VOTER PROTECTION HOTLINES: Numbers to call if you witness or experience voter intimidation or harassment happening at your polling location.

[toobfreak]

Yes. Notes and under oath testimony with no rebuttals. Powerful stuff legally.

Are you still bothering me? Notes? Under oath? You mean like Trump's notes under oath that he was wiretapped and sabotaged? You mean like Trump's notes under oath that they suppressed news of illegal election activity and news of the Biden Criminal Ring headed by Hunter to trade large sums of money from foreign governments in exchange for favors from the USA? You mean like Trump's notes under oath that Biden has encouraged war with Russia and Ukraine in order to ship billions to military contractors? You must mean like Trump's notes under oath that his house was raided under orchestration, evidence tampered, then Crooks hired as a paid Iranian agent in order to take Trump out to assure the installation of another selected CROOK into the WH?

You reject under oath testimony accompanied by hand written notes but glibly deflect from the topic using tweets and unproven allegations.

Why not? You've been doing it almost exclusively for years.

Trump tried to convince his DoJ to just say the election is corrupt and let his friends in Congress take care of the rest and you still defend him.

In other words, declare some things looked suspicious and wrong as everyone knows they were so that an honest and aboveboard analysis of the 2020 election could really be done.

You are a real piece of work.

Oh brother, you don't know the half of it. I haven't even begun exposing you yet. If you think this country is just going to lay down and let a POS likes of you walk in and take all that America has worked hard for to be, you have another thing coming and then some. See ya in hell.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Are you still bothering me? Notes? Under oath? You mean like Trump's notes under oath that he was wiretapped and sabotaged?

Link please.

You mean like Trump's notes under oath that they suppressed news of illegal election activity and news of the Biden Criminal Ring headed by Hunter to trade large sums of money from foreign governments in exchange for favors from the USA?

Link please.

You mean like Trump's notes under oath that Biden has encouraged war with Russia and Ukraine in order to ship billions to military contractors?

Link please.

You must mean like Trump's notes under oath that his house was raided under orchestration, evidence tampered, then Crooks hired as a paid Iranian agent in order to take Trump out to assure the installation of another selected CROOK into the WH?

Link please.

Why not? You've been doing it almost exclusively for years.

What have I been doing?

In other words, declare some things looked suspicious and wrong as everyone knows they were so that an honest and aboveboard analysis of the 2020 election could really be done.

Sorry. You lost in the courts.

Oh brother, you don't know the half of it. I haven't even begun exposing you yet.

Exposing me for what?

If you think this country is just going to lay down and let a POS likes of you walk in and take all that America has worked hard for to be, you have another thing coming and then some. See ya in hell.

What are you talking about?

Are you ok?

 

[toobfreak]

Sorry. You lost in the courts.

Sorry, Ace, but 26 of the 28 cases were never even tried. Dismissed on technical excuses like time of filing and standing. The other two that were actually tested in court, Trump won both.

But you are really boring and I'm tired of you. Really no point arguing details again already covered here 500 times and proven so, off to IGGY with you. Let you waste someone else's time with mind games bullshit. Bye Bye.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Sorry, Ace, but 26 of the 28 cases were never even tried. Dismissed on technical excuses like time of filing and standing. The other two that were actually tested in court, Trump won both.

Ummm, that still means you lost in the courts.

But you are really boring and I'm tired of you. Really no point arguing details again already covered here 500 times and proven so, off to IGGY with you. Let you waste someone else's time with mind games bullshit. Bye Bye.

Yep easily proven but lost in the courts...derp derp.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Sorry, Ace, but 26 of the 28 cases were never even tried. Dismissed on technical excuses like time of filing and standing. The other two that were actually tested in court, Trump won both.

But you are really boring and I'm tired of you. Really no point arguing details again already covered here 500 times and proven so, off to IGGY with you. Let you waste someone else's time with mind games bullshit. Bye Bye.

Forgot to mention you didn't provide any links to back up all your absurd claims.

I know you ran away but if you get the time can you provide those links so I'll know you're not just a lying republican shill?

Thanks in advance.

 

[eagle7-31]

The most important phone number to have this election.

Call if you see it happening to anyone.

View attachment 993691

That is a laugh considering what the dems did in GA, PA, AZ and a couple of other places.

 

[scruffy]

So if I see any dead people voting I'm gonna call, right?

 

[daveman]

Judges are corrupt? You got proof? I know SCOTUS has been dodgy.

#GOTTHERECEIPTS

Leftists' "proof" of corrupt judge: He doesn't rubber-stamp the Democrat agenda.

 

[Lakhota]

Pay attention! Be vigilant!

 

[Catsnmeters]

Leftists' "proof" of corrupt judge: He doesn't rubber-stamp the Democrat agenda.

What leftist judge is runner stamping and on what case are you referring to?

 

[daveman]

What leftist judge is runner stamping and on what case are you referring to?

Every time SCOTUS uses precedent and the Constitution to decide a case against the Democrats bringing it, y'all freak out.

But Sotomayor seems more apt to decide based on the Democrat agenda than on the rule of law. And Jackson doesn't seem to know what a woman is.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Every time SCOTUS uses precedent and the Constitution to decide a case against the Democrats bringing it, y'all freak out.

Unless 50 years of precedent is thrown out the window like for roe v Wade.

Then repubs don't care about precedent.

But Sotomayor seems more apt to decide based on the Democrat agenda than on the rule of law. And Jackson doesn't seem to know what a woman is.

 

[daveman]

Unless 50 years of precedent is thrown out the window like for roe v Wade.

Then repubs don't care about precedent.

How many decades have the Democrats had to firmly establish Roe?

Why didn't they?