On Truth Social trump demands to be reinstated...again

[Faun]

Yes, there is evidence. Their votes are the evidence. Again. you get dumber every day.

There was nothing wrong with their votes. There was no evidence of fraud. So there was no need for an investigation.

 

[Lastamender]

There was no serious threat. Again, you're citing yourself as your source.

Every state counted and canvassed their elections. Some recounted. Some audited. ALL certified. Just like other elections. That's not a serious threat. That's just YOU claiming it's a serious threat.

Again it does not matter. That is for an investigation to uncover, not individual members of Congress. You have no argument.

 

[Lastamender]

There was nothing wrong with their votes. There was no evidence of fraud. So there was no need for an investigation.

If there was nothing wrong why did this case get to the Supreme Court?

 

[Faun]

Again it does not matter. That is for an investigation to uncover, not individual members of Congress. You have no argument.

You don't know how Congress functions. It's a body of individuals. Most decided an investigation into frivolous claims that were debunked was not necessary.

 

[Lastamender]

There was nothing wrong with their votes. There was no evidence of fraud. So there was no need for an investigation.

The 147 members said they had evidence. When do we not believe other members of Congress without an investigation about something as huge as the possibilty of ignaugerating an illegitimate president? Again you have no argument.

Checkmate dummy.

 

[Faun]

If there was nothing wrong why did this case get to the Supreme Court?

Because a claimant who lost in a lower court filed an appeal. That's how our system works.

 

[Faun]

The 147 members said they had evidence.

If they said that, they were lying. It's been over two years and there still isn't any.

 

[Lastamender]

You don't know how Congress functions. It's a body of individuals. Most decided an investigation into frivolous claims that were debunked was not necessary.

Moot point. Not one bit of relevance to the case. Their decision was NOT to defend the Constitution. That is a no no.

 

[Lastamender]

Because a claimant who lost in a lower court filed an appeal. That's how our system works.

We will see if our system works when this case is heard.

 

[Faun]

Moot point. Not one bit of relevance to the case. Their decision was NOT to defend the Constitution. That is a no no.

Again, that's you citing you, not the Constitution. Need I point out again you failed miserably to quote the Constitution stating an investigation must be performed prior to certifying an election?

 

[Faun]

We will see if our system works when this case is heard.

This is where you fail yet again. Your interest isn't justice. It's only if justice happens to side with your beliefs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, them disagreeing with the Constitution is the problem. Hack.

Actually, it is not. Acting against it would be, but a simple disagreement is not. Thanks for proving you have never taken an oath of office for anything

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Their decision was NOT to defend the Constitution. That is a no no.

That is merely your opinion backed up with not one bit of proof.

 

[Lastamender]

Again, that's you citing you, not the Constitution. Need I point out again you failed miserably to quote the Constitution stating an investigation must be performed prior to certifying an election?

When it, the Constitution, says it is supposed to be defended any investigation would do just. Refusing is siding with the enemy. You cannot win this argument.

 

[Lastamender]

Actually, it is not. Acting against it would be, but a simple disagreement is not. Thanks for proving you have never taken an oath of office for anything

You cannot win this argument with insults. In fact, you cannot win this argument.

 

[Lastamender]

That is merely your opinion backed up with not one bit of proof.

The proof is the vote they took rejecting an investigation. Why is that so hard for you to understand? They be fucked.

 

[Faun]

When it, the Constitution, says it is supposed to be defended any investigation would do just. Refusing is siding with the enemy. You cannot win this argument.

Again, that's you quoting you, not the Constitution.

Too bad.

 

[Faun]

You cannot win this argument with insults. In fact, you cannot win this argument.

LOLOL

That argument has already been lost in every court that reviewed it. Its last chance is with the SCOTUS and that's not looking too good either.

Not that you care. You already declared it's only justice served if they rule in favor of what you believe. That's the kind of person you are.

 

[Faun]

The proof is the vote they took rejecting an investigation. Why is that so hard for you to understand? They be fucked.

LOL

They are not fucked just because you've been duped into stolen election claim #4514.

 

[Lastamender]

Again, that's you quoting you, not the Constitution.

Too bad.

Read the Constitution. When you are done tell me it does not say it is to be defended. Tell me it does not say we are too have free and fair elections. Tell me when a crime is alleged that would destroy that right is not worth investigating. It is not.