While I'm dooming about the dismissal right now too, this guy, on Twitter, brings up a really good point: https://twitter.com/PioyCOLX/status/1337546036223619073
"Do not be distracted by the #MSM. The influence is deeper than you realize. This is apart of the process. Read the fine print. Trump's lawsuit is not dismissed, Texas was dismissed. [NOT] because anything was wrong, but due to a [TECHNICALITY]. Stay TUNED!!!!!!
If you read the dismissal on the front page, is says it's dismissed under lack of Standing under ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION! "
What is article 3, you ask? TREASON.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I'm not expert enough to know to which it refers, but this could get really really interesting.
While I'm dooming about the dismissal right now too, this guy, on Twitter, brings up a really good point: https://twitter.com/PioyCOLX/status/1337546036223619073
"Do not be distracted by the #MSM. The influence is deeper than you realize. This is apart of the process. Read the fine print. Trump's lawsuit is not dismissed, Texas was dismissed. [NOT] because anything was wrong, but due to a [TECHNICALITY]. Stay TUNED!!!!!!
If you read the dismissal on the front page, is says it's dismissed under lack of Standing under ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION! "
What is article 3, you ask? TREASON.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I'm not expert enough to know to which it refers, but this could get really really interesting.
Yeah, if they mentioned article III section III that would be stellar but without that its standard for lack of standing in a state vs state(s) case to use that language. Its possible they meant section III but i feel they would have sited it to quell the backlash they are getting.
I'm kinda waiting to see what's going on with it. Guy brought up an interesting point, so I just posted it here. All we can do is kinda wait and see what happens from here.
I hope you are right but I have no faith in the judicial branch or the house ot the senate lol. I do have faith in the POTUS!
Thank you for posting this!
I dunno what will come of it, or anything, but i DID find it very interesting!
That's a good catch. I didn't notice that at first. Still though, I wonder how this will play out. I'm reserving judgment for the foreseeable future because everything I'm thinking right now are knee-jerk reactions.
Me too.
They don't name section 3 do they? The rest of the article is about states vs states
The dismisal from SCOTUS names Lack of Standing under Article III.
Yes they do. It right on the front page. "Lack of standing under article III of the US Constitution"
My bad. didn't think there were 3 sections. First 2 don't seem to apply.
I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but they just say Article 3. Article 3, Section 3 is Treason, but Section 2 is the provision that allows states to sue each other. So a dismissal on Article 3 grounds could (likely) be referring to Section 2. You'd think they'd be more precise, regardless.
Yeah I'm not sure either, I wish I could understand it better! But seeing several people pointing this out, and it could mean so many interesting things.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, pede. Stay vigilant.
Always! I've hoarded sooo much food lately.
Don't forget water too! If you're sufficiently rotund like myself, you'll run dehydrate first. Kek
lol, thanks for the giggle ! Really needed it right now.
My housemate kinda explained things to me and it does make sense; Texas was trying to (in a friendly manner) accuse PA, MI, GA and WI of Treason without trying to charge anyone specifically. Which SCOTUS couldn't let run for obvious reasons, so they dismissed it.
You're welcome, we all need moments of levity! Another thing to consider: all the states that hopped to the defence of the Fraudulent Four basically outed themselves as being okay with fraudulent procedures and votes. I certainly won't forget what they did.
Well the thing that threw me off the most, was that the 4 states never actually argued/defended against what Texas was saying. They only defended themselves against the fraud, which Texas wasn't accusing them of at all.
So I wonder if there really is (as we all know) a Treason component going on like the guy on twitter says. But I don't know what would happen there in terms of SCOTUS. We'll see how things go tomorrow, but I am really worried about everyone at the March tomorrow, i think there's going to be more violence now :(
I agree! I'm so mad my state came to defense of the 4, although I knew it was coming :/ my state sucks
Interesting
at this point I don't trust no LARPS
enough with the stay tuned BS, do something already before you loose.
Well China is considered and adversary not necessarily an enemy..
You JUST made this account less than an hour ago.
There is no “We” for you, you fucking pussy.
You keep deleting any of your comments older than 20 minutes.
Fuck off.