29
TowerLake 29 points ago +29 / -0

Here is the reality of this ONE house seat NY-22

R leads D by 28000 votes.

D sues in court, getting a Judge(D) to personally review "spoiled ballots"

Judge accepts enough ballots that D is now leading R by 13 votes

Then, a county realizes there was a glitch, returning R back to a 12 vote lead

Instead, D asked Pelosi and house to reject R as winner and seat him (D) instead.

Pelosi agrees to this. This has actually been done multiple times, and GOP has let them get away with it every single time.

Then, they found an extra 55 ballots somewhere (11 by an unregistered voters)

Then, they found an extra 12 ballots in a drawer.

5
TowerLake 5 points ago +5 / -0

Texas should have filed the case. PA's case at best invalidates PA's election which means that Biden still wins.

They are essentially 2 different cases.

PA case is basically this.

PA constitution declares that any changes to election process must be placed onto the ballot and approved by the voters before implementing

In this case, that clearly did not happen. PA legislature went and passed an law allowing mail in voting

PA GOV/SOS wanted further changes like changes to deadlines, signature verification, etc but PA legislature refused.

So PA GOV/SOS, PA democratic party, and PA Supreme Court (4 D and 3 R) colluded by getting the democratic party to sue the GOV/SOS who purposely lost at the supreme court and came to a agreement that implements the changes that the PA legislature denied, and rubber stamped by PA supreme court by party lines.

Clearly, the actions performed by the below were unconstitutional based on PA's constitution

PA legislature did not have the authority to do what they did. PA Supreme court did not have the authority to do what they did. PA GOV/SOS did not have the authority to do what they did.

Therefore, PA election should be void.

Texas Case

Texas is basically arguing a case of equal protection being violated on a state level basis.

Equal protection means that all sides must be treated equally.

Texas is arguing that The 5 states cheated and elected thier candidate through fraud or breaking the rules like making unconstitutional changes like PA above, while Texas followed the rules and elected their candidate legally in compliance with all the rules.

Since Texas's candidate is different than the 5 state candidate, allowing the 5 state candidate to win the national election, disenfranchises Texas as a state.

Therefore there would be a reelection in those 5 states or void them all together.

1
TowerLake 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the first one.

Im not actually a lawyer, so I dont know the finer details but from what I understand, Theres something strange going on.

https://thedonald.win/p/11QlTuYt7R/massive-disinformation-effort-on/

Jenna Ellis's comments are being contradicted by Ted Cruz's

2
TowerLake 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes you are right.

There should be another PA case number, but I’m having difficulty finding it by searching for it on my phone.

Either that or it has not been docketed yet.

I did skim through the application and it is indeed a request for an emergency injunction.

I know that there is an actual case, not an injunction.

Case is very solid too.

If I find it on SCOTUS website, I’ll update this.

2
TowerLake 2 points ago +2 / -0

What this actually means

SCOTUS denied PA GOP’s emergency injunction to decertify election results before SCOTUS hears the case. The case will still go on without it.

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case. The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny the emergency injunction because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election results, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

3
TowerLake 3 points ago +3 / -0

What this actually means

SCOTUS denied PA GOP’s emergency injunction to decertify election results before SCOTUS hears the case. The case will still go on without it.

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case. The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny it because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election results, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

10
TowerLake 10 points ago +10 / -0

What this actually means

SCOTUS denied PA GOP’s emergency injunction to decertify election results before SCOTUS hears the case. The case will still go on without it.

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case. The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny it because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election results, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

29
TowerLake 29 points ago +29 / -0

Hijacking to explain to the doomers

What this actually means

SCOTUS denied PA GOP’s emergency injunction to decertify election results before SCOTUS hears the case. The case will still go on without it.

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case. The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny it because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election results, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

6
TowerLake 6 points ago +6 / -0

What this actually means

SCOTUS denied PA GOP’s emergency injunction to decertify election results before SCOTUS hears the case. The case will still go on without it.

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case. The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny it because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election results, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

4
TowerLake 4 points ago +4 / -0

What an emergency injunction is

This is a request to for the court to something necessary without the case being heard yet.

For example,

If you were denied asylum by a judge, and your deportation is in a week.

You can appeal your case decision to an appellate judge, but the appellate judge can only schedule your hearing in a month

You would request an emergency injunction on a stay on your deportations, so that you can still be here in a month to argue your case

Judge approves emergency injunction for this reason.

This is not an approval or denial of asylum case.

The person still needs to argue his case and then the appellate judge would approve or deny.

On the contrary, if your deportation was actually 2 months from now, the appeal judge would deny it because it is irrelevant

This is what happened in this case

PA GOP requested an emergency injunction that SCOTUS decertified election, but SCOTUS ruled that certification is irrelevant.

PA Case continues, and they still have to argue thier case to the SCOTUS if scotus takes it on.

2
TowerLake 2 points ago +2 / -0

The judge's docket showed more than a dozen groups, who had previously filed friend-of-the court papers, submitting briefs in the wake of the pardon Monday.

Someone get this list. I don’t know where they are.

6
TowerLake 6 points ago +6 / -0

Chinese “Americans” literally stole all of our masks...

I completely forgot about this...

Also he has a point.

Birthright citizenship is becoming an issue of national security where foreign spies are coming over, give birth to us citizen who are raised as spies.

And these native born spies are not being scrutinized as much as foreign born spies because there’s simply too many of them.

1
TowerLake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because they are terrorists who are incapable of learning.

Even if they get caught, they will still try again, just a different and less noticeable way.

Even when we prove fraud and implement changes to prevent this, can you honestly and truthfully tell me that the terrorists won’t try to cheat ever again?

They will just find another loophole and cheat again.

1
TowerLake 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, they all report like they currently are.

The only reason why we caught this fraud was because they reported the count in increments, using statistical methods.

9
TowerLake 9 points ago +9 / -0

I was just like you.

And what is happening to you is why the right is gearing up for civil war.

The left is wholely ignorant of reality. They know that the media is biased. They know that social media censors conservatives.

They just don’t know HOW MUCH

They know that there’s another side, but they aren’t willing to take the time to go an find out the other side.

Even when trump wins in the end, this divide will only get worse.

And they aren’t going to understand why the other half of the country wants to kill them, despite the fact that the liberal media is literally indirectly advocating for concentration camps and genocide in the form of “educating them”.

Somehow they can’t seem to connect the dots between them, because they believe that this is normal.

You can see from just how deeply corrupt they are that when the video of secretly counting ballots came out, someone pushed out a fake “fact check” that falsely debunked it but if anyone reads it, it is clearly false and multiple sources, including media tweets and videos, can easily debunk the fact check, but none of them are doing that.

Instead they are using the fake fact check, that is easily proven false, as a way to continue to push thier narrative of there being no evidence of fraud.

-4
TowerLake -4 points ago +1 / -5

Your an idiot.

This is not a case of a Muslim person killing someone because of a holy war

This is a case of a mentally ill person who just happens to be Muslim killing someone because of mental illness

8
TowerLake 8 points ago +8 / -0

Won’t matter. They are going to be brainwash for the next decade, and that brainwashing will “revise” what happened into what happens when you don’t listen to the government.

Indoctrination has been very successful in getting half the country, and majority of the younger people into becoming extremists who think that the other half should just “dissappear” or “educated/re-educated”

All without directly advocating for genocide or concentration camps.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›