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

[Harpy Eagle]

When a political group uses and colludes with that private entity to deny an opposite political group, that is rigging

That is just stupid.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only trouble is LW has an entire media group under their thumb selling their ideology. Fox can not compare to the level of propaganda the LW has under their control.

So that makes it ok for the RW media to do it? Besides it is not just FoxNews, it all of talk radio and 1000s of other news sites like OAAN and GWP and the like.

 

[Delldude]

That is just stupid.

This is the reality of the situation. I'm sure there will be even bigger revelations coming down the road.
You can't deal with the fact that Trumps claims could be proven via Twitter and other social media platforms?

 

[Delldude]

So that makes it ok for the RW media to do it? Besides it is not just FoxNews, it all of talk radio and 1000s of other news sites like OAAN and GWP and the like.

Never compares to the DNC/Media complex.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is the reality of the situation. I'm sure there will be even bigger revelations coming down the road.

The realty of the situation is that it is not rigging of anything. Even if Twitter did all the things that was said, it did not rig anything anymore than the NY Times endorsing a candidate rigs an election.

Twitter had ever legal right to do what they did, even if it might have been unethical.

You can't deal with the fact that Trumps claims could be proven via Twitter and other social media platforms?

I do not give a fuck about anyone that wants to terminate the rules of the Constitution. He is a sore loser and you are joining him in it

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Never compares to the DNC/Media complex.

Which in your world make it ok. Hey, it is cool if you steal 1000 bucks, but don't you dare steal 10,000.

You seem to lack any sort of a moral compass and base your views only on the political party involved.

 

[Faun]

Quit spinning, where did He say to terminate the COTUS?

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

 

[Faun]

That is a moot point. Members of Congress wanted to investigate the election in defense of the Constitution. The members that voted against it sided with the enemy. The enemy being the fraud. That simple. They all need to be banned from holding office or any government position. That would be a civil penalty. Criminal charges could be bought later.

You claim to want rule of law. That is what the law clearly says. Investigating an election IS NOT overthrowing it.

LOL

You're such a fruitloop. Certiorari will be denied as the plaintiff has no standing to sue. Even worse for the plaintiff, the Constitution shields Congress from frivolity...

Mr. Brunson’s claims against defendant members of Congress and former Vice President Pence, alleging failure to investigate election fraud prior to accepting the electoral college votes, are also likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause ofthe Constitution. Article I, section 6 of the Constitution provides: “The Senators and Representatives ... for any speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause affords Members of Congress absolute immunity from all claims arising out of their conduct in the legislative sphere. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Bingaman, 234 F. App’x 852, 855 (10th Cir.) (holding that Speech or Debate immunity barred suit challenging the “decision of individual Congressmen not to take legislative action in response to [plaintiffs] prompts”), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007); see also Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (providing that the “Supreme Court has consistently read the Speech or Debate Clause ‘broadly’ to achieve its purposes”)​

 

[Faun]

Yes it is. 1/4 of Congress wanted an investigation and 3/4 of Congress refused. Why? Would you err on the side of caution to preserve free and fair elections? To defend the Constitution you would. They got them dead to rights.

Hoisted by their own petard.

60+ prior court cases already showed Congress there was no fraud to investigate.

Furthermore, there is no law compelling Congress to investigate.

Furthermore still, there is law, which was followed, which enabled Congress to review objections in regards to potential fraud. Congress debated it and decided the objections were held meritless.

 

[Rambunctious]

The demtards had to cheat to win... everyone knows it now whether they will admit it or not...
Trump is the rightful president not senile Joe Biden the crook....

 

[Faun]

I have proof they violated their oath of office and that is all the proof I need. They chose to let the alleged fraud stand. That is not defending the Constitution. 200 million people watched the vote on TV. That is a lot of witnesses

Great, post the law which requires Congress to hold a 10-day investigation when a losing candidate cries fraud with no proof....

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump is a fucking joke.

But the economy was better under Trump... are you still going to deny that that is true?... unreal how much you have to ignore to say Trump is a joke while we are watching Biden stumble and fumble words and deeds...

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have proof they violated their oath of office and that is all the proof I need. They chose to let the alleged fraud stand. That is not defending the Constitution. 200 million people watched the vote on TV. That is a lot of witnesses

Translation: Some other jackass is spewing the same bullshit that I believe, which is all the proof I need to continue with my asshattery.

 

[Faun]

The SC has all the proof it needs to throw them all out of Congress and politics for good. Let's hope they defend the Constitution and do it.

LOLOL

You truly are clueless, FruitLoops. The SCOTUS was petitioned to review the lower court's ruling that the claimant had standing to file such a suit...

(1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.​

... weigh in with your 'legal prowess' and post your evidence that is wrong.

 

[Faun]

You keep saying you have proof of the fraud - yet you are always unable or unwilling to show us that "proof."

So how could any thinking person believe you?

No, that putz actually admits he has no such proof yet...

The fraud that happened will be news until it is proven and I think you know that.

​

[emphasis mine]

 

[Lastamender]

You keep saying you have proof of the fraud - yet you are always unable or unwilling to show us that "proof."

So how could any thinking person believe you?

You are not paying attention. Anyone who thinks Trump was not cheated after all of this that has come out is a moron.

 

[Lastamender]

LOLOL

You truly are clueless, FruitLoops. The SCOTUS was petitioned to review the lower court's ruling that the claimant had standing to file such a suit...

(1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.​

... weigh in with your 'legal prowess' and post your evidence that is wrong.

Guess what? It made to the SC because it does have standing.

 

[Lastamender]

LOL

You're such a fruitloop. Certiorari will be denied as the plaintiff has no standing to sue. Even worse for the plaintiff, the Constitution shields Congress from frivolity...

Mr. Brunson’s claims against defendant members of Congress and former Vice President Pence, alleging failure to investigate election fraud prior to accepting the electoral college votes, are also likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause ofthe Constitution. Article I, section 6 of the Constitution provides: “The Senators and Representatives ... for any speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause affords Members of Congress absolute immunity from all claims arising out of their conduct in the legislative sphere. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Bingaman, 234 F. App’x 852, 855 (10th Cir.) (holding that Speech or Debate immunity barred suit challenging the “decision of individual Congressmen not to take legislative action in response to [plaintiffs] prompts”), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007); see also Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (providing that the “Supreme Court has consistently read the Speech or Debate Clause ‘broadly’ to achieve its purposes”)​

That is all from the lower courts. The suit is not in the lower courts anymore. Next.

Also why don't you source that crap you are posting?

 

[Faun]

I can't wait until the 118th is seated. We'll see who is trying to defend the indefensible then.

LOL

Your derangement is funny. Who knows what you see in the Constitution that enables an entire Congress to be removed from office.

 

[Lastamender]

No, that putz actually admits he has no such proof yet...

​

​

[emphasis mine]

I also admit the evidence never got an evidentiary hearing. A fact you assholes will never change.