Radiance3

================
Those communist democrats elected in their states defrauded the system and approved their crimes to win the election, Hired Obama appointed judges to approve their criminal activities.

It's unconstitutional, illegal and all of them are fraudulent.

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

The house did the witness calling, actually it was just the democrats, republicans weren’t allowed to.
You’re twisting the truth as usual.
Deception is the name of the democrats game!

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

Oh pete keep looking for the evidence of fraud. But I'm more interested in the unconstitutional behavior of four states that disenfranchised the rest of the nation. Texas is asking the SCOUS if we still follow the Constitution and if we don't they want out of the Union. Yes, I said it and if they go then they will take at least 17 states with them. Is this the America the Dems wanted. Read Texas vs Pennsylvania et al.

Unintended Consequences

[quote=Radiance3]=====================
Ninety -five percent (95%) of radical communist DIMS are dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, liars, immoral, low brainer, rude. I don't want them.[/quote/
I wonder how many Democrats you actually know. About 95% of my relatives and friends are Democrats. As far as I can tell, none of them are dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, liars, immoral, low brainer, or rude. You might like them.

PeterS

So Biden gets 33 and Trump 17? Works for me...

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

but it's not good day it's G'day, true that means hello not good-by good-by is see-yr-later.

federally indicted mattoid

Truly trolling

PeterS

Look, Trump made accusations of cheating that go all the way back to 2016. Cheating is a fallback position in case he loses and nothing more. In 2016 he won and in 2020 he lost so his cheating gambit once again came into play. You are simply taking part in a lie he dreamed up years ago. Trump is a narcissist with an ego the size of Texas. He can't lose so any chance of losing he will cover up with the lie that Democrats are cheating so if he loses that's why.

And you can't make accusations of disenfranchisement without any kind of proof that will stand up in court! Doing so is just sour grapes. And it's not like you've made your accusations in just one state--you've MADE them in 6 states and in several cases multiple times! So far Trump has lost every case in every state he has brought them in (Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania), plus before one appeals court (Pennsylvania), and of course one shot at the Supreme Court. So now you want another shot at the Supreme Court? If you can't change your evidence--and you haven't been able to--what makes you think more states signing onto your folly will make any difference? You still have no evidence else Giuliani would have used it by now and put this whole thing to bed.

So you are just spinning your wheels with the hope that SCOTUS will not see what you are doing. You don't see the folly in that? They've seen your hand once already and kicked you out of court. What makes you think you have any better chance now after being rejected once before? Oh, and if you will--PLEASE use Ted Cruz to make the argument before the Supreme Court. I mean, joy of joys, if only we could fit Mitch McConnell in there somehow--the Trifecta of exposing conservatives scumbags would be complete.

Look, knock yourself out my friend. When you fail, and I have no doubt that you will, let it not be said that you weren't treated fairly and given every opportunity to succeed. Failure will belong to you and no one else. And while I would expect no support from you conservatives towards Biden, he will be our president having won fair and square--no matter how many times Trump had them count the vote!

PeterS

1) Absentee ballots were used nationwide, including in the states who joined in the lawsuit. If they were unconstitutional the time for the lawsuit was before the election, not after.

2)Bringing a lawsuit after looks like sour grapes and you are only trying to overturn the election not to satisfy the grievance which is what all lawsuits are supposed to do.

3) The constitution guarantees the right to vote not to be stripped of your right to vote if you feel your life is being threatened during a pandemic. It sounds to me that you are trying to make up a constitutional provision that doesn't exist. And we've allowed absentee ballots in the past for the military, the affirmed, and the aged. Simply because it isn't directly written into the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that says we can use guns for our personal protection much less AR-15's and other military-style weapons. Personal protection isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. So is the court ruling on the second amendment unconstitutional? Would you like to tell all the Militia and all the RW yahoos in this nation that the guns they have are unconstitutional?

Ranger, I am being honest with you when I say I like you because I find an honesty about you that I don't find with most conservatives. But you need to understand...this is just BS. Do you think the constitution was intended to be a fair document when it was written--and for the sake of this argument, we have to exclude the plight of African-Americans for now. The question is, did the framers intend the constitution to be a fair or unfair document for the people that it governed? So if there are extenuating circumstances that prevented people from going to a polling place do you think the founders would have found it fair that no provision was taken to allow people to vote even though the military and aged were given an exemption and allowed such a right?

I am certain that you are going to lose another case and not out of any unfairness but because the constitution is a document that was designed to bring fairness where ever it is possible...and here it is.

You guys are going down again and I wouldn't be surprised if the Court refused to hear your case just as they did with the last one. You can't force an entire group of people to endanger their lives simply because you think they might use this as an opportunity to cheat. "Maybe they will cheat" is not a reason to prevent millions of people from voting. This is a nation that is governed by the Rule of Law and you have to have more than just an opinion that someone might cheat if given a certain opportunity.

You're crying about being disenfranchised, well here you are willing to disenfranchise millions of voters on what is nothing more than a suspicion of wrongdoing by you. You have no proof of wrongdoing and aren't even looking for any...you suspect wrongdoing and that's all you think you need to disenfranchise millions upon millions of voters.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The rules say they can compel the attendance of witnesses. In other words, either the House managers or the President's representatives can call a witness and the Senate can issue a subpoena requiring the witness to appear. If neither counsel calls a witness, there is no provision for the Senate to do their job for them. This is the same in any court. No where in the rules does it say the Senate decides who to call as a witness, that is the purview of the House managers for the prosecution and the President's representatives for the defense.

PeterS

Here are the senate rules for impeachment. It wouldn't allow for witnesses to be called if only the House was allowed to call witnesses. And the only ones trying to deceive anyone are you guys who are bending over backwards to support the unjust and immoral actions taken by US senators that they helped to elect.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

It is called executive privilege and is used to shield advisors advice during the decision making process. It is not something that Trump invented. Obama used it during his administration protecting his people from Congressional hearings. If Congress disputes the validity of a claim of executive privilege, they have a path to resolve the dispute. Congress must challenge the claim in court. If the court finds for Congress, the President must comply with the subpoena and present Congress with the requested witness or documents, or face contempt of Congress and obstruction charges. If the court concurs that executive privilege applies, then the Congressional subpoenas are null and void.

PeterS

And you don't think that if the Senate issues a subpoena for a witness to appear before the Senate, that isn't the same as calling a witness to appear before the Senate??? How is appearing before the Senate any different than appearing before the Senate? Honest to god, the hoops you expect others to jump through simply because you lack the stones to admit you were wrong.

And if you don't call any witnesses then you are conceding the facts as gathered by the house as True. I mean if they weren't true you would call witnesses to prove so, correct? So if the house votes to impeach, and you concede the facts gathered by the house as True, under what logic are you going to vote to acquit when you already conceded the facts that the individual was guilty and should have been impeached?

PeterS

Bull shit, name any person subpoenaed by the house or senate that Obama prevented from appearing by Executive, or any other privilege you might think of?

Trump is the only president in the history of our great country who prevented members of his administration from appearing when subpoenaed by the House or Senate to do so. Now that isn't to say that presidents didn't balk at having their people subpoenaed but Trump is the only one who never relinquished and allowed those who were subpoenaed to appear before the body who subpoenaed them. Remember Hillary? Well, if Obama would allow Hillary to be subpoenaed then do you think he would have prevented anyone else from testifying?

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

You're right, absentee ballots were used in the states joining Texas in its suit. However, absentee ballots must be requested by the voter and there are specific procedures that must be followed for the vote to be counted. Some of these are requiring signatures to match with what is on file in the election offices, the ballot be returned by a specified time (usually by the time the polls close), some require the ballot be notarized or have witness signatures and address. What this mail in scheme was is ballots mailed out without verifying the recipient voter's information, ignoring deadlines for returning the ballot, ignoring the requirement to match signatures, not being notarized or witnessed. The unconstitutional part of these mail-in ballots is the fact that (at least in Pennsylvania) the election laws are set in the state constitution and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. It cannot be done by the governor, the secretary of state, or even judges. The legislature can't do it by passing a law. To change the election laws it must be done by a constitutional amendment. This is true on the federal level as well. The Constitution declared that in order to vote you had to be a free man, own property and be over 21. These requirements were not changed by Congress passing a law or a President signing an executive order, they were changed by amending the Constitution. The fifteenth amendment extended voting rights to all males over 21. The nineteenth amendment gave women the right to vote. The twenty-third amendment gave voting rights and Presidential electors to citizens of Washington, D.C. The twenty-fourth amendment prohibited poll taxes. And the twenty-sixth amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
In the case of the mail-in voting, they did not pass an amendment making these changes, therefore, the changes are unconstitutional and none of the ballots cast in this manner are legitimate votes and must be discarded.
There are other states that have had mail-in voting and the changed their laws by the proper procedures and have instituted safe guards to protect against fraud. It doesn't prevent all fraud, but it does make it harder to do and minimizes its occurrences.