelling and it was very troubling to them. And Justice Zahra made quite a comment in going through the different allegations we are making on the fraud and the problems with the poll challengers not being allowed to do their legal duty and observe the process. So, it was very good.”

(Bannon) “Stop for a second. You just said something. In the -Supreme Court of Michigan- yesterday, in front of the justices of the Supreme Court, Dave Coleman brings evidence... evidence with affidavits and eye witnesses, brings evidence and what do these justices say? "This evidence is very compelling. “In fact… you were overcome by events (with the injunction) but you have to bring it back because we have to review this evidence again. This evidence is compelling.”

Comments (41)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
8
SoNoRiko 8 points ago +8 / -0

If i'm reading this correctly this is potentially YUGGGE.

For context, couldn't the MI Supreme court could have just tossed this case on mootness and not commented on the merits of the case?

6
iamherefortheluls 6 points ago +6 / -0

they didn't just comment on merits:

I would also have this Court retain jurisdiction of this case under both its appellate authority and its superintending authority under Const 1963, art 6, § 4 (stating that, with certain limitations, “the supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts”). Federal law imposes tight time restrictions on Michigan’s certification of our electors. Plaintiffs should not have to file appeals following our standard processes and procedures to obtain a final answer from this Court on such weighty issues.

u/MagaAttorney2020

does this mean they are asking for a new lawsuit to be filed and for it to go straight to SSC, skipping lower courts?

4
SoNoRiko 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm no attorney but this text does read as they would see the issue again post-haste.

I'm a layman though, would love a confirmation to see if my understanding is correct.