If you could find a string of circuit and district courts that weren't corrupt and moved the case forward, SCOTUS would still refuse to review it. Sydney had tons of evidence and didn't even get a reason from SCOTUS on why they wouldn't review it. The fraud exposed that government is corrupt in every branch (executive/the Feds, judicial, and legislative) and corrupt at every level (municipal, state, and federal). Trump wanted to clean the swamp but did not know how deep it ran.
If you could find a string of circuit and district courts that weren't corrupt and moved the case forward, SCOTUS would still refuse to review it. Sydney had tons of evidence and didn't even get a reason from SCOTUS on why they wouldn't review it. The fraud exposed that government is corrupt in every branch (executive/the Feds, judicial, and legislative) and corrupt at every level (municipal, state, and federal). Trump wanted to clean the swamp but did not know how deep it ran.
but since elections are a State issue, you don't really need the SC. If a judge in 5 states says the elections are no good, what would happen?
but since elections are a State issue, you don't really need the SC. If a judge in 5 states says the elections are no good, what would happen?
(post is archived)