JW

He is correct! Virtually all of the courts refused to hear any evidence... including Roberts' Kangaroo Court. The fact that one judge made one comment doesn't begin to describe the whole situation.

PeterS

Snip>>The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)

But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.

As the Trump campaign will remind you, these are sworn statements. But according to legal experts, the jeopardy faced by those behind them is relatively minimal.

“There is a remote chance that sworn statements (if they are actually sworn statements — most documents that appear to be ‘sworn’ don’t count within the meaning of the statute) could subject the declarant to some exposure under the perjury statutes,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert on evidence at Duke University, in an email. “But perjury prosecutions are rare and almost never arise from statements outside of the context of proceedings in which oaths are formally administered — such as depositions, congressional testimony, grand jury proceedings, or trial testimony.”

A "sworn" affidavit isn't admissible unless the persons can be found and made to testify. All Rudy had was piles of paper that had no more weight behind than that, that I use to wipe my ass.

PeterS

Many of the courts had judges appointed by Trump. Many probably voted for Trump. Why would they be complicit in a conspiracy to refuse to hear his complaint(s)

Homestead

What a crock of BS.

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

You need to go back to high school and study Civics again.
First. There enough problems and facts to establish probable cause.
Its probable cause that triggers an investigation.
It's the facts that are generated by that investigation, based on probable cause, that lead to a court filing.
It is in the court, where the facts and testimony are put before the court.
To do that, the facts and testimony must meet the standards of the court, before they are presented.
Once presented, the opposing counsel crosses examines and tries to refute them.
It isn't until the court goes through this process and excepts the facts and testimony, based on the court proceedings, that they truly become evidence.

You just want to decide that there is no proof, based on no court proceedings.

As far as alligation go, we have several hundred eye witnesses come forward with sworn affidavits to what they saw. Substantiated by other witnesses who were there collaborating the same events.
Which were also backed up by a security camera that documented what they testifying to.
Not to mention the list of experts that also gave testimony to what they knew, also under sworn affidavits that carries the penalty of perjury if lying.

These tesimonies were done before state and local legislators in open public meetings.

And yes they count!

JW

Simple, 5 years of bashing Trump from every corner makes any temporary office holder gun-shy, and the full knowledge that if fraud is proven, we are in the middle of the biggest Constitutional crisis we have ever faced in this country. The legal (and social) ramifications of a stolen election are beyond conjecture.

Biden was regarded as a safe, unthreatening place-holder whose tenure would not be divisive or significant.

PeterS

What a load of crap. Trump had 60 shots at it and failed every time. You bought into the lie and simply don't have the stones to admit that you were duped. I doubt anyone in the Supreme court was afraid to adjudicate Trump's complaint if there was something to it. And the constitutional crisis was buying into a lie and attempting to overthrow our election. That's where the crisis exists and still remains today, where we have a major party who is more ready to believe a lie than to believe the truth.

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

The courts didn’t even bother to look at it!

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I kinda see your point. You're saying it is very similar to the major party that spent four years inventing, spreading, and repeating one "big lie" after another trying to over turn the election in 2016. Got it.

Homestead

Supreme Court’s Decision Not to Hear Elections Cases Could Have Serious Repercussions

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s “baffling” refusal on Monday to grant review of the Pennsylvania election cases that had been appealed to the justices, the majority of the court is—to quote Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent—“leav[ing] election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt” and “invit[ing] further confusion and erosion of public confidence” in our elections.

As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote late last year, “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”

Notable instances during and after the 2020 election where this procedure wasn’t followed occurred in Pennsylvania. There, the state’s Supreme Court ordered election officials to accept late-arriving mail-in ballots up to three days after Election Day and to count them even if they didn’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.

What’s particularly problematic about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision is that the Pennsylvania legislature had explicitly decided not to extend the ballot-receipt deadline past Election Day.

The authority the Pennsylvania court cited for overriding state law was what Thomas called a “vague clause” in the state’s constitution providing that elections “shall be free and equal.” Apparently, requiring absentee ballots to be received by Election Day is somehow not a “free and equal” election, but allowing ballots to come in three days after Election Day is a “free and equal” election.

That was the ludicrous justification used by the state court.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/supreme-courts-decision-not-hear-elections-cases-could-have-serious

JW

You're right about the major party... but you're fingering the wrong party.

Quoting John Roberts, "I won't allow that m-fer to be re-elected". Is it true that he said that? If he did, it falls in line with a lot of the other crap that's floating in from the TDS infested minions of the dark side. Maybe he never said it. Don't we have a right to know?

Look at the effort the Democrats are putting out to prevent close examination of the voting in every state where they are trying to ascertain the facts. I would think you Lefties would want that information to confirm your win... but no, your side does everything they can to stop the investigations. Don't we all have a right to know the facts?

Half of this country doubts the honesty of the election. If we are to remain one nation, we need everyone to be secure in our participation in the processes of our government.

One more question; what 60 failures?

robster_in_wailea

What bothers me the most is the number of intelligent people I know who get all of their news from NYT, WaPo and NPR. They actually believe the elections were fair! If they took the time to do independent research, they would have to admit the number of fraudulent activities including: no signature verification; more votes in some districts than registered voters; voters using PO Boxes as "apartments"; multiple voters at an address with no building on it; multiple breaks in chains of custody; election machines connected to the Internet. And more.

Everything is going crazy right now. We are being encouraged to take experimental gene therapy, which are misleadingly called "vaccines," with no long-term testing having been done. Illegal immigrants are being given benefits for free that the rest of us have to pay for. Rioters masquerading as social justice warriors are destroying cities with no consequences to themselves; law-abiding citizens are being harassed. The future looks strange.

Wonttakeitanymore

We can only pray that God restores America and our rightfully elected President Trump!!!

Wonttakeitanymore

[quote=Smedley_buzkill]There are limits on Martial law. In Ex parte Milligan 1866 the SCOTUS ruled that Martial law may only be imposed when civilian courts and government can no longer function, and may only be imposed on the area[s] affected and only for as long as it takes for civil authority to be restored. I do not see it being imposed just yet, particularly with the Senile Sock Puppet and the Happy Hooker in the White House and Naval Observatory.[/quote]
The courts haven’t functioned!they refuse to see the truth or allow the truth to be shown!

Mikeyavelli

Mikeyavelli

And us volunteers...