Trump lost bro. Get over it.Which lawsuit? There are many.Why wasn't that in the lawsuit?
Yet states cannot change voting laws without legislation.
Any state implementing mail-in votes without legislation did so in violation of most recent pecedent.
The fact that you do not understand the real issue (proper legislation) makes me give not one single rat's ass whether you eventually do.
under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,A ten year prison sentence for possessing an otherwise lawful firearm.You need something to appeal.
not yet he hasnt,,,Trump lost bro. Get over it.Which lawsuit? There are many.Why wasn't that in the lawsuit?
Yet states cannot change voting laws without legislation.
Any state implementing mail-in votes without legislation did so in violation of most recent pecedent.
The fact that you do not understand the real issue (proper legislation) makes me give not one single rat's ass whether you eventually do.
what's the next kraken episode? how is the 2nd amendment of your constitution relevant here?under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,A ten year prison sentence for possessing an otherwise lawful firearm.You need something to appeal.
Trump lost by 6.2 Million votes.I know how the process works.
What is your point?
This is just an attempt to run out the clock?
If all the allegations prove to be true, will you admit that Trump was re-elected or will you continue on your current ass-licking course?
I agree in principle and in theory. But that's not the way in works in practice. It's a ten year prison sentence, minimum, and no appeal is possible. They throw in enough additional charges to keep you for life without parole, and the public defender deems it in the best interests of all concerned to plead you guilty as charged on all counts.under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,
its always relevant when dealing with democrats,,,what's the next kraken episode? how is the 2nd amendment of your constitution relevant here?under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,A ten year prison sentence for possessing an otherwise lawful firearm.You need something to appeal.
ah, another member of trump's legal team.its always relevant when dealing with democrats,,,what's the next kraken episode? how is the 2nd amendment of your constitution relevant here?under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,A ten year prison sentence for possessing an otherwise lawful firearm.You need something to appeal.
These lawsuits weren't "lost" as in failed to be proved by a preponderance of evidence. They were thrown out, some with prejudice, are without merit.These initial suits were expected to be tossed out so they can go to a higher court...Trumps team expected this and is happy to see it so they can move the case on to the SCOTUS which was the plan all along....they knew the lower court lib judges wouldn't care if the election was stolen....
So it wasn't the cases themselves, but the evidence that was thrown out by Deomocrat judges.the record is virtually empty of facts
I have.Read the thread
The decision of discussion in this thread was rendered by three Republican judges, and the writer of the opinion was appointed by Trump.So it wasn't the cases themselves, but the evidence that was thrown out by Deomocrat judges.
Bingo!These lawsuits weren't "lost" as in failed to be proved by a preponderance of evidence. They were thrown out, some with prejudice, are without merit.
The difference is in how much evidence is collected by the lower court for inclusion in the appellate record. Since these cases ended so quickly, the record is virtually empty of facts. The supreme court is not a court of original jurisdiction, and can't receive evidence not already in the judicial record.
The only thing they can do, like with many other cases, is to reverse the judgement of the lower court, and send it back to be reheard.
Yep, ifnoung evidence is usually whyI have.Read the thread
It's my thread.
And again, you need something to appeal.
And yet again – the case won’t be heard by the Supreme Court because the district court and appellate court will be in agreement; there won’t be anything for the High Court to ‘review.’There's some problems you should know about.Last stop on the way to the SCOTUS.
We'll see.
The appeal that was just struck down wasn't even about the facts of the case. It was actually appealing a denial of a motion for Giuliani to amend his complaint.
That means, at best, the most that Giuliani and Trump can hope for is that SCOTUS referees that denial and allows Giuliani to amend his complaint which puts it all the way back down at the trial judge to actually hear the case. Any decision that actually matters would have to go through the trial judge, then appeals, then SCOTUS.
Sure, the evidenceAnd yet again – the case won’t be heard by the Supreme Court because the district court and appellate court will be in agreement; there won’t be anything for the High Court to ‘review.’There's some problems you should know about.Last stop on the way to the SCOTUS.
We'll see.
The appeal that was just struck down wasn't even about the facts of the case. It was actually appealing a denial of a motion for Giuliani to amend his complaint.
That means, at best, the most that Giuliani and Trump can hope for is that SCOTUS referees that denial and allows Giuliani to amend his complaint which puts it all the way back down at the trial judge to actually hear the case. Any decision that actually matters would have to go through the trial judge, then appeals, then SCOTUS.
There is none.Sure, the evidence
Giuliani talked about having hundreds of affidavits, but only entered a limited number of them into the record. And the one's they did enter, were more of an allegation of fraud, than proof of it.So it wasn't the cases themselves, but the evidence that was thrown out by Deomocrat judges.the record is virtually empty of facts
Wrong.So it wasn't the cases themselves, but the evidence that was thrown out by Deomocrat judges.the record is virtually empty of facts
