No court in the United States would listen to evidence, every court found a reason to silence any objections. When it got to Roberts he said "no standing" before the election and certification of results, then pushed the hearings last week and next week til well after the fake inauguration so that he could say moot.
We must impanel Citizen's grand Juries, lots of them and put every aspect of this on trial. We must be as relentless as they are. There are over 300 counties in the 6 States that allow citizens to petition for a Grand Jury, surely there are a few honest judges that among all those. But not if we let the swamp get to them first.
Justice Scalia gave us the path. And as much as told us to get busy when, in the same ruling he mentions "petitioner's sleeping on its rights", I never heard that term before, but they all have:
As recently as last Term, in fact (in an opinion joined by Justice STEVENS), we entertained review in circumstances far more suggestive of the petitioner's "sleeping on its rights" than those we face today. - Scalia
There is no sense using logic in this.
No court in the United States would listen to evidence, every court found a reason to silence any objections. When it got to Roberts he said "no standing" before the election and certification of results, then pushed the hearings last week and next week til well after the fake inauguration so that he could say moot.
We must impanel Citizen's grand Juries, lots of them and put every aspect of this on trial. We must be as relentless as they are. There are over 300 counties in the 6 States that allow citizens to petition for a Grand Jury, surely there are a few honest judges that among all those. But not if we let the swamp get to them first.
Justice Scalia gave us the path. And as much as told us to get busy when, in the same ruling he mentions "petitioner's sleeping on its rights", I never heard that term before, but they all have: