MSM refused to cover the evidence, courts were frightened away from hearing the evidence and reached for a procedural 'no standing' quickie to get it out of their court. Imagine that, the person that got the win has 'no standing', the voters who had their votes count for nothing due to fraud ballots entered into the contest had 'no standing'. Who does have standing if not the people directly harmed? That's what I 'd like to hear from those judges.
Why were the courts afraid?
That's what needs to be investigated. Have the judges explain who has standing if not the candidate and voters. If the judge has no answer then investigate it. All we get are law professors opining. Who do you think is harmed if not the candidate and the voters? The MSM? The tech companies? China? Who has standing? Who was harmed if not the candidate himself and the voters themselves? Is it right to have a harm for which there is NO remedy and the rules change on you only if it is YOU and not someone else?
Correct venue and standing are looked at first. Then the lawsuit proceeds. Who has standing? Just dems?
(post is archived)