2
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

Really though can anyone find any sign of life from HA between “1/5/2021-1/21/2021”?

I’m sensing another information blackout. HA didn’t die peacefully in his sleep 17 days after an mRNA injection. Change my mind.

2
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not a single person I know who has seen this video has had anything to say in response other than, “CONTEXT.”

2
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can’t say this often enough, pedes. This guy won his first election by one vote.

I think it’s scared.

2
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

No offense, but I’m not convinced. On one hand, I believe you have a good explanation for the weight of a judicially issued subpoena.

On the other hand, a lot of ppl have been possibly mislead to believe that the legislature does not have this kind of power. Decades of stripping the state legislature’s power and giving it to the governor have given the impression that the legislature has a much more limited role than it actually has, and AZ is one example of the awakening to that notion.

2
Shinydenim 2 points ago +2 / -0

Phil Kline (Kansas) of the Amistad Project should count, if you’re willing to include former AGs...

1
Shinydenim 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you for sharing, OP. This feels really big.

1
Shinydenim 1 point ago +1 / -0

50 upvotes makes me like to believe all 50 states said yeah that’s right

1
Shinydenim 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do not worry just yet! Remember a week ago this Texas case didn’t even exist, and was never in itself going to be the only chance at getting a case in front of the SC. Yes, it is true that the case was dismissed for lack of standing, but not on merit! It is in fact unprecedented for an election suit to arrive first in federal court before being tried at the state level. So as long as there remain active state level cases and considering that any one could wind up getting heard in the SC, there is no need for the SC to act without precedent by admitting a case without proper standing.

SC rejects most cases, and it does so for a variety of reasons. A really good reason for this is to disincentivize casually challenging any outcome without formal and adequate merit. So I would take it as a good sign that the integrity of the SC has remained in line with the high standard for the judicial process. At least this way the SC can maintain credibility if and when comes time to take up one of the cases from WI, PA, GA, or MI and rule in favor of Trump.