The Air Leaves the Insurrection Balloon

A reminder that this dispute of election results is nothing new. From another thread/post;

"Which we saw here a couple decades back(2004) with our state(Washington) governor's race between Rossi(R) and Gregoire(D).

Initially Rossi(R) won, but the count was too close to certify and by law required a recount. Seems the auditor office(the vote counters) of King County/Seattle found a box of "misplaced ballots" which shifted the win to the Democrat Gregoire. But the difference was still too close to be valid (guess the Dems weren't good at math back then).

So another "recount" and another box of "misplaced ballots" was found and this time the Dems got their math correct.

So, having done the trial balloon back then, they've been honing the process ever since and "franchised" it nation wide. "

Actually a bit more complicated and convoluted than my glib and shortcut version. Here's the fully tale;
The Dems have objected to every Presidential election they lost this century

Trumpybear is the only candidate who planned to sow the seeds of doubt on our election system. He is the only candidate to ever claim that if he looses the election it will be because it was RIGGED. Twice!

Their goal is to undermine the US Constitution.
Yet, it was the left that has objected and claimed all but one of the last Presidential elections they lost was illegit this century

Now you're stretching it. Democrats have never rejected the courts decisions and most have always called for the country to unify behind the newly elected president.
Yes Komrades ...
... We must all march in lock-step(Unity) to the "New World Order" of Socialist Totalitarian Order.

So the American tradition of the losing candidate symbolically asking the country to unify behind the winner after a hard fought election is now "marching in lock step to the "New World Order", "Socialist Totalitarian" ?

If that's what your saying Dr. Orwell, Captain Hyperbole agrees 2000%!
That tradition was tossed out the window in 2000 when the left wouldn't accept they lost the election and went out about Bush being illegit, and even went on and on and on and on and on about how the his brother and tour Court was involved in some vast conspiracy....it only got worse in 2016, when they began insurrections across the country started a faux Russian hoax to undermind his admin, called his win illegit, and abused their office with faux impeachments

It was the closest election in history and hinged on one state with less than a thousand votes separating the two. After it went to the Supreme Court, Gore not only publicly conceded but presided over the EC count on Jan 6th 2001, where he had to put down objections from House members of his own party before announcing the victory for President Bush.
Good for him.....but the Dems certainly attempted not to count votes, objected in the House....and continued to all Bush illegit.

You know all the things you all suggested you didn't do, and say the GOP is violating the Constitution for doing.

and no, it wasn't the closest in "history" 5 of the closest Presidential elections in US history

These thing are recorded, we don't have to wonder who did or said what. Here's Al not calling for an insurrection becuase he lost.
".....
Republicans objected, saying debate was not allowed during the session. But it was Gore, in his role as president of the Senate, who repeatedly stopped the Democrats' efforts, banging his gavel to interrupt his supporters. And as Gore politely knocked down one Democratic objection after another, the mood turned almost farcical.

"The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois. But, hey," Gore told Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., signaling that there was nothing left that could be done to reverse the closest presidential election in the nation's history. Democrats and Republicans chuckled.

Gore said the protesting Democrats - who included several who are not Black Caucus members - could not challenge the Florida count unless they presented a written objection signed by at least one member each from the House and Senate.

Defying the exasperated hoots of their Republican colleagues, the 15 Democrats slipped in arguments about the Florida election process before they were forced to acknowledge that they had not persuaded a senator to sign onto the objection.

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not signed by a senator," said angry Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.

"The chair would advise that the rules do care," Gore replied.


Yep...great Al didn't call for an insurrection....I fail to see how that somehow proves your already debunked point? Bush and Trump didn't call for insurrections either.

With that said, the left certainly called for insurrections after 2016....some even helped fund it...these things are on record.





 
ah...not really...the entire DNC was pushing for votes NOT to be counted in 2000...they wanted to keep our soldiers from overseas votes from counting...can't get more patriotic then that....tell our soldiers they just don't matter
That’s why I said almost always. Those military votes arrived after the deadline and were very few in number. Meanwhile Bush was trying to keep tens of thousands of votes from being y
Change that to "votes counted no matter how fugazi they are"
If a vote had Al Gore’s name punched and then a write in that said Al Gore, those votes would be tossed. You think that’s right?

They were postmarked late, because they were coming from the Middle East...and there we thousands of them that the left was trying to not count.

and no Bush didn't want to not count votes...he didn't want them to be counted again, differently then the rest of the State...that's what the left was trying to do...get another recount, and count them differently...the Court ruled 7-2 that was a violation of the US Constitution.

Yes Dems either don't want votes to count, or to count votes that aren't there...they'll do either to try and steal an election.
They weren’t postmarked at all. And Bush was asking for them to be counted, differently than the rest of the state.

 
I've read that communications prior to January 6th is one thing the Justice Department is using as basis for those facing the more serious charges.

1617292399452.png

Prosecutors Allege Oath Keepers, Proud Boys Coordinated On Capitol Riot : NPR



1617291822419.png


MEGGS, Kelly | USAO-DC | Department of Justice
 
ah...not really...the entire DNC was pushing for votes NOT to be counted in 2000...they wanted to keep our soldiers from overseas votes from counting...can't get more patriotic then that....tell our soldiers they just don't matter
That’s why I said almost always. Those military votes arrived after the deadline and were very few in number. Meanwhile Bush was trying to keep tens of thousands of votes from being y
Change that to "votes counted no matter how fugazi they are"
If a vote had Al Gore’s name punched and then a write in that said Al Gore, those votes would be tossed. You think that’s right?

They were postmarked late, because they were coming from the Middle East...and there we thousands of them that the left was trying to not count.

and no Bush didn't want to not count votes...he didn't want them to be counted again, differently then the rest of the State...that's what the left was trying to do...get another recount, and count them differently...the Court ruled 7-2 that was a violation of the US Constitution.

Yes Dems either don't want votes to count, or to count votes that aren't there...they'll do either to try and steal an election.
They weren’t postmarked at all. And Bush was asking for them to be counted, differently than the rest of the state.


Actually your link says and he was asking, I quote: “were signed and received in time [to] count.”

But Bush lost the suit...over 1400 were tossed due to some military screw up.

Gore then went on, and took his case to the Supreme Court...Bush v Gore if you recall...and was asking for votes to be recounted again, in a DIFFERENT way then before...just for certain counties....the court 7-2 found that the Dems were attempting to violate the Constiutional rights of the people of FL...and Gore lost.

Regardless...we are going down a rabbit hole...the point is, YES the Dems have tried to not count votes...the poster that claimed otherwise...was wrong. Moreover, it's true that in EVERY Presidential election the Dems have lost this century they attempted to object or overthrow the results.
 
Actually your link says and he was asking, I quote: “were signed and received in time [to] count.”

But Bush lost the suit...over 1400 were tossed due to some military screw up.

Gore then went on, and took his case to the Supreme Court...Bush v Gore if you recall...and was asking for votes to be recounted again, in a DIFFERENT way then before...just for certain counties....the court 7-2 found that the Dems were attempting to violate the Constiutional rights of the people of FL...and Gore lost.

Regardless...we are going down a rabbit hole...the point is, YES the Dems have tried to not count votes...the poster that claimed otherwise...was wrong. Moreover, it's true that in EVERY Presidential election the Dems have lost this century they attempted to object or overthrow the results.
"in time to count" seems to mean that they arrived within 10 days of the end of the election, but without a post mark they weren't known to be sent before the election occurred, as the law required.
 
Actually your link says and he was asking, I quote: “were signed and received in time [to] count.”

But Bush lost the suit...over 1400 were tossed due to some military screw up.

Gore then went on, and took his case to the Supreme Court...Bush v Gore if you recall...and was asking for votes to be recounted again, in a DIFFERENT way then before...just for certain counties....the court 7-2 found that the Dems were attempting to violate the Constiutional rights of the people of FL...and Gore lost.

Regardless...we are going down a rabbit hole...the point is, YES the Dems have tried to not count votes...the poster that claimed otherwise...was wrong. Moreover, it's true that in EVERY Presidential election the Dems have lost this century they attempted to object or overthrow the results.
"in time to count" seems to mean that they arrived within 10 days of the end of the election, but without a post mark they weren't known to be sent before the election occurred, as the law required.
and they weren't counted....we have one guy wanting votes to count, and the Dems not...the poster I was responding to, not sure if it was you...said that the left always wants votes to be counted, and the GOP doesn't......this was a clear case of that not happening.
 
and they weren't counted....we have one guy wanting votes to count, and the Dems not...the poster I was responding to, not sure if it was you...said that the left always wants votes to be counted, and the GOP doesn't......this was a clear case of that not happening.
Actually it was me, but here's what I said:
Democrats are almost always the ones trying to get votes counted. Republicans are almost always the ones trying to get them thrown out.
Almost always.

You're describing a fight over 1400 votes without post marks.

Bush was trying to prevent 171,000 votes from being counted.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? - CNN Politics

So stand by my statement, that Democrats almost always want more votes counted and Republicans almost always want fewer. As is the case in Florida in 2000, the ratio was 100:1.
 
and they weren't counted....we have one guy wanting votes to count, and the Dems not...the poster I was responding to, not sure if it was you...said that the left always wants votes to be counted, and the GOP doesn't......this was a clear case of that not happening.
Actually it was me, but here's what I said:
Democrats are almost always the ones trying to get votes counted. Republicans are almost always the ones trying to get them thrown out.
Almost always.

You're describing a fight over 1400 votes without post marks.

Bush was trying to prevent 171,000 votes from being counted.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? - CNN Politics

So stand by my statement, that Democrats almost always want more votes counted and Republicans almost always want fewer. As is the case in Florida in 2000, the ratio was 100:1.
and as we saw....in...at least Presidential elections...this century...of the cases you all have lost....you've objected to EVERYONE of them...and in 2000 tried to get military votes tossed.

Then on the Hill...many Dem members OBJECTED to the certification...trying to get them tossed.
then did the same in 2004
and 2016

So every election you lost, you tried to get votes tossed.

I do agree, that you also, depending on the circumstances, also try to get MORE votes that aren't there counted...
 
and they weren't counted....we have one guy wanting votes to count, and the Dems not...the poster I was responding to, not sure if it was you...said that the left always wants votes to be counted, and the GOP doesn't......this was a clear case of that not happening.
Actually it was me, but here's what I said:
Democrats are almost always the ones trying to get votes counted. Republicans are almost always the ones trying to get them thrown out.
Almost always.

You're describing a fight over 1400 votes without post marks.

Bush was trying to prevent 171,000 votes from being counted.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? - CNN Politics

So stand by my statement, that Democrats almost always want more votes counted and Republicans almost always want fewer. As is the case in Florida in 2000, the ratio was 100:1.
Hmmmm, . . . no. Bush was trying to prevent votes in a few counties from being counted for the 4th time.
 
and they weren't counted....we have one guy wanting votes to count, and the Dems not...the poster I was responding to, not sure if it was you...said that the left always wants votes to be counted, and the GOP doesn't......this was a clear case of that not happening.
Actually it was me, but here's what I said:
Democrats are almost always the ones trying to get votes counted. Republicans are almost always the ones trying to get them thrown out.
Almost always.

You're describing a fight over 1400 votes without post marks.

Bush was trying to prevent 171,000 votes from being counted.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? - CNN Politics

So stand by my statement, that Democrats almost always want more votes counted and Republicans almost always want fewer. As is the case in Florida in 2000, the ratio was 100:1.
Hmmmm, . . . no. Bush was trying to prevent votes in a few counties from being counted for the 4th time.
and counted...in a different way. The Court totally rebuked the Dems...in their clear attempt to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL.
 
and as we saw....in...at least Presidential elections...this century...of the cases you all have lost....you've objected to EVERYONE of them...and in 2000 tried to get military votes tossed.

Then on the Hill...many Dem members OBJECTED to the certification...trying to get them tossed.
then did the same in 2004
and 2016

So every election you lost, you tried to get votes tossed.

I do agree, that you also, depending on the circumstances, also try to get MORE votes that aren't there counted...
True, some Democrats objected. A couple. The only objection that was actually heard was in 2004 for Ohio and that was not intended to change the outcome of the election, but just to discuss their concerns about the process. After the objection was heard, the Democratic Senator voted to proceed with those votes.

Nothing compared to the scores of Republicans who objected this election.

In 2000, we tried to get a small number of votes tossed, and a very large number of votes counted. On the balance, I'm satisifed with calling that "almost always".
 
and counted...in a different way. The Court totally rebuked the Dems...in their clear attempt to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL.
The court decided that all counties should count all votes and was in the process of ordering that. Democrats did not object to this outcome. Republicans objected to this ruling and took it to SCOTUS which is what Bush v Gore was all about.
 
and as we saw....in...at least Presidential elections...this century...of the cases you all have lost....you've objected to EVERYONE of them...and in 2000 tried to get military votes tossed.

Then on the Hill...many Dem members OBJECTED to the certification...trying to get them tossed.
then did the same in 2004
and 2016

So every election you lost, you tried to get votes tossed.

I do agree, that you also, depending on the circumstances, also try to get MORE votes that aren't there counted...
True, some Democrats objected. A couple. The only objection that was actually heard was in 2004 for Ohio and that was not intended to change the outcome of the election, but just to discuss their concerns about the process. After the objection was heard, the Democratic Senator voted to proceed with those votes.

Nothing compared to the scores of Republicans who objected this election.

In 2000, we tried to get a small number of votes tossed, and a very large number of votes counted. On the balance, I'm satisifed with calling that "almost always".
The objections were to NOT COUNT the votes...and toss them...that's the point of the objections.

No in 2000...you got votes tossed, then again tried to get votes tossed...and then tried to get votes counted, AGAIN, for like the 4th time...but this time in a totally different manner then the rest of the State.

Face it, the left has tried to OVERTHROW the elections of every Presidential election they lost this year...and would not accept the results...

The faux outrage, over the one time the GOP dared to challenge some results...is laughable.
 
and counted...in a different way. The Court totally rebuked the Dems...in their clear attempt to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL.
The court decided that all counties should count all votes and was in the process of ordering that. Democrats did not object to this outcome. Republicans objected to this ruling and took it to SCOTUS which is what Bush v Gore was all about.
Yes, the GOP didn't want you all to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL, with your new voting method for the counties you all selected. Thankfully, the GOP stood up for the rights of the people of FL, so you all couldn't steal the election.
 
Yes, the GOP didn't want you all to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL, with your new voting method for the counties you all selected. Thankfully, the GOP stood up for the rights of the people of FL, so you all couldn't steal the election.
Oddly enough you’re proud of the GOP for demanding Florida violate the law so they could count additional votes in 13 Republican counties.

When the court decided to count all votes in all counties, the GOP still objected. They didn’t stand up for rights, they stood for winning at any cost.
 
Yes, the GOP didn't want you all to cheat and violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL, with your new voting method for the counties you all selected. Thankfully, the GOP stood up for the rights of the people of FL, so you all couldn't steal the election.
Oddly enough you’re proud of the GOP for demanding Florida violate the law so they could count additional votes in 13 Republican counties.

When the court decided to count all votes in all counties, the GOP still objected. They didn’t stand up for rights, they stood for winning at any cost.
Huh? The GOP didn't demand FL to vioate the law...the DNC was attempting to do that...the SCOTUS agreed...7-2

The Court found the DNC's attempt to do (yet another recount), with different standards in some counties violated the Equal Protection rights of the citizens of FL. The DNC was trying to use different standards in some counties...that was the issue the GOP objected to...and rightfully so.
 
A reminder that this dispute of election results is nothing new. From another thread/post;

"Which we saw here a couple decades back(2004) with our state(Washington) governor's race between Rossi(R) and Gregoire(D).

Initially Rossi(R) won, but the count was too close to certify and by law required a recount. Seems the auditor office(the vote counters) of King County/Seattle found a box of "misplaced ballots" which shifted the win to the Democrat Gregoire. But the difference was still too close to be valid (guess the Dems weren't good at math back then).

So another "recount" and another box of "misplaced ballots" was found and this time the Dems got their math correct.

So, having done the trial balloon back then, they've been honing the process ever since and "franchised" it nation wide. "

Actually a bit more complicated and convoluted than my glib and shortcut version. Here's the fully tale;
The Dems have objected to every Presidential election they lost this century

Trumpybear is the only candidate who planned to sow the seeds of doubt on our election system. He is the only candidate to ever claim that if he looses the election it will be because it was RIGGED. Twice!

Their goal is to undermine the US Constitution.
Yet, it was the left that has objected and claimed all but one of the last Presidential elections they lost was illegit this century

Now you're stretching it. Democrats have never rejected the courts decisions and most have always called for the country to unify behind the newly elected president.
Yes Komrades ...
... We must all march in lock-step(Unity) to the "New World Order" of Socialist Totalitarian Order.

So the American tradition of the losing candidate symbolically asking the country to unify behind the winner after a hard fought election is now "marching in lock step to the "New World Order", "Socialist Totalitarian" ?

If that's what your saying Dr. Orwell, Captain Hyperbole agrees 2000%!
That tradition was tossed out the window in 2000 when the left wouldn't accept they lost the election and went out about Bush being illegit, and even went on and on and on and on and on about how the his brother and tour Court was involved in some vast conspiracy....it only got worse in 2016, when they began insurrections across the country started a faux Russian hoax to undermind his admin, called his win illegit, and abused their office with faux impeachments

It was the closest election in history and hinged on one state with less than a thousand votes separating the two. After it went to the Supreme Court, Gore not only publicly conceded but presided over the EC count on Jan 6th 2001, where he had to put down objections from House members of his own party before announcing the victory for President Bush.
Good for him.....but the Dems certainly attempted not to count votes, objected in the House....and continued to all Bush illegit.

You know all the things you all suggested you didn't do, and say the GOP is violating the Constitution for doing.

and no, it wasn't the closest in "history" 5 of the closest Presidential elections in US history

These thing are recorded, we don't have to wonder who did or said what. Here's Al not calling for an insurrection becuase he lost.
".....
Republicans objected, saying debate was not allowed during the session. But it was Gore, in his role as president of the Senate, who repeatedly stopped the Democrats' efforts, banging his gavel to interrupt his supporters. And as Gore politely knocked down one Democratic objection after another, the mood turned almost farcical.

"The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois. But, hey," Gore told Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., signaling that there was nothing left that could be done to reverse the closest presidential election in the nation's history. Democrats and Republicans chuckled.

Gore said the protesting Democrats - who included several who are not Black Caucus members - could not challenge the Florida count unless they presented a written objection signed by at least one member each from the House and Senate.

Defying the exasperated hoots of their Republican colleagues, the 15 Democrats slipped in arguments about the Florida election process before they were forced to acknowledge that they had not persuaded a senator to sign onto the objection.

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not signed by a senator," said angry Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.

"The chair would advise that the rules do care," Gore replied.


Yep...great Al didn't call for an insurrection....I fail to see how that somehow proves your already debunked point? Bush and Trump didn't call for insurrections either.

With that said, the left certainly called for insurrections after 2016....some even helped fund it...these things are on record.







No restaurant service is not a call for insurrection. Stupid, downright unamerican, but not a call for insurrection. Here What Pelosi said about Waters.

“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea,” Pelosi wrote on Twitter above an article detailing Waters’ comments.
 
A reminder that this dispute of election results is nothing new. From another thread/post;

"Which we saw here a couple decades back(2004) with our state(Washington) governor's race between Rossi(R) and Gregoire(D).

Initially Rossi(R) won, but the count was too close to certify and by law required a recount. Seems the auditor office(the vote counters) of King County/Seattle found a box of "misplaced ballots" which shifted the win to the Democrat Gregoire. But the difference was still too close to be valid (guess the Dems weren't good at math back then).

So another "recount" and another box of "misplaced ballots" was found and this time the Dems got their math correct.

So, having done the trial balloon back then, they've been honing the process ever since and "franchised" it nation wide. "

Actually a bit more complicated and convoluted than my glib and shortcut version. Here's the fully tale;
The Dems have objected to every Presidential election they lost this century

Trumpybear is the only candidate who planned to sow the seeds of doubt on our election system. He is the only candidate to ever claim that if he looses the election it will be because it was RIGGED. Twice!

Their goal is to undermine the US Constitution.
Yet, it was the left that has objected and claimed all but one of the last Presidential elections they lost was illegit this century

Now you're stretching it. Democrats have never rejected the courts decisions and most have always called for the country to unify behind the newly elected president.
Yes Komrades ...
... We must all march in lock-step(Unity) to the "New World Order" of Socialist Totalitarian Order.

So the American tradition of the losing candidate symbolically asking the country to unify behind the winner after a hard fought election is now "marching in lock step to the "New World Order", "Socialist Totalitarian" ?

If that's what your saying Dr. Orwell, Captain Hyperbole agrees 2000%!
That tradition was tossed out the window in 2000 when the left wouldn't accept they lost the election and went out about Bush being illegit, and even went on and on and on and on and on about how the his brother and tour Court was involved in some vast conspiracy....it only got worse in 2016, when they began insurrections across the country started a faux Russian hoax to undermind his admin, called his win illegit, and abused their office with faux impeachments

It was the closest election in history and hinged on one state with less than a thousand votes separating the two. After it went to the Supreme Court, Gore not only publicly conceded but presided over the EC count on Jan 6th 2001, where he had to put down objections from House members of his own party before announcing the victory for President Bush.
Good for him.....but the Dems certainly attempted not to count votes, objected in the House....and continued to all Bush illegit.

You know all the things you all suggested you didn't do, and say the GOP is violating the Constitution for doing.

and no, it wasn't the closest in "history" 5 of the closest Presidential elections in US history

These thing are recorded, we don't have to wonder who did or said what. Here's Al not calling for an insurrection becuase he lost.
".....
Republicans objected, saying debate was not allowed during the session. But it was Gore, in his role as president of the Senate, who repeatedly stopped the Democrats' efforts, banging his gavel to interrupt his supporters. And as Gore politely knocked down one Democratic objection after another, the mood turned almost farcical.

"The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois. But, hey," Gore told Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., signaling that there was nothing left that could be done to reverse the closest presidential election in the nation's history. Democrats and Republicans chuckled.

Gore said the protesting Democrats - who included several who are not Black Caucus members - could not challenge the Florida count unless they presented a written objection signed by at least one member each from the House and Senate.

Defying the exasperated hoots of their Republican colleagues, the 15 Democrats slipped in arguments about the Florida election process before they were forced to acknowledge that they had not persuaded a senator to sign onto the objection.

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not signed by a senator," said angry Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.

"The chair would advise that the rules do care," Gore replied.


Yep...great Al didn't call for an insurrection....I fail to see how that somehow proves your already debunked point? Bush and Trump didn't call for insurrections either.

With that said, the left certainly called for insurrections after 2016....some even helped fund it...these things are on record.







No restaurant service is not a call for insurrection. Stupid, downright unamerican, but not a call for insurrection. Here What Pelosi said about Waters.

“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea,” Pelosi wrote on Twitter above an article detailing Waters’ comments.

huh? who called for no restaurant service?

Yes, I am not surprised to hear that Nancy P defended her fellow Dems call for insurrection and turn it around and try to blame the very President who's office they are trying to overthrow.
 
The GOP didn't demand FL to vioate the law
Your own link says that the GOP wanted to count absentee votes that were received after the election and had no postmark in violation of the law.

And they asked to do so only in 13 Republican counties.
 
The GOP didn't demand FL to vioate the law
Your own link says that the GOP wanted to count absentee votes that were received after the election and had no postmark in violation of the law.

And they asked to do so only in 13 Republican counties.
yes, and they lost that....and should have...but yes, the GOP was trying to get the votes counted of military personal overseas who's votes came on time, but because of the system of delivery they weren't postmarked. The Dems fought to keep votes from being counted there. They wanted all the votes in question counted there....

I was referring to the case that went to the SCOTUS
 

Forum List

Back
Top