Im 100% happy to have the SCOTUS rule this one in favor of Rudy and the team but i have one honest question; why did he state in the court that this is not a case against fraud? The judge seemed to dismiss the case because rudy said they were not contesting fraud only the fact that observers were denied the ability to observe(illegal and true). The fact is that the ballots were fraudulent, thats why they denied the obdervation of them?? Isnt that fraud? Why did he say no fraud? Then have a hearing that displayed a billion examples of actual fraud...
I don’t think they had all these affidavits and statistics available yet when they filed. Could be wrong. The PA court case seems to centered around the basic idea that observations were not permitted therefore the ballots coming in should be disqualified.
Not sure if they are also arguing that the rule changes are unconstitutional
These federal judges shouldn’t have been as political as the lower courts. Republican appointees. IDK, maybe they just punted. But it’s not filling me with confidence. PA legislature seems to be the best path
Really strange that the letter of the law seems to require only that poll watchers be "in the room." Shouldn't the intent of the law be that they can actually watch closely enough to detect fraud?
I have no clue. I have had people tell me 10 different stories. Tell me they CAN do this, AND they CAN'T do this. I have no clue what happens it what they are even presenting at this point.
Is this the same case they started this whole thing with? Are they allowed to amend it? Compared to the first case, there have been SOO many developments and new evidence come up. Can they add all that in to the case for SCOTUS? OR... is it just the little case they had when they first started?
I thought I knew what was going on, but every person, reporter, and website, seems to say something different. And Rudy says one thing, then presents something different in court.
I legit have no clue WTF I going on at this point. Even trusted people seem to be contradicting themselves. And THEN, people one here all day something different as well...
Seems to be impossible to get any straight answer of what the fuck is going on, where we are at, and what exactly the case is.
Finally getting into the endgame are we? As many losses as we have taken on, this is the one where the win is absolutely neccecary. The final stage is starting, and i am damn excited.
A list should be made of all the judges who dismissed Trump's cases. They are lying sacks of shit unworthy of their offices.
Justice ACB = Constitutional law scholar = 14th Amendment = TRUMP 2020.
Im 100% happy to have the SCOTUS rule this one in favor of Rudy and the team but i have one honest question; why did he state in the court that this is not a case against fraud? The judge seemed to dismiss the case because rudy said they were not contesting fraud only the fact that observers were denied the ability to observe(illegal and true). The fact is that the ballots were fraudulent, thats why they denied the obdervation of them?? Isnt that fraud? Why did he say no fraud? Then have a hearing that displayed a billion examples of actual fraud...
Am i missing something?
You're not missing anything, that was completely illegitimate, but what recourse is there against a judge?
I don’t think they had all these affidavits and statistics available yet when they filed. Could be wrong. The PA court case seems to centered around the basic idea that observations were not permitted therefore the ballots coming in should be disqualified.
Not sure if they are also arguing that the rule changes are unconstitutional
Just goes to show how totally politicised and partisan the courts are.
These federal judges shouldn’t have been as political as the lower courts. Republican appointees. IDK, maybe they just punted. But it’s not filling me with confidence. PA legislature seems to be the best path
Ew, if you're going to link Fox News at least archive it.
Here is the ruling. Any legal scholars here to opine?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20417623/trump-ca3-2020-11-27.pdf
Really strange that the letter of the law seems to require only that poll watchers be "in the room." Shouldn't the intent of the law be that they can actually watch closely enough to detect fraud?
Seems odd not all the evidence was presented. What’s the reason for this? Is this the case we are depending on?
I have no clue. I have had people tell me 10 different stories. Tell me they CAN do this, AND they CAN'T do this. I have no clue what happens it what they are even presenting at this point.
Is this the same case they started this whole thing with? Are they allowed to amend it? Compared to the first case, there have been SOO many developments and new evidence come up. Can they add all that in to the case for SCOTUS? OR... is it just the little case they had when they first started?
I thought I knew what was going on, but every person, reporter, and website, seems to say something different. And Rudy says one thing, then presents something different in court.
That’s the biggest part that throws me off. Rudy presents so much evidence, but then in court it’s barely any...
Yeah, like seriously...
I legit have no clue WTF I going on at this point. Even trusted people seem to be contradicting themselves. And THEN, people one here all day something different as well...
Seems to be impossible to get any straight answer of what the fuck is going on, where we are at, and what exactly the case is.
Finally getting into the endgame are we? As many losses as we have taken on, this is the one where the win is absolutely neccecary. The final stage is starting, and i am damn excited.
That is what we want