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

[Lastamender]

LOL

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

It sure does. And not the entire Congress. Just the ones who voted not to investigate. Congress would still have 147 members.

 

[Faun]

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

LOLOLOLOL

You truly have no idea how any of this works.

That's not what that means.

Cert will be denied, you won't understand why; and you will simply add SCOTUS to your conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOL

You moron, that is what the SCOTUS was petitioned to review.

You are clueless to this process. Are you even American?

 

[Lastamender]

LOLOLOLOL

You truly have no idea how any of this works.

That's not what that means.

Cert will be denied, you won't understand why; and you will simply add SCOTUS to your conspiracy nonsense.

Now you are an expert? Please troll. We will see how it works. I heard the SC will hear the case Jan.5th 2023. That is not long is it?

 

[Faun]

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

You need to go to court with evidence to get one, FruitLoops. No one ever did.

 

[Faun]

It sure does. And not the entire Congress. Just the ones who voted not to investigate. Congress would still have 147 members.

Tell that to Delldude who's anticipating the unseating of the "118th."

 

[Lastamender]

You need to go to court with evidence to get one, FruitLoops. No one ever did.

Really? You are so good with the law please quote that law, I'll wait.

 

[Lastamender]

Tell that to Delldude who's anticipating the unseating of the "118th Congress."

If they are traitors they are traitors, and they are.

 

[Faun]

Really? You are so good with the law please quote that law, I'll wait.

You retard...

Evidentiary Hearings Determine If Criminal Cases Go to Trial | Shevin Law Group

Before a court in California authorizes a criminal case for trial, the prosecutor will prepare an evidentiary hearing. This hearing also goes by the name preliminary hearing.

www.shevinlaw.com

Before a court in California authorizes a criminal case for trial, the prosecutor will prepare an evidentiary hearing. This hearing also goes by the name preliminary hearing. A judge will evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecutor to determine if a crime occurred and if you appear to be responsible for it. The possibility exists that a judge will dismiss the case if the evidence seems too weak for the state to invest resources in a trial.​

Go to court with no evidence to support your claims, and the judge will dismiss the case due to lack of evidence or lack of merit.

Judges don't allow frivolous lawsuits to waste the court's time and expenses.

 

[Faun]

If they are traitors they are traitors, and they are.

Retard, the lawsuit names ALL 384 members of Congress as defendants. Not just the ones who voted nay.

Dayum, you are utterly clueless

 

[Faun]

Now you are an expert? Please troll. We will see how it works. I heard the SC will hear the case Jan.5th 2023. That is not long is it?

You heard wrong, oh clueless one. On 1.6.23, the court will first consider the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacks standing and merit. If the SCOTUS agrees, which they most certainly will, they will simply deny the Writ of Certiorari and that will be the end of it. Yet something else you don't understand.

 

[Magnus]

The communications that are being released prove a joint effort between Twitter and the Biden campaign and DNC to suppress any news that was harmful or that would damage his chances of winning. If that was done to YOUR candidate and he lost, you hypocrites would set the nation on fire. Next time, you won't be in the streets alone.

You mean marching on the Capitol and trying to hang the VP?

Nah, we leave that to you, retards.

 

[Lastamender]

Retard, the lawsuit names ALL 384 members of Congress as defendants. Not just the ones who voted nay.

Dayum, you are utterly clueless

The number is 388. It would leave only six senators in office. Please tell me where the words "except in extraneous circumstances " appear in the Constitution. They don't. They nailed their own asses to the wall. The SC can only decide one way. If they do not they are not defending the Constitution. I do not think they want that.

Maybe they can get jobs at Mc Donalds with you.

 

[Lastamender]

You heard wrong, oh clueless one. On 1.6.23, the court will first consider the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacks standing and merit. If the SCOTUS agrees, which they most certainly will, they will simply deny the Writ of Certiorari and that will be the end of it. Yet something else you don't understand.

There can be no end to this without resolution. It cannot be kicked down the road because the road ends at the SC.

 

[Lastamender]

LOLOLOLOL

You truly have no idea how any of this works.

That's not what that means.

Cert will be denied, you won't understand why; and you will simply add SCOTUS to your conspiracy nonsense.

How it works? You have not explained how it works, but the Constitution does. You lose troll.

This is not a conspiracy. The vote that decided not to investigate is a fact witnessed by about 200 million people, if not more.

 

[Faun]

The number is 388. It would leave only six senators in office. Please tell me where the words "except in extraneous circumstances " appear in the Constitution. They don't. They nailed their own asses to the wall. The SC can only decide one way. If they do not they are not defending the Constitution. I do not think they want that.

Maybe they can get jobs at Mc Donalds with you.

The other 4 are not members of Congress, FruitLoops.

And again, the first order of business for the SCOTUS is to review the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacks standing and merit.

Neither of which were you capable of offering any insight why the SCOTUS would disagree with either.

 

[Delldude]

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

Under direction from a candidate ( the left's Man ) for president to eliminate another candidate or party from making counter claims is participating in the rigging of an election.

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

Trump never said that, He said if you want to rig an election, why do we have laws, rules and a constitution for.

Try a little reading comprehension.

 

[Faun]

There can be no end to this without resolution. It cannot be kicked down the road because the road ends at the SC.

LOL

That's correct. It will end with this court.

They will deny certiorari, they will not explain why and you will continue crying, just as you have for more than 2 years now.

 

[Lastamender]

The other 4 are not members of Congress, FruitLoops.

And again, the first order of business for the SCOTUS is to review the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacks standing and merit.

Neither of which were you capable of offering any insight why the SCOTUS would disagree with either.

No it is not. Their job is to find a resolution on the facts at hand. That is why it is there. Are you worried?

 

[Faun]

How it works? You have not explained how it works, but the Constitution does. You lose troll.

This is not a conspiracy. The vote that decided not to investigate is a fact witnessed by about 200 million people, if not more.

Moron, there is no law which compelled them to break the law requiring certification on January 6th by holding a 10 day investigation.