The SC is not where you present new evidence. That is simply not how legal procedure works. You merely argue the lower court erred in some way. And if you have fuck all for evidence in the lower court (and didn't even bother to plead fraud), the SC isn't going to help you.
What about states that Trump won? Can the legislatures there just send electors for Biden if they want to?
Also there is the risk of fraud with mail in stuff.
That doesn't make any sense from a legal procedure standpoint. The case that gets appealed is frozen at what it was originally. You appeal based on error by the lower courts. You can't create new claims.
I dont think you can. You appeal errors by lower courts.
Hush you, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I thought sydney powell was let go. Do we not like her anymore or still like her? I get confused.
mmm zip drives
Obama won with 22% of the counties.
But how do you destroy a free press? It is a first amendment issue.
What do you propose we do?
And all this cheating and the Dems get trounced in house and senate and local races.
Stop with the q-anon sounding crap. "trust the plan" is what mindless people say.
I think that's hyperbole. 8 years of Obama and no one took anyone's guns.
No. You might like it now. You won't like it when used by someone you don't like.
I did the breakfast :( now im sad
OK, so what are you personally doing besides posting?
What are you talking about? Once a not guilty verdict is rendered, jeopardy attaches to the defendant.
Well seeing as she is not a prosecutor, she cannot file a criminal charge against anyone.
There is no hopefully about it. You cannot add new evidence. People seem to think at every appeal there is a whole new hearing and presentation of evidence. You appeal specific rulings, that's all.