Liberal Forum

'The Most Secure Election in American History' :: Gatestone Institute

Long, but well worth the proof of rampant vote fraud!!!
 

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 10:09 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 10:09 am

'The Most Secure Election in American History' :: Gatestone Institute

Long, but well worth the proof of rampant vote fraud!!!

So why do courts laugh at it?

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm

So why do courts laugh at it?

Why do even full-fledged morons laugh at you?

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm

So why do courts laugh at it?

Which court has laughed at it?

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm

So why do courts laugh at it?

They don't!!!

"Well, first of all, that mantra....: "All the cases, all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.

• Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were not brought by the right people.
• There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed. Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team was dealing with in those 65 cases.
• Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."

 

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm

They don't!!!

"Well, first of all, that mantra....: "All the cases, all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.

• Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were not brought by the right people.
• There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed. Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team was dealing with in those 65 cases.
• Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."

Retardo Smarmy thinks he is  a lawyer.  That is why he asks so many questions.  Although he doesn't really know how to question someone.

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm

Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."

If you have a link to someplace other than Gateway Pundit that will back that particular statement up, I am forced to throw the **** flag.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics ... d0d666e284

oh and here is your source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gatestone-institute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute
 

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:20 pm

They don't!!!

"Well, first of all, that mantra....: "All the cases, all the courts ruled against Trump." First of all, that is not true. Most of the cases were rejected on very technical jurisdictional grounds, like a case brought by a voter, rather than the candidate himself.

• Individual voters do not have standing because they lack a particularized injury. Those were dismissed. There is no basis for claiming that there was anything wrong with the claims on the merits. It is just that the cases were not brought by the right people.
• There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the law was actually violated, the case was not ripe -- and it got dismissed. Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, "You can't wait until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It's barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team was dealing with in those 65 cases.
• Of the cases that actually reached the merits --there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly -- Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the "New York Times."

****.

List the xcases Grifty won.

maineman » 21 Apr 2024, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:28 pm

If you have a link to someplace other than Gateway Pundit that will back that particular statement up, I am forced to throw the **** flag.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics ... d0d666e284

oh and here is your source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gatestone-institute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute

Gatestone is total crap

JustinSane » 21 Apr 2024, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:13 pm

Which court has laughed at it?

SCOTUS, among several.

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2024, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 1:59 pm

Why do even full-fledged morons laugh at you?

They run from me

maineman » 21 Apr 2024, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 2:28 pm

If you have a link to someplace other than Gateway Pundit that will back that particular statement up, I am forced to throw the **** flag.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics ... d0d666e284

oh and here is your source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gatestone-institute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute

LOL the irony of that post   

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 3:04 pm

****.

List the xcases Grifty won.

Why did the courts ignore the ILLEGAL changes to state election laws?

"The 2020 election was full of chaos and irregularities. States across the country changed election policies and procedures last minute. In 2020, the Wisconsin Elections Commission authorized “municipal clerks and local elections officials to establish ballot drop boxes” and said that people acting on behalf of the voter could deliver his or her ballot to these drop boxes.
Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg gave millions of dollars to election offices to change election procedures and fuel vote-by-mail efforts.

The Capital Research Center uncovered that the Center for Technology and Civic Life, the non-profit Zuckerberg funneled his money through, gave Wisconsin election offices at least $6.7 million in 2020.

Much of this $6.7 million was used to set up drop boxes, which fueled ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting refers to a person returning ballots that are not their own. For example, you go to a drop box and return your ballot, your husband’s, and your two neighbors’.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.
 Under Wisconsin law, drop boxes are illegal.

 Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment. 

The vote-by-mail system was a complete failure in 2020. According to federal data, the commonwealth lost track of more ballots than the difference in votes between Trump and Biden.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated their own election laws and procedures in 2020."

Why did the courts ignore these ILLEGAL changes to election laws in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the other battle ground states that had Trump not been frauded in just 3 of them he would have won?

 

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm

Why did the courts ignore the ILLEGAL changes to state election laws?

"The 2020 election was full of chaos and irregularities. States across the country changed election policies and procedures last minute. In 2020, the Wisconsin Elections Commission authorized “municipal clerks and local elections officials to establish ballot drop boxes” and said that people acting on behalf of the voter could deliver his or her ballot to these drop boxes.
Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg gave millions of dollars to election offices to change election procedures and fuel vote-by-mail efforts.

The Capital Research Center uncovered that the Center for Technology and Civic Life, the non-profit Zuckerberg funneled his money through, gave Wisconsin election offices at least $6.7 million in 2020.

Much of this $6.7 million was used to set up drop boxes, which fueled ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting refers to a person returning ballots that are not their own. For example, you go to a drop box and return your ballot, your husband’s, and your two neighbors’.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.
 Under Wisconsin law, drop boxes are illegal.

 Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment. 

The vote-by-mail system was a complete failure in 2020. According to federal data, the commonwealth lost track of more ballots than the difference in votes between Trump and Biden.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated their own election laws and procedures in 2020."

Why did the courts ignore these ILLEGAL changes to election laws in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the other battle ground states that had Trump not been frauded in just 3 of them he would have won?

List the cases that Grifty won...

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm

So why do courts laugh at it?

Perhaps the judges are afraid they may end up committing suicide if they actually prosecute the fraud 

*rippy38 » 21 Apr 2024, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 4:31 pm

Perhaps the judges are afraid they may end up committing suicide if they actually prosecute the fraud

Perhaps you were lied to.....again.

You know how susceptible you are...
 

R.Suave » 21 Apr 2024, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 4:33 pm

Perhaps you were lied to.....again.

You know how susceptible you are...

Susceptible I am?

You think these are women...

 

LOL
 
 

*rippy38 » 21 Apr 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 4:37 pm

Susceptible I am?

You think these are women...

 

LOL

My instincts have never failed me....with your limited experience, I can appreciate your need for clear labeling.

The Roberts Supreme Court put braindead biden in the White House by refusing to hear the facts.

Buffalo » 21 Apr 2024, 5:16 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2024, 5:16 pm

The Roberts Supreme Court put braindead biden in the White House by refusing to hear the facts.

Robert's was overheard berating other Justices who wanted to go forward with Trump's Case....he was hysterical in his belief that the blue cities would be burnt to the ground.
He's basically a coward.