The American Supreme Court has made voter fraud a constitutional right for Democrats

Thumbnail

Commentary has virtually disappeared from across the web – and was never found in the Mainstream Media – so I will content myself with this that was posted at Instapundit yesterday. For myself, almost no one really seems to care, since for virtually no one their personal circumstances will not change, or not soon enough for them to notice, especially in the Age of Covid. We have by stages introduced a Mussolini-type fascist system into the United States, which is a one-party corporate state where things are run by political leaders in partnership with large business. The same system was found in Franco’s Spain from the 1930s to the 1960s. You will not starve, there will be a form of freedom for anyone who is content to just get along with the powers that be, but will be static and generally all right for anyone who wishes to just get along. Sort of like having the return of the Roman Empire after the Republic had been put to bed. We will have our version of Bread and Circuses, welfare and Netflix being the modern form. Donald Trump has given us our last taste of what a free society could look like. It has gone and I cannot see how it might ever come back again, or certainly not come back soon enough to matter to anyone alive today. The rest below is from Instapundit which is itself pretty lame and defeatist. Very few seem to care. There is nothing more to do. You have seen the future.

______

A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK ABOUT LAST NIGHT’S SUPREME COURT OPINION:

“We lost. Treating that as the end of the world and saying everything is hopeless is exactly what the other side wants us to do.”

“I don’t trust the Dems. Nor do I trust the Republicans. But I do trust people like Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. SCOTUS has ruled. I think they are erring on the side of leaving states alone, which from a certain standpoint is the right call. But man, people, there is so much work to do in the next four years. To ensure the *next* fraud is not nearly so easy for the DNC. They exploited a unique situation: the Covid Panic. Circumstances will not always align for this. And, they’ve cheated before. It’s how Kennedy won in 1960. It does not mean we’re destined forever to be disenfranchised. It just means the Prole Rebellion has to go GROUND GAME in precincts and in the state legislatures. Nothing is permanent. Biden-Harris can be survived. Gotta make sure the Prole Rebellion doesn’t exit with Trump. It should never have been about one man anyway. It should be all about the idea: of the Little Man wresting back control of his government from would-be oligarchs and technocrats.”

“Consider. Tammany Hall once ruled New York City. It was utterly corrupt, and utterly controlled that city for a long time. Until . . . it shriveled and bled and died of its own necrotic rot. Something the Tammany crew would have thought unthinkable in their prime. To echo what I have already said: corrupt systems often seem at the height of their power, right before they collapse. Did anyone guess in 1988 that the Soviets would collapse and be done for within 24 months? Did LBJ or Kennedy believe Nixon would come back to win big? The ballot box took a hit. It’s smoking. It is not destroyed. Now the Dems get to spend four years with Biden-Harris doing a clown show in the White House.”

“Stop. Even if all you do is make them cheat harder, you will vote. Don’t let the lying, cheating, stealing bastards get you down. Time to fight. Or fight harder. And prepare. Because sh*t will get real soon enough. Make sure you are ready.”

UPDATE: Another friend sends this: “A discussion of all lawful means to oppose the near certain incoming Biden administration and to organize to prevent the same fraud occurring in future elections, including in Georgia in a few weeks, would be good. People on the right are so irate that some small number are virtually certain to do spasmodic and foolish things, that would provoke a very destructive crack down. In fact, I have to believe this is what the Ds snd the nomenklatura want. Giving people a lawful and potentially affective outlet for their legitimate anger would be helpful. I really don’t know what the answer to this is at all, myself, and I’d like to start hearing ideas.

Let me add a few of the comments from the top that begin with the generally considered “best” comments. These I agree with.

The tragedy isn’t Trump losing – although that is terrible – it’s the disenfranchisement. It’s how out in the open and naked it was. How do you change the laws when they can literally just summon up an unlimited number of votes? “Vote harder” doesn’t work in that scenario. No, I’m not proposing giving up or not participating, but these are honest questions: what does trying harder look like? How does one change a rigged system.

Don’t worry. Corrupt, oppressive oppressor regimes eventually collapse under their own weight. The British invaded Ireland and only 700 years later they were driven out. The same thing with the Moors in Spain. By the 28th century they will be out of power and democracy and the rule of law will be restored.

For the first time in my adult life, i am not sure that the kind of discussions i read here will be legal and permitted in four year’s time. We didn’t lose – the highest and most political court in the nation refused to hear the case. For the eight horrible years of Obama, i kept thinking that the only way the left and uniparty would act this way was if they truly believed they would never be out of power again. Trump’s victory defeated their margin of fraud. They will never make that mistake again. To read so many comments about ‘we must fight the fraud harder’ next time is disheartening. I understand the human desire to want to believe things will be the same. But the left runs the country, the Constitution no longer protects you. We have lost our rights to a new King George. It is up to each one of us to decide how much we are willing to give to get them back. Pretending this was just another election and we can go back to normal in 4 years is a drug of the mind, it’s a lie we tell ourselves to avoid a terrible truth.

I don’t understand this [Instapundit] post. We will have mass amnesty, increased censorship, interminable lockdowns, and tracking of every citizen, presumably for our own safety. The New normal is here. Vastly less small business and the self-reliance that engenders, increased control from every Federal department from the EPA to HUD, and social and economic Justice. They’re going to make sure that this never happens again.

To think that today we are freer to speak our minds in Moscow than in New York. Think about that. In Russia, if you don’t attack Putin, they’ll leave you alone. Here, they will fire you, harass you, and someday soon, jail you for defending your religion, espousing traditional marriage, saying there are two genders, or stating that Climate Change is just leftist control freakery BS.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

241 Responses to The American Supreme Court has made voter fraud a constitutional right for Democrats

  1. Old School Conservative

    Anyone thinking that 4 years of a Democrat President can be overturned at the next election is a misguided fool. The extent of this years’ fraud will be normalised, legalised, and become acceptable during the Biden/Harris/Pelosi presidency.
    More pro-leftist cheating will be invented to ensure another Democrat win. And then another. And so on.

  2. stackja

    SCOTUS not seemingly wanting to over rule so many votes. Legality disputed not just chads this time.

  3. stackja

    Dems underestimate Trump.

  4. Tel

    Don’t worry. Corrupt, oppressive oppressor regimes eventually collapse under their own weight. The British invaded Ireland and only 700 years later they were driven out. The same thing with the Moors in Spain. By the 28th century they will be out of power and democracy and the rule of law will be restored.

    Awesome liberty quote there Steve.

    I guess I better start taking some backups of a few of these libertarian blogs before the lights go out, huh?

  5. Rafe Champion

    The green new deal will put out a lot of lights across the country, California and New York in the lead:)

  6. jo

    The Patriots have the guns and know how to use them. Pity Australia is so gutless.

  7. Miltonf

    This has been an in your face steal which they cannot be allowed to get away with. Forget about 2024. It’s now or never.

  8. Professor Fred Lenin

    Just shows you that with the democrim form of “voting” even a corrupt bribe take useless Paedo asshole can aspire to the highest office in the land , subject only to the carpetbagger corrupt billionaire filth who own the democrim machine . America is lost unless the second civil war flogs the corrupt racist democrims again .

  9. Peter Smith

    Not sure what the Supreme Court could have done in the end result. They couldn’t have disenfranchised millions of voters on technicalities, particularly in the force majeure circumstances of a so-called ‘public-health-crisis’. And, surely, it is not up to the SC to determine whether massive fraud has occurred. That is a matter for the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate in the first instance, or the various state law enforcement authorities. Barr and Wray were no help. And, so far as I know, no-one (certainly of note) has been arrested at a state level. By the way, being a cockeyed optimist, I am still hoping for a miracle.

  10. Miltonf

    Hard to think of a more repulsive pair than bidet and the skank. More in your face decrees by the elites.

  11. min

    Don’t give up yet Steve , Trump still has the EO he can use 45 days after election . He has brought back the army I am thinking to quell civil unrest . There has been plenty of evidence to support what the EO covers , plus the number of those in both parties who think fraud was used in the election .
    When did Washington Ross the Delaware ?

  12. Andreas

    Next election Texas can herd all it’s Democrat scrutineers into a broom closet and lock the door, then fire up the ballot printers and no other states can challenge it, no injury is done to them! Good work SCOTUS, you made yourself a complete joke.

  13. Miltonf

    Alito and Thomas are the only ones with integrity

  14. rickw

    When any political system blatantly fails to deliver Justice.

    There is little historical variation to what follows.

  15. Daily llama

    Whilst I agree what’s coming won’t be good, and probably even worse than we think, why do you persist in this fraud nonsense? I’ve looked at everything I can find- the blogs, the news, conservative friends in Wisconsin, everything. Even ratbag garbage like infowars and gateway pundit, etc etc. Let’s not forget, Alex scumbag Jones at Infowars declared the Sandy Hook school massacre a hoax. You’d have to be mentally disturbed to know that and still listen to the guy.
    Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch suddenly go chicken? What nonsense. William Barr goes from Trump’s favourite to a traitor? The numerous GOP representatives that put democracy before dishonour? Not sure if this will open- of course, the conspiracy lovers won’t even heed a site like the Christian Scientists, but that’s freedom. Can someone, anyone, please please point me toward evidence of this great fraud? Trump LOST. Get over it.
    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/1207/How-Trump-administration-s-vote-fraud-claims-stack-up-to-reality

  16. Ubique

    The red States should secede now and leave the blue States to please themselves.

  17. rickw

    why do you persist in this fraud nonsense

    Because it happened right in front of everyone’s eyes when they stopped counting.

    Trump went from clear winner to loser in those hours.

    That’s it.

  18. Dot

    Ubique
    #3688731, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm
    The red States should secede now and leave the blue States to please themselves

    No. You and Llama are both wrong.

    States where there was blatant cheating should flip for Trump or not send electors and leave it to the House.

  19. Damon

    No-one believes in the integrity of the voting system, so the question really is; did the cheating affect the result?

  20. Daily llama

    What am I wrong about, Dot? I’m just asking for the evidence.

  21. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    What am I wrong about, Dot? I’m just asking for the evidence.

    google it you lazy shit

  22. Daily llama

    Can’t you read? Go back to what I said- nothing stands up! I keep asking, and no one here gives a sensible answer!

  23. Miltonf

    No one is obliged to give you any answers.

  24. dover_beach

    Whilst I agree what’s coming won’t be good, and probably even worse than we think, why do you persist in this fraud nonsense? I’ve looked at everything I can find- the blogs, the news, conservative friends in Wisconsin, everything.

    Daily llama, try this video for starters and People’s Pundits other videos:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y5DVu0Rofk&t=220s
    You could also look at the work of Matt Braynard and the Voter Integrity Project:

  25. Steve Kates:

    We will have mass amnesty, increased censorship, interminable lockdowns, and tracking of every citizen, presumably for our own safety. The New normal is here.

    I’ll tell you one thig we’ll have – Open Season on White People.
    No Court in the land will effectively punish a negro for killing a white person.

  26. there is a bigger picture
    trump is only of secondary importance
    he occupies the front line, distracting from what is really being achieved.
    namely, the exposure of the deep state, the exposure of the holy war.
    the holy war is simply the war between truth and falsehood, between sincerity and deceit, between reality and the spectacle….between freedom and slavery.
    all that was previously hidden is being revealed,,,,and this goes deeper than politics and crimes of power and greed, it is about the nature of reality and the moral law that underpins it.
    it’s an awakening.

  27. PB

    People have been warning about this day for years, but they were just tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists right?

  28. Daily llama

    Of course not, Milton. Didn’t realise you’ve been appointed to speak for everyone, sorry

  29. FelixKruell

    You’re nuts

    Texas had no standing because the other states had two votes each about where to have dinner. Whether those states allow a fair public poll in how to use those two votes, or simply had their legislature decide how to use those two votes, they still only got two votes. The internal wrangling is none of Texas’s business.

    To think that today we are freer to speak our minds in Moscow than in New York. Think about that. In Russia, if you don’t attack Putin, they’ll leave you alone. Here, they will fire you, harass you, and someday soon, jail you for defending your religion, espousing traditional marriage, saying there are two genders, or stating that Climate Change is just leftist control freakery BS.

    Yeah because gay people and religious people aren’t being arrested in Russia on baseless charges….oh wait.

  30. 2dogs

    I think they are erring on the side of leaving states alone, which from a certain standpoint is the right call.

    This is how I am taking it.

    Note that the Pennsylvania supreme court has elected justices. One hopes their actions will be remembered when they are next up for reelection. Maybe it will, but then, maybe then they will also be called upon to rule on the validity of their own elections.

  31. Cassie of Sydney

    “Miltonf
    #3688750, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:53 pm
    No one is obliged to give you any answers.”

    Well said Milton, the more people ignore the Daily Blimp, who once worked in local government, the better.

  32. dover_beach

    The internal wrangling is none of Texas’s business.

    So if Texas opened up its franchise to non-citizens in federal elections other states would have no right to dispute this in SCOTUS because of a lack of standing?

  33. John Brumble

    The dinner vote is a reasonable parallel, but with only two children, it’s a bit limited.

    What would be closer to the truth would be a situation where three families are out together and decide to get a take-away meal. In that case, the parents decide to allow the children to choose:
    Family 1
    Child 1: Taco Bell
    Child 2: Taco Bell
    Child 3: McDonalds

    Family 2
    Child 1: Taco Bell
    Child 2: Taco Bell
    Child 3: McDonalds, McDonalds, McDonalds

    Family 3
    Child 1: Taco Bell
    Child 2: McDonalds
    Child 3: McDonalds

  34. candy

    Texas had no standing

    It’s quite simple, Felix. If USA gets a President elected by fraud, then it affects Texas and is an injury because they assumed they would get a legally elected President (either Dem or Repub). They did not envisage a fraudulently elected one.

    Simply legally elected. So anyone in USA who thought they would get a legally elected President has this thing called “standing”, in my opinion.

  35. Dot

    Daily llama
    #3688745, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:42 pm

    What am I wrong about, Dot? I’m just asking for the evidence.

    I gave you an explanation in the next sentence. Please re-read it. I didn’t give you evidence. I gave you a better solution set.

  36. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    You misunderstand what standing us about.

    From the constitution’s perspective, the states pick their electors. How they do so is broadly up to them. And has nothing to do with Texas. Even if there was fraud. Same reason Texas can’t quibble with those states that award proportional electors based on the popular vote, rather than winner take all.

  37. dover_beach

    Hang on, so Texas would not be injured if California sold its votes in Presidential elections on the world market?

  38. Daily llama

    Dot- you mean leave it to the House? It’s a Democrat majority

  39. Dot

    Even if there was fraud.

    That’s not actually true.

    The court wants to kick the can down the road to the state legislatures.

  40. Dot

    Daily llama
    #3688797, posted on December 13, 2020 at 5:47 pm

    Dot- you mean leave it to the House? It’s a Democrat majority

    No. Contingent voting doesn’t work like that.

    and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice

  41. candy

    Felix
    I interpret standing to mean having a right to complain about something because you were caused harm.
    A stake in the issue.

    Maybe the judiciary have a different version.

  42. EllenG

    Kates: scotus made no such decision. Like Australia, the US is a federation with considerable authority vested in the states. The court ruling was as every lawyer expected- including trumps own, judging by his remarks ahead of the result.

  43. miltonf

    Mr Kates to you. Why don’t you learn some manners?

  44. miltonf

    A steal is a steal and no amount of sophistry or pearl clutching will change that fact.

  45. dover_beach

    Who was Trump’s lawyer in this case?

  46. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Hang on, so Texas would not be injured if California sold its votes in Presidential elections on the world market?

    If California did that contrary to their own state laws, Texas could try for the state courts. But it’s not a constitutional issue.

  47. Daily llama

    Except when there isn’t

  48. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    Maybe the judiciary have a different version.

    They do. Theirs has to balance the rights of those who claim to be wronged, with those forced to defend themselves (at great cost). Standing is the concept that has evolved over a long period of time to balance those competing interests.

    Same reason you or I can’t go to a Texas court and seek to overturn their election result, because we had a bet going on it (for example)

  49. Dot

    If California did that contrary to their own state laws, Texas could try for the state courts. But it’s not a constitutional issue.

    No. You are wrong other than it isn’t strictly a constitutional case; Amendment XIV says otherwise. On what basis did you think the steaming load of bull you just wrote was correct. It is a dispute between the states.

    US Constitution. The Judicial Power.

    Article 3, Section 2

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

  50. candy

    Theirs has to balance the rights of those who claim to be wronged,

    I am not sure who is defending themselves here. Because the Court has knocked the case out. So where’s the defence thing happening?
    But those who claim to be wronged claim so because they expected their President to be legally elected, either Dem or Repub. They are not going to challenge through Court if they think Biden was legally elected, just for a lark.

    They do it because they did not expect an illegally elected President to reign over them so to speak.

  51. Daily llama

    In my eternal wanderings around the net trying to get to the bottom of things, there was an article which explained the pointlessness of the Texas case. It used as an e.g. gun laws. Say, for instance, I was a Texan, who lived where open carry of a firearm was legal. I go on holidays in California. I can’t carry my weapon there. I cannot say I’m allowed to carry my gun coz ah’s a Texan. Texan law has no jurisdiction in California.
    It’s the same with elections. One state (or even 27 of them) cannot infringe upon the voting rights of citizens of another.

  52. Dot

    Llama

    This is controversy between states.

  53. dover_beach

    What dot said. BTW, how would Texas have standing in a CA state court?

  54. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Not every dispute between states gives rise to standing.

  55. Scott Osmond

    If nothing changes the USA will become a post democratic civilisation at noon on the 20th of January. At that point the constitution and binding oaths of compliance will be dissolved. The only question is how rough things will get. It may not start on that date but sooner or later the gods of the copybook headings will return for their due.

  56. Daily llama

    They don’t, Dover. That’s the point. Each state has its own voting

  57. dover_beach

    I cannot say I’m allowed to carry my gun coz ah’s a Texan. Texan law has no jurisdiction in California.

    TX never argued that PA acted contrary to TX law. It argued that PA, etc, violated the Electors clause and that this injured TX voters in a federal election. I think it was at least an argument worth hearing and deciding on the merits.

  58. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    Because the Court has knocked the case out.

    Yes, to protect those 4 states from Texas’s meddling. Or another state running the same case next week.

    But those who claim to be wronged claim so because they expected their President to be legally elected, either Dem or Repub. They are not going to challenge through Court if they think Biden was legally elected, just for a lark.

    Their claim is bogus. At law.

  59. dover_beach

    They don’t, Dover. That’s the point. Each state has its own voting

    Let Felix know. He suggested otherwise.

  60. Dot

    Not every dispute between states gives rise to standing.

    So the electoral college isn’t important enough for standing. Good lord.

    At law.

    You idiot. AT LAW. IN EQUITY.

  61. chrism

    I missed daily llama’s analysis of Matt Braynard’s research
    MB seems to have outlined multiple lines of fraud that would be determinative
    if generalised to the election result

    so where is the analysis flawed Di ll ?

  62. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    So the electoral college isn’t important enough for standing. Good lord.

    Of course not. States get their electoral college votes. They don’t get to litigate about how other states use theirs.

    Think for a minute about why, and it will become obvious. Would Texas want California going to SCOTUS over how the minority vote was suppressed in Texas? Or about gerrymandering?

    You idiot. AT LAW. IN EQUITY.

    I put that in for the Pell fanatics – sorry.

  63. Steve trickler

    😎

    The massive table with all evidence on it, still remains.

    The ride continues….



  64. Dot

    Of course not. States get their electoral college votes. They don’t get to litigate about how other states use theirs.

    You’re making this up as you go along. The analogy about gun laws is invalid. Having a CCW license in Texas is about Texas. The electoral college is a Federal institution.

  65. John Smith101

    This might help put things into focus: Leigh Dundas On The Effect Of A 2018 Trump Executive Order On The 2020 Presidential Election. Definitely worth 10 minutes of your time.

  66. miltonf

    In the light of information to hand regard the recent US election, it’s interesting to speculate on the possibility of cheating in the election and re election of Justine Castro. The Tides foundation was heavily involved apparently.

  67. chrism

    In terms of the Lone Star
    they have a number of options : suck it up, re-litigate at a state level (!), secede, invade
    Texas has a preserved right to secede if they don’t like what the other states are doing, as it happens

    organisationally they could provide a base for those who really don’t like where the democrazy process has led GA, PA, WI, MI and I see Elon has already left CA

    I am not sure SCOTUS was happy, but has observed black letter law it would seem,

    DJT if anything, is a surpriser and an expert of the art of the deal … this has been the best part of 2020 .. I’m guessing there is dirt on Bidet, I’m wondering if we will see it

  68. Andre S

    Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett where Trumps picks. Their collective decision against, was a result of this historically perceived relationship, future temporal perceptions and weighed up against the integrity of future rulings they may influence. It is like their protecting their “now” perceived integrity and adding value to any future decisions they make, at the expense of Trump. It is about Trump, but too negatively influence his perceived significance in this event for the above reasons. The Supreme court was never the answer as the moment he picked Barrett accusations where flying right left and centre that she could play a major role in the election. I don’t think she perceives that as her major purpose – neither do the other two. The supreme court cannot not have any perceived integrity in this matter it will only add to the fire. Lets hope they haven’t thrown out the baby with the bath water!

  69. Have faith arse hopper …. the Orange man will soon have your salty tears flowing again !

  70. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    You’re making this up as you go along. The analogy about gun laws is invalid. Having a CCW license in Texas is about Texas. The electoral college is a Federal institution.

    I didn’t mention a gun analogy?

    The EC is a federal institution which grants states specific rights. Other states don’t get to interfere with those rights.

  71. Dot

    The EC is a federal institution which grants states specific rights. Other states don’t get to interfere with those rights.

    Please state where the US constitution says that the states can’t sue each other over fraud or unequal protection. Or state the basis of authority the case was denied standing.

  72. Dot

    You idiot. AT LAW. IN EQUITY.

    I put that in for the Pell fanatics – sorry.

    At law it isn’t proven that you’re not a child molester, Felix.

  73. Albatross

    Felix. US Constitutional Jurist. Chief Conveyancer (regional). Not proven innocent of fornication with a cat.

  74. Daily llama

    Chris, I did check out Braynard. Just one more on the gravy train. Made a pile of money from ‘donations‘.
    The Georgia House held an “elections investigative hearing”, called for and run by Republicans. He got torn to shreds, no credibility whatsoever.
    Just another fraud, except this time it’s evidence based.

  75. miltonf

    Cruella’s pompous use of ‘at law’ reminds me of Mick Trumble when he said that the laws of Australia were more important than the laws of mathematics.

  76. Dot

    Llama

    Are you going to tell us now the water pipe really burst and the MI dead voters were all debunked because CNN disproved ONE case out of tens of thousands?

  77. dover_beach

    FelixK and EllenG are missing TX’s point. They argued PA et al violated the Electors clause. They didn’t deny the right of state legislatures re voting, but only that non-legislative actors (executive, and judicial) contravened state law in the conduct of their own elections and thereby contravened the Electors clause.

  78. Tel

    Alex scumbag Jones at Infowars declared the Sandy Hook school massacre a hoax

    Have you got a link for that? Sounds like BS to me.

  79. Dot

    Jones walked that back. He admits he was wrong.

    He’s paranoid and off his bonce, but he’s right about a lot of other things.

    How many normies know what ECHELON, CARNIVORE or PRISM are?

    Or how many bogus FISA warrants have been issued?

    Or Hacking Tools?

    Let alone that Jones was actually right about atrazine “turning the frogs gay” or stuff like the new Federal law enforcement bill Dutton wants here, which practically legalises evidence tampering. That was even in the Guardian.

  80. dover_beach

    The Georgia House held an “elections investigative hearing”, called for and run by Republicans. He got torn to shreds, no credibility whatsoever.
    Just another fraud, except this time it’s evidence based.

    Link please or it never happened.

    Chris, I did check out Braynard. Just one more on the gravy train. Made a pile of money from ‘donations‘.

    He isn’t keep a cent of that money. He’s already identified a 503c for the remaining funds once he’s paid everyone involved.

  81. mh

    The NTD version will be a better production, but here is Jones slamming the satanic globalist ped ophiles.

  82. Daily llama

    Tel, he only ‘walked that back’ as quoted by Dot, when he got sued.
    The man is a black hearted slug.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-lawsuit-alex-jones-idUSKBN1YZ1BB

  83. chrism

    Braynard’s ‘shredding’ is here, for those interested

    https://www.11alive.com/video/news/politics/elections/georgia-state-reps-question-matt-braynard/85-c131f518-0248-4554-963d-3805598196a6

    It seems that those who believe that GA (state) are the good guys, will swallow, ‘nothing to see here’
    Braynard responds sensibly to the concerns raised,
    ‘no credibility whatsoever‘ is a substantial overreach, imho,
    skeptics will see that there remain legitimate concerns

    cui bono doesn’t just potentially implicate Braynard, it also points toward the accused election stuffers

  84. incoherent rambler

    Not proven innocent of fornication with a cat.

    And a goat.
    Don’t forget the goat!

  85. candy

    Their claim is bogus. At law.

    I don’t think the SCOTUS folk said the case was bogus, Felix. I think I would have read that somewhere if they had? They found it too hard to decide on so moved it “down the road” to the state legislatures.
    Personally I think it was because of fear of great civil strife from Antifa and Democrat aligned thug groups
    and they want someone else to be responsible for unleashing that. Just not them.

    Possibly the 3 conservative judges were staking their claim for the future to make their lives easier and have the Democrats more fond of them, but that seems awfully petty and not seemly.

  86. Exit Stage Right

    Jeriatric Joe and Heels Up KNOW they did not win.
    They know that the scale of cheating was outlandish.
    No real celebration from any of the Democrats regarding this historic “win”.
    No effort by the Democrats to assist in clarifying allegations of voter fraud. In fact, just the opposite. Very suspicious!
    Heels up has not resigned her Senate position, so their is doubt in her mind, despite 80 million + votes for her sidekick, a Guinness Book of Records amazing amount of votes. The incumbent POTUS also broke records in every category. Boy, what an historic election.
    Total lack of enthusiasm by Hiden Biden to take on the the POTUS role. He he is not up to it! Doing it for Jill.
    I get the sense that a lot of Democrats are wondering whether the election was above board. Dyed in the wool Blue Team, but they know that none of this passes the Pub Test.
    The Electoral system in the US, such as it is, is a shambles. So many avenues to cheat for unscrupulous people, and the Democrats have shown that they are unworthy of Government.
    The Judicial system in the US is hopelessly compromised and politicised.
    We are all on the brink.
    Does the Orange Man have a kill shot left in the locker?

  87. stackja

    Trump has not really begun the fight.

  88. chrism

    well perhaps Joe’s friends and family will get cameos ….

    BREAKING NEWS
    Major leak ‘exposes’ members and ‘lifts the lid’ on the Chinese Communist Party.
    A major leak containing a register with the details of nearly two million CCP members has occurred – exposing members who are now working all over the world, while also lifting the lid on how the party operates under Xi Jinping, says Sharri Markson. Ms Markson said the leak is a register with the details of Communist Party members, including their names, party position, birthday, national ID number and ethnicity. “It is believed to be the first leak of its kind in the world,” the Sky News host said. “What’s amazing about this database is not just that it exposes people who are members of the communist party, and who are now living and working all over the world, from Australia to the US to the UK,” Ms Markson said. “But it’s amazing because it lifts the lid on how the party operates under President and Chairman Xi Jinping”. Ms Markson said the leak demonstrates party branches are embedded in some of the world’s biggest companies and even inside government agencies.
    https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6215946537001

  89. Cassie of Sydney

    “The man is a black hearted slug.”

    Daily Blimp really needs to stop writing about himself.

  90. Figures

    I’m just stunned that Felix thinks he has the right to comment on legal issues after Pell.

  91. stackja

    ESR Trump voters have not really got interested in any action. Once EC votes, then if Joe gets vote. Then 2022 Congress and 2024 President campaigns start. Dems may have only won the first round.

  92. WX

    As I suggested recently: the role of the berserker (President Trump) is to hold off the enemy until the remainder of the troops can regroup. What happens if the berserker is fighting for his life & his mates are leaning against a wall in the background admiring their nails & occasionally mewing ‘You go, girlfriend!’ The answer is Feck All. The berserker dies hard, the bridge is crossed by the salivating horde, and the pissweak – closely followed by the young and old – are slaughtered. Where was the counter-attack, the alternate plans?

  93. stackja

    CCP members like Stalinists of the past.

  94. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Old School Conservative at 3:36 pm:

    “Anyone thinking that 4 years of a Democrat President can be overturned at the next election is a misguided fool. The extent of this years’ fraud will be normalised, legalised, and become acceptable during the Biden/Harris/Pelosi presidency.
    More pro-leftist cheating will be invented to ensure another Democrat win. And then another. And so on.”

    You are quite right Old School Conservative – it’s all over and the powerful forces that crafted it will ensure they remain in the pre-eminent position. Internal insurrection? Black Olives Matter was a test run and it proved that simply will not happen. America sat mute while important symbols of its heritage were destroyed.

    We grew up being told to mistrust the Russians and to believe this lot are different, better. They surely are not.

    The Washington mob – the Supreme Court above all – lovely new girly mom judges ‘n all, the FBI, Justice, the CIA, the Pentagon all run their own little fiefdoms to suit themselves and be damned to ordinary Americans. The Democrats are a disease funded by evil old grubs, the Republicans have evolved to become the most disloyal impostors – they have spent the past four years as Brutus to Caesar.

    America did not deserve the exceptional Donald Trump – I trust he lives a long and happy life somewhere well away from these drongos.

    Lord knows where it will end up with the degenerate village idiot winning the presidency – the Chinese have aspirations beyond their ability, intelligence and cohesiveness and will cock it up handsomely however a lot of dumb Americans will lose their lives in the process, while their puppet masters make a big quid en route.

  95. miltonf

    I’m just stunned that Felix thinks he has the right to comment on legal issues after Pell.

    Such as the smugness and sense of entitlement that these people have.

  96. yarpos

    “The Patriots have the guns and know how to use them. Pity Australia is so gutless.”

    The Patriots talk a lot and then roll over just like Australians. Its one thing owning a gun and quite another to put yourself in harms way for a cause. Apart from the odd nutbag I doubt anything much will happen.

  97. stackja

    Alternative plan? Why tell now?
    Trump has a reputation for fighting.
    Dems MSM could be in for a surprise.

  98. Jim of Wollombi

    Two conclusions are obvious to this commentator:

    1. The Democrat vote counting fraud was real and was widespread in key swing states.

    2. Trump’s lawyers failed to provide him with the court documentation he needed to prove his view that the election was rigged. This is a criticism of Trump’s attack team (particularly Giuliani). The legal attack seems to have been too broad. It should have concentrated on a small number of key swing states.

    But the final outcome is not all bad. Biden will be an appallingly bad President and his VP will be a non event. So the voters of the US will have elected the leaders they deserve. Since the political leaders have so little influence on real decision making the US will limp along until 2014 when Trump will have another opportunity for two full terms.

  99. stackja

    USA has faced crises in the past.
    I am waiting for the next move.
    Dems MSM control most of what is reported. Hunter story for example.

  100. Chris M

    Not sure what the Supreme Court could have done in the end result. They couldn’t have disenfranchised millions of voters on technicalities

    No, it has to be adjudicated exactly as the courts would apply a law to any of us individuals. For example the fact someone may go broke and lose their family by being incarcerated has no bearing on a sentence which is set for the crime.

    The issue is the rule of law. If it is not applied equally it doesn’t exist.

    As with Viktorxia government enforcers are not impartial and consequently have lost the respect of the people. It only works still there because the locals are generally docile and compliant and will pay.

  101. Daily llama

    Dot- about the burst pipe- another baseless fantasy.
    And I don’t have cable so no fox, no cnn for me

    https://www.the-sun.com/news/1786258/texts-georgia-burst-pipe-election/

  102. Chris M

    until 2014 when Trump will have another opportunity for two full terms.

    Wow, what does this mean Jim? Trump will join the Democrats??? If millions of votes can be inserted the two party system is over.

  103. Tel

    Daily llama #3688908,

    That’s not an actual link to what Jones said though, is it?

    In Texas, Travis County District Court Judge Scott Jenkins on Dec. 20 ordered Jones and Infowars to pay more than $100,000 in a case brought by Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was killed at the school. The Daily Beast first reported the rulings on Monday.

    The judge’s filings ordered Jones to pay more than $100,000 for failing to provide discovery, or evidence owed to the opposing side, and for filing a frivolous request to dismiss the case. In October, the same judge ordered Jones to pay another $25,875 for failing to respond to a previous discovery order.

    Jones refused to go along with the discovery so he lost the case. Probably a silly thing to do, but there you go … they didn’t look at the evidence, he lost on procedural matters.

    But I’m interested in his actual claim in the first place.

  104. Jannie

    Democracy, a pleasant but improbable notion, is dead. By the smell of the corpse its been dead for a while already.

  105. Cassie of Sydney

    “Chris M
    #3688980, posted on December 13, 2020 at 8:03 pm
    until 2014 when Trump will have another opportunity for two full terms.

    Wow, what does this mean Jim? Trump will join the Democrats??? If millions of votes can be inserted the two party system is over.”

    That’s what I think. The Democrats, aided by the MSM and Big Tech will just repeat the process every four years. Trump may well be the last Republican president.

  106. Whoever runs this blog is slow out of the blocks by over 30 days.

    I was watching the count live on election night and it was clear before I went to bed that the fix was in.

    Bannon and his numbers man called it live.

    Catallayfiles has been asleep on the job. If you want some detail try joannenova.com.au

  107. Albatross

    Daily llama
    #3688979, posted on December 13, 2020 at 8:01 pm
    Dot- about the burst pipe- another baseless fantasy.
    And I don’t have cable so no fox, no cnn for me

    https://www.the-sun.com/news/1786258/texts-georgia-burst-pipe-election/

    The article says the direct opposite of what you are contending. Jesus Christ, you’re a retard.

  108. Albatross

    Bones
    #3688993, posted on December 13, 2020 at 8:11 pm
    Whoever runs this blog is slow out of the blocks by over 30 days.

    Piss off we were on this in real-time. Lurk more.

  109. Dot

    Daily llama
    #3688979, posted on December 13, 2020 at 8:01 pm
    Dot- about the burst pipe- another baseless fantasy.

    You are wrong and I demand an apology.

    The Dems faked it. They’re as crooked as Sam Giacana.

  110. Boxcar

    To start with, I doubt the Supreme Court’s decision was political, more likely establishing their constitutional credentials.
    My own poor understanding of this case was that while Trump entered the fray as the “injured” party,
    the Supreme Court was indicating voters were the legitimate injured party, and that may be worth litigating.

    Next, the world is full of nothings every one emboldened by a little power graced upon them by regulations or faceless cowards.

    NSW politics, and to a lesser extent, Victoria, are full nothings who don’t know the difference between control and leadership. and on both sides of politics, the nothings play a never ending cheating games among themselves, without ever having to take on the real world.

    Trump is different. He came into the White house a leader, and expected the staff to keep running the business, while he led the Country. He should have copied Erdogan.
    But, he pulled out his Executive order in 2018, around the same time he appointed Barr.
    A server was apparently seized in Germany, a bunch of hacks were moved on in Washington, Durham was extended vastly greater powers, and no one is talking about hundreds of thousands of votes being added in single dumps on live TV.
    There is much much more to come.

  111. Boambee John

    Exit Stage Right

    I get the sense that a lot of Democrats are wondering whether the election was above board. Dyed in the wool Blue Team, but they know that none of this passes the Pub Test.

    A Rasmussen poll found that 30% of Democrats believe that the election was stolen from Trump. Add them to the 80% of Republicans who also believe that, and the Biden/Harris administration will start with up to half of voters doubting its legitimacy.

  112. dover_beach

    The article says the direct opposite of what you are contending. Jesus Christ, you’re a retard.

    Tough but fair.

  113. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Boxcar at 8:41 pm:

    “…
    There is much much more to come.”

    Yeah, sure.

    I have been reading such bold predictions here for five weeks now. They invariably come to nothing. You are such a waste of time.

  114. Arky

    There is much much more to come.

    ..
    It’s all over red rover.
    Every generation has it’s existential test.
    This is ours.
    Something meaningful and real.
    Unlike those endless Mideast wars to keep the Saudis happy and the Suez passable.

  115. Tel

    A Rasmussen poll found that 30% of Democrats believe that the election was stolen from Trump.

    Those are the ones willing to talk about it.

  116. egg_

    there is a bigger picture
    trump is only of secondary importance
    he occupies the front line, distracting from what is really being achieved.
    namely, the exposure of the deep state,

    +1

    General Flynn was Drain the Swamp Mk.I, Trump is Mk.II.

  117. egg_

    BREAKING: Texas to send 1000 electors since the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore

    Biden finds a billion votes printed in Chi na in his sock drawer.

  118. candy

    A Rasmussen poll found that 30% of Democrats believe that the election was stolen from Trump.

    It’s a silly statistic, I think.
    I doubt they care and mostly happy to have any Democrat President – even the old perverted Biden. It’s the way a lot people roll.

  119. egg_

    Family 1
    Child 1: Llama Burgers
    Child 2: Llama Burgers
    Child 3: McDonalds

    Family 2
    Child 1: Llama Burgers
    Child 2: Llama Burgers
    Child 3: McDonalds, McDonalds, McDonalds

    Family 3
    Child 1: Llama Burgers
    Child 2: McDonalds
    Child 3: McDonalds

  120. 2dogs

    Ubique
    #3688731, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm
    The red States should secede now and leave the blue States to please themselves

    +1

  121. mh

    If Trump does somehow get back in, he should dedicate his second term to the Lord and making America Christian again. MACA.

    Then appoint Alex Jones as his spiritual advisor.

  122. Mustapha Bunn

    “The British invaded Ireland and 700 years later they were driven out”.. ffs!
    There was me thinking that Britain didn’t exist until the 1700’s.

  123. Dot

    If Trump does somehow get back in, he should dedicate his second term to the Lord and making America Christian again. MACA.

    He really doesn’t have a mandate to do that.

    A Groyper utopia isn’t compatible with the separation of church and state.

  124. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    I don’t think the SCOTUS folk said the case was bogus, Felix. I think I would have read that somewhere if they had?

    They have their own way of saying it – like dismissing a case before it’s even heard.

    This isn’t about them fearing the consequences – no constitutional lawyer not already suffering from Trump delusion thought this case had a chance in hell.

  125. Dot

    Athelstan was recognised as Bretwelda of all Britons not long after he united the English.

    Some time roughly around 900 AD.

  126. Dot

    This isn’t about them fearing the consequences – no constitutional lawyer not already suffering from Trump delusion thought this case had a chance in hell.

    Jesus Christ what an ambit claim.

  127. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    They didn’t deny the right of state legislatures re voting, but only that non-legislative actors (executive, and judicial) contravened state law in the conduct of their own elections and thereby contravened the Electors clause.

    And the forum for claims that a state law was broken is the state courts.

  128. Dot

    The electors clause is in the Federal constitution, genius.

  129. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Please state where the US constitution says that the states can’t sue each other over fraud or unequal protection. Or state the basis of authority the case was denied standing.

    The same place it says they can sue each other for that?

    The authority for the case being denied standing is Texas v Pennsylvania et al.

  130. Dot

    “The same place”

    You really have no idea Felix. Refusal to hear on the basis of standing does not form precedent (usually).

  131. FelixKruell

    You don’t think SCOTUS denying standing on a case is precedent for SCOTUS denying standing in that same case?

    Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

    So you’ve got every non partisan constitutional expert telling you this case was bogus. Plus all 9 members of SCOTUS, including 3 appointed by Trump himself, telling you this case was bogus.

    But your own interpretation of the constitution remains the only valid one. Right.

  132. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    The electors clause is in the Federal constitution, genius.

    Yet you claim they breached state law. That’s the forum for this dispute.

  133. Dot

    No you self aggrandising idiot, “Felix”.

    Standing does not get written into precedent in the same way because a judgment is not written in the same way as refusing to hear a case based on standing.

    Jesus Christ you imbecile, did you graduate from Macquarie University Beith your joke law degree?

    Again with the ambit claims. Literally 100% of tens of thousands of lawyers in America who were non partisan were lockstep with the Democrats. Loopy stuff.

    You can have an opinion when you are literate. Which would have meant you would not have declared states cannot sue each other in the US.

    You utter dolt.

  134. Dot

    Beith –> with

    Android spell check is out of control.

  135. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Standing does not get written into precedent in the same way because a judgment is not written in the same way as refusing to hear a case based on standing.

    You’re missing the point. Have another read.

    Again with the ambit claims. Literally 100% of tens of thousands of lawyers in America who were non partisan were lockstep with the Democrats. Loopy stuff.

    I tried to find an argument to support the claim when it was first made. Couldn’t find one that wasn’t loopy. Just lots of non partisan, Democrat aligned, and republican aligned lawyers saying it was rubbish.

    But please, let me know if you found one.

    Which would have meant you would not have declared states cannot sue each other in the US.

    I literally didnt say that. What is it with you lot making stuff up? What I’ve said is in black and white above. If in doubt, scroll up.

  136. Dot

    Nothing but rhetoric and zero substance from perennial dickhead, Felix.

  137. Dot

    “I tried for five minutes and my biases were confirmed by giving up, now these fascists make me literally shake…”

    Yes, just brilliant.

  138. Rex Anger

    @Dot-

    From when I slapped Grigory about earlier today:

    Rhetoric is challenged with rhetoric, Flatus. You don’t understand dialectic, but think it is easily ‘disproved’ or ‘debunked’ by rhetorical pedantry and emotive snark. So I don’t waste it on you.

    And you don’t like that…

    Don’t bother. Just kick the troll, and kick it harder when it complains or lies about you.

    Don’t waste your dialectic on it.

  139. Dot

    Kates is wrong.

    We’re already tracked, most likely voluntarily (app permissions and third party, private sector contracts with FB/Google etc) but behold programmes like ECHELON, CARNIVORE & PRISM.

  140. Oh come on

    It is absurd that SCOTUS refused to hear this case. Clearly, Texas and the other states had standing. The decisions was simply an indication that the court would not be getting involved under any circumstance.

    It is a useless institution. Let the left pack it with hundreds of justices – hell, let’s help them. Do a deal whereby they get some picks and so do we. They want to legislate from the bench? Our aim should be to make the court process as absurdly unwieldy and slow as possible. The whole thing should be stripped of its rarefied stature. All of the prestige needs to go. If the left wants to make SCOTUS work for them, we should be aiming to make it work for no one. Let it stagger on awhile like that. Wait for the overtures to reform it.

  141. Rorschach

    They have their own way of saying it – like dismissing a case before it’s even heard.

    This isn’t about them fearing the consequences – no constitutional lawyer not already suffering from Trump delusion thought this case had a chance in hell.

    Oh FFS. Absolute CRAP. Made up shite. And as usual without a link to any supporting opinion.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that late receipt of ballots (due to COVID) was allowed. When brought to the SCOTUS the ruling there was 4-4 BEFORE the election. This argument was the CORE of the Kelly v Pennsylvania filing where the emergency injunction request (to prevent certification) was denied (not that the argument didn’t have merit) and the Texas claim again denied because Texas didn’t have standing (again no ruling on the merits of why the injunction was sought).

    And not only in Pennsylvania

    https://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/trump-justice-gorsuch-tries-to-block-counting-of-north-carolina-absentee-ballots-received-more-than-three-days-after-election-day-and-threatens-post-election-disqualification-in-pennsylvania-confirme/

    You can google the SCOTUS rulings / opinions – and tell me that they are wrong. It is only that ACB was forced to recuse on this decision and Lolita Express Frequent Flyer Roberts went liberal that we didn’t have a ruling On The Merits of the case already.

    Nobody should pay the slightest attention to whatever you say. As you leftards would say – It’s all baseless and debunked. Everything!

  142. Crossie

    Peter Smith
    #3688721, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:12 pm
    Not sure what the Supreme Court could have done in the end result. They couldn’t have disenfranchised millions of voters on technicalities, particularly in the force majeure circumstances of a so-called ‘public-health-crisis’. And, surely, it is not up to the SC to determine whether massive fraud has occurred. That is a matter for the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate in the first instance, or the various state law enforcement authorities. Barr and Wray were no help. And, so far as I know, no-one (certainly of note) has been arrested at a state level. By the way, being a cockeyed optimist, I am still hoping for a miracle.

    You say that the Supreme Court did not want to intervene and disenfranchise millions of voters but that is exactly what they have done. Trump’s 75 million voters were just told that they are not as important as Democrat cheaters. How is that not inflaming things?

    AG Barr came out at last and uncloaked as The Swamp guardian so there will be no miracle.

  143. Crossie

    min
    #3688724, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:14 pm
    Don’t give up yet Steve , Trump still has the EO he can use 45 days after election . He has brought back the army I am thinking to quell civil unrest . There has been plenty of evidence to support what the EO covers , plus the number of those in both parties who think fraud was used in the election .
    When did Washington Ross the Delaware ?

    No, not going to happen. Trump is not Pinochet.

  144. Crossie

    Andreas
    #3688726, posted on December 13, 2020 at 4:14 pm
    Next election Texas can herd all it’s Democrat scrutineers into a broom closet and lock the door, then fire up the ballot printers and no other states can challenge it, no injury is done to them! Good work SCOTUS, you made yourself a complete joke.

    Exactly. Since states can do as they wish then it’s open slather.

    The Supreme Court is now just a building with Greek columns on Capitol Hill, there is nobody inside who matters any more.

  145. rickw

    This was a pivotal moment in history, the Supreme Court took a pass.

    The members will live on in infamy as failing to do what was right and courageous.

  146. Miltonf

    Agree Rick. Supreme Court failed miserably.

  147. bollux

    There is no point to any further voting in America if this result stands. None. There will never be another Trump allowed to run, instead you will get another milquetoast like Romney, pretending to be conservative.

  148. FelixKruell

    Rorshach:

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that late receipt of ballots (due to COVID) was allowed. When brought to the SCOTUS the ruling there was 4-4 BEFORE the election. This argument was the CORE of the Kelly v Pennsylvania filing where the emergency injunction request (to prevent certification) was denied (not that the argument didn’t have merit) and the Texas claim again denied because Texas didn’t have standing (again no ruling on the merits of why the injunction was sought).

    SCOTUS was asked to consider two very different claims, even though they both ultimately related to the same change in the rules that the PSC considered.

    And SCOTUS very much dismissed the Texas case by in effect calling the claim bogus – they could have easily allowed further submissions or even hearings in relation to the standing issue. They didn’t.

  149. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Nothing but rhetoric and zero substance from perennial dickhead, Felix.

    I see you couldn’t find a vaguely non partisan constitutional expert to support the Texas claim either?

  150. Dot

    Your claim is such an ambit claim subject to confirmation bias as goalpost shifting it is absurd and unfalsifiable.

    You may as well just say “visit Felix is right for com” as a proof.

    It’s just nonsense, gaslighting and bullshit.

  151. Rorschach

    And SCOTUS very much dismissed the Texas case by in effect calling the claim bogus.

    No -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. It was dismiss on the basis of Texas having a legal right to challenge.

    For those others interested. Here is the October Pennsylvania SC ruling:

    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/j-113-2020mo%20-%20104584871117842321.pdf

    Here is the SCOTUS Opinion relating:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

    Note that in the above there was an expectation that:

    7. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s request for that relief, we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate ballots received between 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020. Nothing in the Court’s order today precludes Petitioner from applying to this Court for relief if, for some reason, it is not satisfied with the Secretary’s guidance.

    The Pennsylvania election commission did not abide by this. And intermingled the votes. Even those that came in after Alito reinforced the above:

    Order issued by Justice Alito: All county boards of election are hereby ordered, pending further order of the Court, to comply with the following guidance provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth on October 28 and November 1, namely, (1) that all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated and kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots,” and (2) that all such ballots,

    The Texas claim had THREE main streams:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

    Defendant States violated the Electors Clause by modifying their legislatures’ election laws through non-legislative action. [This combined not only the three day extension for receipt of ballots, but also the relaxation of signature verification (i.e. none) in some of the other states … if a state court enjoins ballot integrity measures adopted to secure absentee or mail-in voting, that invalidates ballots cast under the relaxed standard unless the State legislature has had time to ratify the new procedure.]

    State and local administrator’s systemic failure to follow State election qualifies as an unlawful amendment of State law. [the non-legislative actors lack the authority under the federal Constitution to enact a bona fide amendment, regardless of whatever COVID-related emergency power they may have.]

    Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election violated the Fourteenth Amendment. [This was the equal protection law where rules governing the sending, receipt, validity, and counting of ballots were modified in a manner that varied from county to county]

  152. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Your claim is such an ambit claim subject to confirmation bias as goalpost shifting it is absurd and unfalsifiable.

    Yet an easy claim to counter – find an expert who said it was a viable case, and explained why. Even finding a Trump shill who did that was hard.

  153. FelixKruell

    Rorsach:

    No -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. It was dismiss on the basis of Texas having a legal right to challenge.

    Yet even the two dissents on this point were at pains to show they didn’t support the injunction sought. Not sure how much more clearly they could call this claim bogus?

  154. Rorschach

    Yet even the two dissents on this point were at pains to show they didn’t support the injunction sought.

    No -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. It was dismissed on the basis of Texas not having a legal right to challenge. Full stop.

    Here is a filing from the South Carolina Supreme court challenged in the SCOTUS. The lower court ruled that:

    Other challenges were rejected by the district court. That court refused to extend the 7:00 P.M. Election Day deadline by which absentee ballots must be received to be counted. S.C. Code Ann. §7-15-420(B); see App. 37-38. That court likewise denied Respondents’ motion to enjoin the prohibition on candidates and their campaigns collecting and returning absentee ballots. S.C. Code Ann. §7-15-385; see
    App. 66-69.

    One challenge did prevail below: the claim that the witness requirement unduly burdens the right to vote. The witness requirement is the only subject of this application.

    So the lower court ruled that late ballots were illegal and that ballot harvesting was illegal. They only relaxed the witness signature requirement (COVID etc).

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A55/156447/20201001105654006_SC%20Stay%20App.pdf

    The decision rested on [from Kavanaugh supporting opinion]:

    Second, for many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). By enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court’s precedents.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a55_dc8e.pdf

    So -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. Plenty of support for the Texas arguments. That the emergency injunction was not granted does not mean it wouldn’t if it was heard.

  155. FelixKruell

    Rorschach:

    It was dismissed on the basis of Texas not having a legal right to challenge. Full stop.

    And the dissents?

  156. FelixKruell

    So -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. Plenty of support for the Texas arguments. That the emergency injunction was not granted does not mean it wouldn’t if it was heard.

    Oh and none of your quote showed any support for the Texas arguments?

  157. SIMON NICHOLAS MORGAN

    We desperately need an Autonomous Zone for all people that want freedom and democracy – not in the twisted, ugly and intolerant way the Democrats and new left understand it, but in the traditional sense where MLK and Voltaire reign supreme.

  158. Kneel

    “Texan law has no jurisdiction in California.”

    True enough.
    However your example is more aligned with this particular case than you might think – there is also the federal constitution involved. For your case, Texas could bring a “class action” on behalf of its citizens that CA was breaching the constitutional right to bear arms. (no idea how that might turn out, but you see the point, I hope)

    And so it is with the voting issue – the federal constitution says that the state legislatures can run elections “as they direct” (or whatever the language is), Texas’ argument was that by breaking their own constitution (eg, PA’s “Act 77” appears on it’s face to be in breach of PA’s constitution, as per PA district court judge; MI and WI appear to have acted against state law and state constitution as well, etc) and/or state laws, they are in breach of the federal constitution, as the selection of electors was not done “as directed by the state legislature”, but instead as directed by certain officials in direct violation of state law/state constitution.

    So the argument is that the election was NOT run as ‘directed’ by the state legislature, but rather by edict from either the state courts or Sec State or other, non-state legislature people/organisations. That, if true, is in breach of the federal constitution (or at least, such is the argument).

    In both the gun and voting issues above, this is one state arguing that another has broken the federal constitution, and in so doing has disenfranchised its (the suing states) citizenry. State courts cannot adjudicate on federal matters. One state suing another over a federal matter has SCOTUS as the court of first filing.

    As to the outcome, SCOTUS could have tried the case and had they found that the defendants have indeed breached the constitution, that it is up to the state legislatures to “fix” it in whatever way they deem appropriate – thus not actually disenfranchising anyone, as the state could still elect their EC electors (or not) as they choose. They (defendant states) could even say “We recognise that state law has been broken in the running of the election, but have decided to honour those results in any case”, which would satisfy the federal constitutional requirements. It might seem strange to force them to do this, but only by making such a statement can the original results stand and be (federal) constitutional. Oddly, should they NOT make such a statement, they would remain in breach of the federal constitution (or so it seems). So they need to make such a statement, as ridiculous as that may be, or otherwise legally direct the selection of EC electors.

    PA is interesting in this regard, as the governor has disallowed the legislature to convene (as state constitution/law allows him to do), so in fact the governor by that act is forcing a breach of the federal constitution (or so it seems).

    Yes, it’s all wheels within wheels so to say. Regardless, everyone needs to follow the rules, even if they don’t make sense, or risk disenfrachising their own citizenry – it is not the fault of the complainant nor the court if it should be the case that the defendant has broken the law, that falls squarely on the defendant (as it always does).

  159. Rex Anger

    Yet an easy claim to counter – find an expert who said it was a viable case, and explained why. Even finding a Trump shill who did that was hard.

    So counter it, Grigory.

    You proclaim you are so much wiser and legally ‘on it’ than the rest of us.

    We clearly don’t seem to get it, so prove your claim.

    Any failure, refusal to do so or counter-snark merely demonstrates that Dot, and every other poster on the Cat who has called you out on your leftist bullshit, is absolutely right to do so.

    C’mon snake, the BBQ is hot.

    Dance!

  160. Rorschach

    Oh and none of your quote showed any support for the Texas arguments?

    Read the full judgement, the supporting amici arguments and come back …. But I repeat:

    Second, for many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). By enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court’s precedents.

    The judges denied absolutely the petition to waive the witness signature – Kavanaugh did not join – but supported – on the basis “in the period close to an election”. Every precedent for over a 100 years [see various precedents supporting] have ruled that federal and state courts should not alter state election rules.

    So -you’re totally wrong. Debunked, baseless and debased. And illiterate.

  161. Rorschach

    SCOTUS could have tried the case and had they found that the defendants have indeed breached the constitution, that it is up to the state legislatures to “fix” it in whatever way they deem appropriate – thus not actually disenfranchising anyone, as the state could still elect their EC electors (or not) as they choose.

    That was the expected outcome … For example (other than North Carolina) SCOTUS voted 5-3 (this time including Roberts – but not ACB) against Democrats who were pushing to extend the deadline for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin by six days, to Nov. 9.

    The top court’s order followed a ruling from District Court Judge William Conley last month extending the state’s absentee ballot counting deadline in response to a suit from the Democratic National Committee and its allies. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Conley’s ruling earlier in October. The Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court ruling, but the justices declined to do so.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/26/supreme-court-rejects-push-for-wisconsin-ballot-deadline-extension.html

    So – it is clear the current SCOTUS (even without ACB) believes counting late mail in votes (where expressly not allowed by the state electoral laws) should be illegal. And I would suggest still is if someone gets standing before the court to make the case.

  162. Kneel

    “And I would suggest still is if someone gets standing before the court to make the case.”

    I would agree.

    It’s also apropos to point out that asking a state to run it’s election legally is not the same as asking it to change what constitutes legal in that state – the former should not even need to be done, the latter is a matter for the individual states, as per the federal constitution.

    Should a state NOT run it’s federal elections according to their own laws and in breach of it’s federal constitution obligations, then in my view any other state should have the right to demand that all states follow the federal constitution and it seems to me that, as a dispute between states, this should be heard by SCOTUS. In my view, dismissing such cases on “no standing” is legally incorrect and morally reprehensible.

  163. Rorschach

    In my view, dismissing such cases on “no standing” is legally incorrect and morally reprehensible.

    If nothing else comes up – then yes. I said on the other thread:

    I am thinking that the Justices know that they HAVE to make a ruling here – one way or another… and that it will be a precedent for all time. Maybe they are waiting (and know that is coming) for a case that will allow them to make a definite, unchallengeable ruling.

    Otherwise they just kicked the decision to post Georgia Senate special election … and then they will have a real Constitutional crisis if they have to rule that late mail-in votes are illegal / unconstitutional [as they must] and thus tacitly acknowledging that Cho Bid-Yen is illegally / unconstitutionally elected.

  164. Louis

    My money is on the Dems clumsily stealing the run offs too. They worked too hard to get the presidency, not to have the Senate as well.

    Biden won’t even do a year as President. The Hunter Biden investigations and Durham investigations will fade away, with no prosecutions.

    The thing to watch in the coming years will be how many more countries move to adopt Dominian, Smartmatic etc.

    The supreme court are a bunch of idiots, because President Biden/Harris will still pack the court anyway.

  165. Ed Case

    Biden/Harris has to get 51 Senators to okay any new appointment.
    Even if they win both Georgia runoffs, that’s still not 51.

  166. Ed Case

    Read elsewhere that of the 7/2 decision, Kavanaugh, Robertys and the 3 Liberal Justices left the conference room beaming, Thomas and Alito weren’t happy, Gorsuch and ACB appeared unconcerned.
    Also that the SCOTUS judges are ranked by seniority- those appointed after the CJ aren’t permitted to argue again st the CJ’s direction.

  167. The Sheriff

    That would mean only Thomas and Breyer would be able to argue against Roberts.

  168. FelixKruell

    Rorshach:

    Read the full judgement, the supporting amici arguments and come back …. But I repeat:

    Second, for many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). By enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court’s precedents.

    You haven’t explained why this supports Texas’s claim. Try again.

  169. Ed Case

    According to this report, Thomas said “This is the end of Democracy, John.” after Roberts had said they wouldn’t be hearing the Application because of the certainty of riots.
    Basically, Trump is a grifter.
    He’ll litigate as long as someone else is paying the bills, but in the end he’ll accept the Court’s decision.
    And the bottom line is that only Thomas is interested in Hearing any Application over the conduct of the Election.
    ACB has just got lifetime Tenure at the age of 47, no way she’s rocking the boat.

  170. Rorschach

    Debunked, baseless and debased. Illiterate and stupid.

  171. Albatross

    Jesus Christ you’re an irredeemable clown Felix. You should continue giving yourself uppercuts until you can no longer continue.

  172. egg_

    Also that the SCOTUS judges are ranked by seniority- those appointed after the CJ aren’t permitted to argue again st the CJ’s direction.

    Bring on AI and dump potential visitors to Epstein’s island.

  173. Albatross

    Ed, if I had to award a Nobel prize, and my choice was between you and a sack of pigshit, you’d better believe that sack of porcine excreta is getting a medal. Your continued existence gives hope to profoundly intellectually disabled people the world over.

  174. chrism

    Scotus scooting away from this conflict delays and indefinitely defers resolution for the 75 million plus that believe the result is truly illegitimate, and rubs salt into the wound, because a perceived ‘fair umpire’ has turned away from consideration of what seems to many as a reasonable request for clarification :

    despite the legal nuances the public does deserve clarity as to what the rules actually are around electoral modification by those that are not clearly considered as the legislature

    not having a day in court and a disappointing outcome for whichever side perpetuates this, as, if anything is certain, DJT is not for turning – and he and his followers are fired up to pursue justice – whatever that may mean

  175. Lee

    Jesus Christ you’re an irredeemable clown Felix. You should continue giving yourself uppercuts until you can no longer continue.

    He’s like the boxer who goes down for the count every single time, yet keeps coming back for more of the same.

  176. Ed Case

    ***Bring on AI and dump potential visitors to Epstein’s island.***
    Having one’s name on Epstein’s Flight Logs isn’t a good look, though to be fair, John Roberts is a common name.
    It mighta been John Roberts the Milkman, John Roberts the Sanitation Engineer, …

  177. Ed Case

    You say you know a lot about PigShit, Albatross?
    That’s okay, no one is disputing your expertise.

  178. Boambee John

    Ed Case
    #3689714, posted on December 14, 2020 at 4:24 pm
    Biden/Harris has to get 51 Senators to okay any new appointment.
    Even if they win both Georgia runoffs, that’s still not 51.

    And Harris’ seat will be vacant until a special election is organised. Also, didn’t Biden name another Demonrat senator to a position in has administration? The ‘Rats will be down two senators for some time, regardless of the Georgia result, and the fraud machines will have to work hard to make sure the lost seats are filled with the correct (not right) candidates.

  179. FelixKruell

    Lee:

    He’s like the boxer who goes down for the count every single time, yet keeps coming back for more of the same.

    Trumps legal challenges are at about 59 to 1 (losing). You were saying?

  180. FelixKruell

    Rorshach:

    Debunked, baseless and debased. Illiterate and stupid.

    I’ve got SCOTUS behind me. You’ve got Rex. And Ivanka. (Assuming they aren’t the same person).

  181. egg_

    Debunked, baseless and debased. Illiterate and stupid.

    Reeks of Lefty speak.

  182. JC

    Funny thing is, before the 7/0 High Court decision for Pell, the Ringshot was all plumed up like a peacock telling us all those cases Pell had lost in lower courts…. and then when the High Court comes out, the Ringshot reckoned it didn’t mean he was innocent.

  183. FelixKruell

    JC:

    the Ringshot was all plumed up like a peacock telling us all those cases Pell had lost in lower courts…. and then when the High Court comes out, the Ringshot reckoned it didn’t mean he was innocent.

    All of which is entirely factual. You seem to struggle with this.

  184. Rex Anger

    Piss off, Grigory.

    All your twisting and antagonism means nothing.

  185. Kneel

    “…DJT is not for turning – and he and his followers are fired up to pursue justice…”

    Friday is 45 days after the election.
    DNI report on election interference will be… interesting.
    Dems reaction to same might raise some eyebrows.
    MSM reaction will be as predictable as Dems reaction and just as ugly.

    “I’ve got SCOTUS behind me.”
    Ahem – no, the weren’t hearing the case. It was dismissed on very narrow grounds, without any comment on the merits of the case. Just like the lower courts, they don’t want to be involved. That’s a dangerous precedent they’ve set now – if a state can’t have standing to sue another state over a breach of the constitution, what good is this aspect of SCOTUS? They’ll never be able to take such a case now.
    Just like politicians, they’ll do anything to avoid “blame”.
    Justice is supposed to be blind, not deaf and stupid.
    Cowardly, that’s what it is – pure and simple. Cowardly.
    Respect => 0.

  186. FelixKruell

    Kneel:

    I’ve got scotus behind me in saying Texas didn’t have standing. Despite Dots insistence to the contrary.

  187. EllenG

    Evidence now plain. Much utterly cynical assertion here that effectively advocates for judicial intervention in political affairs of the fundamental kind. No conservative makes such an argument and I note that Kates and others here are people who spent their youth in communism. Nothing changes.

  188. Rorschach

    Reeks of Lefty speak.

    You gotta talks real slow and in a language the leftards understand…

  189. Rex Anger

    Evidence now plain. Much utterly cynical assertion here that effectively advocates for judicial intervention in political affairs of the fundamental kind. No conservative makes such an argument and I note that Kates and others here are people who spent their youth in communism. Nothing changes.

    Are you saying, troll, that judicial umpiring of a deadlocked political dispute, which to all intents and purposes encompasses ALL human interaction, is not what the Legal System is for?

    Are you saying that the Rule of Law is useless and/or defunct at the point where it is most necessary?

    Are you, in your ideology, and your desire to scorn Steve Kates advocating the use of politics by other means (I.E. as Clausewitz describes it- Violent warfare) to solve a deadlocked political dispute?

    Did you think this through before typing?

    If so, I hope you will not be relying on the Rule of Law, police and judges to protect you when the Death Squads and the baying mobs inevitably come for you in the night…

  190. Dot

    Felix’s claim might be based on bad precedent, but at least it is “law”, unlike Grigory’s claim that state’s literally cannot sue each other for anything.

  191. Lee

    Trumps legal challenges are at about 59 to 1 (losing). You were saying?

    I stand by my comment, and actually I made no comment myself about PDT or legal challenges.
    Biden is not president yet, and God willing he or Harris never will be.
    You have still been wrong about everything else, spectacularly so in the case of Cardinal Pell.

  192. FelixKruell

    Lee:

    You have still been wrong about everything else, spectacularly so in the case of Cardinal Pell.

    What exactly have I been wrong about?

  193. Albatross

    Felix, you utter spastic. Just stop mate. You’re a retard, and everybody here that’s not a complete brain-dead moron knows it. Just delete your account, lurk for 5 more years, then start again with a new handle.

  194. Albatross

    Ed Case
    #3689786, posted on December 14, 2020 at 5:47 pm
    You say you know a lot about PigShit, Albatross?
    That’s okay, no one is disputing your expertise.

    I know it to look at it mate. Just like a know the dull, hollow sound of an empty vessel like yourself. Never stop shutting up.

  195. FelixKruell

    Albatross:

    I keep forgetting – who’s the president again? Could you please remind me?

  196. JC

    What exactly have I been wrong about?

    Pretty much everything. Even though we warned you numerous times that the evidence was so flimsy only an imbecile would give it cred. You did, all the fucking way, to the point where you were even disputing the 7/0 High Court decision by suggesting if didn’t mean he was innocent.

    It was so funny, because as I said, you were all plumed up like a peacock on heat….. and at the end you looked like a skinny plucked dead chook lying on a table waiting for a singeing

  197. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Not this again. We’ve been over it again and again. I didn’t take a position on Pell’s guilt, other than to say I trust the courts.

    Every time I explain this, you go quiet. Then the next day you make the same BS claim again. Such a lightweight.

  198. Albatross

    Felix, here’s a claim you’ve never been proved innocent of: you once ran train on a barnyard full of animals. Chickens, cats, mice, cows, sheep: the whole shebang.

  199. JC

    Not this again. We’ve been over it again and again.

    Yep and won’t stop either until you apologize. And it won’t be a half backed apology we accept. It needs to be a full throated remorseful one.

    I didn’t take a position on Pell’s guilt, other than to say I trust the courts.

    You dishonest, lying sack of human garbage. it was only the other day when you suggested previous accusations against him gave the recent case more credence. Of fucking course you wanted him guilty.

    Every time I explain this, you go quiet. Then the next day you make the same BS claim again. Such a lightweight.

    More lies through false insinuations. FMD, you’re a dishonest sack of refuse ringshot.

  200. JC

    Yes Alb. Quite right. It’s never been proven Ringshot does fondle feline genitalia.

  201. Tel

    SCOTUS could have tried the case and had they found that the defendants have indeed breached the constitution, that it is up to the state legislatures to “fix” it in whatever way they deem appropriate – thus not actually disenfranchising anyone, as the state could still elect their EC electors (or not) as they choose.

    They could have done even less than that … at a minimum they could have ruled that the legislators in each state must be called back into session, review the evidence in what way they see fit, debate the issue and vote on whether they certify the results. There does not even need to be a “fix” of any sort and nor does SCOTUS need to be involved in even deciding what needs fixing. This would have satisfied the very minimum requirements of the US Constitution that legislators have ultimate responsibility. If state legislators decide to rubber stamp everything that happened … then at least they have explicitly done their bit and accepted that responsibility.

    The fact that SCOTUS did not even do that much is a really bad sign for the integrity of the USA and could develop into a big problem for the nations depending on the USA such as Australia for example.

  202. FelixKruell

    Albatross:

    Felix, here’s a claim you’ve never been proved innocent of: you once ran train on a barnyard full of animals. Chickens, cats, mice, cows, sheep: the whole shebang.

    Yep we’ve done this before too. I’ve not been proven innocent of any of those things.

    Early onset dementia?

  203. FelixKruell

    JC:

    it was only the other day when you suggested previous accusations against him gave the recent case more credence. Of fucking course you wanted him guilty.

    They do. Still doesn’t make him guilty. Which part of this aren’t you getting?

  204. Albatross

    Confirmed. This blog is full of witnesses to the fact, so the evidence is undeniable. For shame Ringshit. All those animals.

  205. Albatross

    Lee
    #3689761, posted on December 14, 2020 at 5:29 pm
    […]
    He’s like the boxer who goes down for the count every single time, yet keeps coming back for more of the same.

    This post nails Ringshit. What an utter clown.

  206. FelixKruell

    Albatross:

    Why do you think I’m here? It’s all the sheep…

  207. Rex Anger

    They do. Still doesn’t make him guilty. Which part of this aren’t you getting?

    Keep your story together, Grigory.

    Are you now agreeing George Pell is innocent of all charges invented agaimst him?

    Was this a Freudian slip against your wilful leftwit antagonism on the Cat?

    Or is the trunalimunumaprzure getting to you?

  208. FelixKruell

    Are you now agreeing George Pell is innocent of all charges invented agaimst him?

    At law yes, he’s now presumed innocent again. I’ve said that all along. Do pay attention.

    Whether he actually did the deed is an entirely separate question.

    It’s this distinction you seem to struggle with. But only when it comes to Pell. With Trump, you happily hold onto every claim even after they’ve been thrown out by the courts. Strange.

  209. Rex Anger

    No Grigory.

    You enjoy your word games, but you remain a vindictive fool.

  210. FelixKruell

    Ahh Rex, always shying away from the discussion as soon as you’re out of your depth.

    Doesn’t stop you raising Pell again every other day though.

  211. Kneel

    “The fact that SCOTUS did not even do that much is a really bad sign for the integrity of the USA…”

    Indeed.
    This:
    https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report
    is even more worrying.
    They tried to prevent the judge releasing it, but he did anyway – good for him!

  212. Rex Anger

    Ahh Rex, always shying away from the discussion as soon as you’re out of your depth.

    Don’t project, Grigory.

    If I choose to insult you rather than waste my time on your rhetorical bullshit and misrepresentations, it has nothing to do with your perceptions of my lack of ‘knewloj’ and everythig to do with your dishonesty.

  213. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    If I choose to insult you rather than waste my time on your rhetorical bullshit and misrepresentations, it has nothing to do with your perceptions of my lack of ‘knewloj’ and everythig to do with your dishonesty.

    How very convenient you keep choosing to insult just after I’ve explained why you’re wrong. Amazing coincidence.

  214. Rex Anger

    How very convenient you keep choosing to insult just after I’ve explained why you’re wrong.

    And where have you proclaimed I was wrong, Grigory?

    More word games? More propraganda to ‘prove’ your own propaganda points?

    No wonder you are so universally detested, Grigory.

    I sincerely doubt you even believe your own bullshit.

  215. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    Ping. Another insult.

    This is the bit you avoided responding to:

    At law yes, he’s now presumed innocent again. I’ve said that all along. Do pay attention.

    Whether he actually did the deed is an entirely separate question.

    It’s this distinction you seem to struggle with. But only when it comes to Pell. With Trump, you happily hold onto every claim even after they’ve been thrown out by the courts. Strange.

  216. Dot

    Let the record show Rex Ringschott/Felix Kruell fucked a duck to get his Diploma in Legal Studies from Macq. Uni; he has never proved otherwise.

  217. Rex Anger

    No Grigory.

    You have said that in your opinion, George Pell temains guilty. It is just that 7 High Court Justices disagree.with your ‘superior’ reasoning and legal.understanding.

    I have no problems with understanding your reasoning at all- It allows you to continue to smear the man through your usual weasel words, while acknowledging that Society has officially and legally declared otherwise. With no further recourse allowed.

    It is a fact that this is your opinion.

    It is also a fact that I think your opinion is bullshit.

    You do not like being reminded of this.

    It is also a fact that you have trumpeted the denial of legal relief.in the face of blatant and demonstrated widespread electoral and voter fraud, on procedural grounds, as a legal repudiation of Donald Trump and his legal team.

    It is also a fact that a growing mjority and plurality of people in the United States of America, despite the censorship and gaslighting, agree that Sleepy Joe.is not the legitimately elected 46th President.

    It is a fact that you will deny and twist these facts, and employ every dishonest rhetorical trick in the book to ‘win’ your arguments and ambits, and aggravate people. Much like you are doing now.

    Finally, it is a fact that you think you have ‘proven’ me wrong when I have merely and repeatedy told you that.in my opinion, based in the facts, that.your opinion is bullshit.

    It is a fact I will not change my mind about it.

    And it is a fact that this position really seems to set you off.

  218. Rex Anger

    @ Dot-

    Let the record show Rex Ringschott/Felix Kruell fucked a duck to get his Diploma in Legal Studies from Macq. Uni; he has never proved otherwise

    Momentarily flummoxed by the lack of coma, but otherwise +1. Exponential Eleventy.

  219. FelixKruell

    Dot:

    Let the record show Rex Ringschott/Felix Kruell fucked a duck to get his Diploma in Legal Studies from Macq. Uni; he has never proved otherwise.

    Ahh no. When were talking “the record”, I get the presumption of innocence, thank you very much.

    For everything else, you get to make up your own mind. Just like you already have with election fraud claims, despite the courts throwing them out.

  220. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    You have said that in your opinion, George Pell temains guilty

    Nope. Didn’t say that.

    Try again.

  221. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    They tried to prevent the judge releasing it, but he did anyway – good for him!

    they’ll slow walk it to next election and into the forgetory

  222. Rex Anger

    You have said that in your opinion, George Pell remains guilty

    Nope. Didn’t say that.

    Reeeeeeally Grigory?

    Are you so stupid as to twist your own ambits?

    If you are going to use the caveat terms at law in relation to innocence, combined with Whether he actually did the deed is an entirely separate question, and your previous flat-out statements denying his innocence to the Cat, you very clearly consider him to be guilty. Regardless.of the fact that 7 High Court Justices, who had access to every fact, argument, counter-argument, piece of admitted evidence and justifications for same that you do not, declared George Pell innocent of all charges.

    And in their unanimous written judgement, all but publicly castigated the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal for allowing the matter to proceed to Pell’s jailing and upholding the original sentence.

    So- No Grigory. I will not try again.

    Enjoy your twists and turns, snake, as you burn in the pit of your own self-deceptions. You fool.

  223. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    If you are going to use the caveat terms at law in relation to innocence, combined with Whether he actually did the deed is an entirely separate question, and your previous flat-out statements denying his innocence to the Cat, you very clearly consider him to be guilty.

    Nope. I’ve stated repeatedly that he’s innocent at law. As to whether he did the deed, only he and the two boys know/knew that. We can only speculate.

    Regardless.of the fact that 7 High Court Justices, who had access to every fact, argument, counter-argument, piece of admitted evidence and justifications for same that you do not, declared George Pell innocent of all charges.

    Yep and that’s why he’s not guilty at law. And we should treat him as such. We set a high bar for proving guilt in court. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do the deed. It similarly doesn’t mean he DID do the deed.

    Much like Trumps claims about election fraud being thrown out of court doesn’t mean there was no election fraud. Get it yet?

  224. Rex Anger

    No Grigory.

    Why are you now turning in on yourself? Pretending at cool factualness?

    You now are not celebrating the repudiation of Donald Tump’s teams’ lawsuits as being proof of no election fraud? Are you now implying that Texas’ claims etc. are not bogus? Despite loudly and proudly proclaiming so just upthread?

    All to claim a win against me?

    I will reiterate:
    Enjoy your twists and turns, snake, as you burn in the pit of your own self-deceptions. You fool.

  225. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    You now are not celebrating the repudiation of Donald Tump’s teams’ lawsuits as being proof of no election fraud? Are you now implying that Texas’ claims etc. are not bogus? Despite loudly and proudly proclaiming so just upthread?

    All to claim a win against me?

    Putting words into my mouth again?

    What I actually said was that I trust the courts. Both in Pell, and in Trumps case. Because I don’t have enough information to actually determine whether there was fraud in some out of the way county in Pennsylvania.

    But I do have enough information to determine that most of Trumps legal claims have been bogus – internally inconsistent, making claims that don’t match the relief sought etc. Which the courts have repeatedly confirmed.

    The simple thing you keep failing to understand is that courts deal with issues like standing, precedence and legal rights. Whatever the outcome, the aren’t conclusion proof about whether events did or didn’t happen.

    Your positions on Trump and Pell are internally inconsistent. You just can’t see it.

  226. Rex Anger

    What I actually said was that I trust the courts. Both in Pell, and in Trumps case

    What a shame, Grigory, that not a single post you have made in the entirety of either matter supports this new meme.

    After all, you would not receive the drubbings you seem to revel in, if it were the case…

    Cats, what say you?

    Your positions on Trump and Pell are internally inconsistent. You just can’t see it.

    Are you projecting again, darling?

  227. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    What a shame, Grigory, that not a single post you have made in the entirety of either matter supports this new meme.

    After all, you would not receive the drubbings you seem to revel in, if it were the case…

    It’s not new. I’ve been saying it for months. The problem seems to be the audience.

  228. Rex Anger

    It’s not new. I’ve been saying it for months. The problem seems to be the audience.

    Probably best you go find yourself a new one elsewhere then, Grigory…

  229. Dot

    Mmm yes Felix, made up electoral fraud, with real criminal charges.

    You dolt.

  230. Steve trickler

    Worth checking out. 1.32.06. They didn’t even bother with the big-tech platforms.

    2020 Election Investigation: Who Is Stealing America?

  231. Steve trickler

    Hour into the documentary….the CCP involvement is 👀.

  232. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Steve trickler at 9:39 pm:

    “Hour into the documentary….the CCP involvement is 👀.”

    What in the sweet cheeses does that uneducated, ignorant, inarticulate garbage mean?

  233. Steve trickler

    That Executive Order from 2018 looks more and more likely to come into play.

Comments are closed.