I watched Troupis get badgered in the Wisconsin presentation. At the start he got to speak two words I think, and then the rabid judge just started blabbing. He's a real warrior taking the case knowing the threats and pressure put on law firms not to take the cases. And some firms initially took the cases and then got scared shitless and backed out.
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but again... I don't like how this is being worded.
"...which, if allowed, would change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin."
I DON'T CARE IF IT WOULD CHANGE OR NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME.
That's not the issue. If something violated the processes and procedures that are in place, it should be thrown out. Period. Has nothing to do with an outcome.
And if seeing the "change the outcome" language bothers me, then I damn well know it bothers the raging libtard judges to read that type of language.
Am I missing something here, frens? Are they req'd to talk about outcomes in order to establish damages or something?
Trump has the knack of fighting on many fronts at one time. It is one of his super powers.
I watched Troupis get badgered in the Wisconsin presentation. At the start he got to speak two words I think, and then the rabid judge just started blabbing. He's a real warrior taking the case knowing the threats and pressure put on law firms not to take the cases. And some firms initially took the cases and then got scared shitless and backed out.
Why are we still using SCOTUS? We already know they won't do shit.
It's time to perform executive actions to shitstomp the steal.
SCOTUS agrees to hear the case 01/21/21.
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but again... I don't like how this is being worded.
"...which, if allowed, would change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin."
I DON'T CARE IF IT WOULD CHANGE OR NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME.
That's not the issue. If something violated the processes and procedures that are in place, it should be thrown out. Period. Has nothing to do with an outcome.
And if seeing the "change the outcome" language bothers me, then I damn well know it bothers the raging libtard judges to read that type of language.
Am I missing something here, frens? Are they req'd to talk about outcomes in order to establish damages or something?