JW

We are a republic. That means all of the legal avenues have to be exhausted before extra-legal/exceptional means become available.

Geo

I'm willing to look, show me the cheating and the fraud and I'll keep an open mind.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

There have been numerous anomalies, improbable occurrences, and questionable happenings. It doesn't necessarily mean that fraud occurred or that it reached the level of changing the results of the election, but it raises enough questions about the integrity of the election that not only needs but demands that an investigation be done to make sure that the election was truly fair and honest. If found to be otherwise, the guilty should receive the maximum penalty under the law.

Radiance3

==================

Who are the guilty? There are so many of them all programmed to defraud the system in order to win. This is the final days of their wars after the 4 years of various means removing the duly elected president of the people, Donald J. Trump. Donald is not part of their political empire. The left and the right.

What prevails now is FRAUD against the people of this country, to taking over this Republic we have for 244 years, with millions of lives invested to achieve freedom. Now we are losing it to traitors of this country.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

That is precisely why we need a full and thorough investigation.

PeterS

Then why is it in every other senate impeachment trial in history they called and heard witnesses? This is the only Senate trial where not a single witness was heard.

This is from WWW senate.gov: The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides.

So you can't "hear witnesses" without calling them and in this case by not doing so, the truth was kept silent all so the senate could keep a guilty president in power.

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

God says what we think He is saying, and that is made good or bad by conflict, psychological mainly but usually becomes military, I use my ability to keep it psychological, but Malthus hit the nail on the head with his idea that wants are infinite and the Planet is only provisioned with finite capability to supply infinity, incredibly must end excess one way or the other, credibility in the end will eliminate story telling.

Actually at the moment it your interested in what happened after the Soviet Economy was destroyed - by its inability to harvest the wealth of what was then known as the of the 3 rd World, mainly because it didn't need it, and also it was though at the time by the Soviets that good would triumph over bad, - there is a really good lecture on "Yale Courses" 1. year ago, titled "Capitalist Economics with Communist Policies China and Vietnam".

One point the lecturer makes is that it's the indirect reasons which determine the miraculous reason for the Chinese and now Vietnamese economic miracles, he doesn't dwell on the IMF's support but does mention it if I remember correctly, that is the reason I believe IMF support, but many other reasons are drilled into, the fact is now the Russian Federation, China and Vietnam are a single economic block brought into fruition by the Israeli leftists who control the IMF completely after they used mind control techniques to eliminate Dominique Strauss-Khan.

About Malthus' connection to this lecture which I mentioned, one point is clearly presented by the lecturer who makes a big deal about the trade off between inequality and economic prosperity which China and Vietnam are presently exhibiting.

So as their economies are exploding wealth is being distributed with a greater proportion going to the top causing inequality, which was seen as anathema in the Soviet Union who were applying Malthusian logic, now the 3 Nations Russia, China and Vietnam are not interested in egalitarianism, however Malthus clearly stated this is a short term aberration, when it ends the Jews will own everything.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

You are all wrong. It is not about the fraud, although it is a result of what it's about. Four states violated thier constitution in thier systems of elections. By violating thier state laws they opened the door for fraud. By not calling into special session thier state legislatures they violate the constitution and state law. Thus Texas is suing the other states. Which places the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction.

Texas claims that since the four other states did not hold a fair and legal election then the question arises is the constitution still the law of the land? Or just another historical meaningless document?

Look up Texas vs Pennsylvania et al, and you will see it for yourself. It's not about the individual fraud that occurred but about the fraud as a whole where the states made it legal. The odds of that happening is astronomical. Stay tuned

federally indicted mattoid

The odds that this strategy will work are* astronomical.

Everyone is laughing at you folks for being such gullibles. If you can save face, do it now while there is still time. Otherwise, be prepared to have your panties in a bunch for a few years.

Abraham50

"Calling an election unfair does not make it so" Unless you're a Dictator with an occult of 70 million people following you !! To these people, up is down, down is up, lying is good and truth is bad, they're all delusional !! PeterS, good reply anyway !! This could lead to a civil war and a Putin takeover when Russia backs TRUMP and his supporters ?? Then they will have their TRUMP Country and Trump will just kill anybody that crosses him just like Putin does in Russia, like all dictators do to stay in control of followers and keep them scared and in line !! And they will think that is Freedom, go figure ??

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Please try to understand or get someone to explain it to you in very simple terms. The Senate does not call witnesses, that is the job of the House managers acting as the prosecution. The President would then have the opportunity to call his own witnesses to refute the prosecution's witnesses and evidence. The House managers chose not to call any witnesses, instead they presented the transcripts of witness testimony from the House hearings. If you have incompetent prosecutors, you lose cases at every level of the court system. If this is still over your head, you will need to seek professional help.

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. Loc: Pa

News Flash - Pa's mail in ballot law (Act 77) was passed into law in the fall of 2019 by a republican legislature. Below is a screen shot of the vote tally.

No body objected to the new law until a year later when you don't like the election outcome? What hypocrites!

Take note - All 30 republicans voted Yea. 20 of 22 Democrats voted Nay.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

The law you show and state is unconstitutional. And an unconstitutional law stands until someone challenges it. So the question remains, "is the constitution still the law of the land or is it just another historical document" that is meaningless?

Therefore Texas has a case. And if the Constitution is not the law of the land then the union of states has been disbanded.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The problem was the secretary of state and the liberal state supreme court changed the rules just prior to the election. Also, the bill could have been passed by a unanimous vote and it would still be defective. Under Pennsylvania law, voting laws must be changed by a constitutional amendment, no other law or executive order can change a constitutional requirement.
It is also a catch-22 situation, nobody could sue when the law was passed because nobody was affected by it at that time. In other words, nobody had legal standing to bring suit. Now, they are saying that because suit wasn't brought at that time, it is too late to do so now.
When the ACA was passed, groups tried to take it to court over the penalty/tax. The cases were thrown out because nobody had been assessed the penalty/tax, therefore there was nobody who had standing to bring the case.
The legal system is very simple, there are a set of procedures that must be followed to bring any case to court. It's just that sometimes the procedures don't seem to make any logical sense.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

And it would not matter who won the election the federal government is no more. Be careful about supporting any candidate. Joe may not hold the presidency if the Supreme Court claims the constitution is not the Supreme law of the land.