Littl3 late mane
Littl3 late mane
Probably a mix between not wanting to get involved and the ever ridiculous "standing" argument, or whatever they claim.
The claim that nothing presented would "materially affect" the outcome seems to be popular, even though that shouldn't technically factor into the process.
It is one thing to dismiss a case out of hand, compared to ruling that the evidence isn't sufficient.
Probably a mix between not wanting to get involved and the ever ridiculous "standing" argument, or whatever they claim.
The claim that nothing presented would "materially affect" the outcome seems to be popular, even though that shouldn't technically factor into the process.
It is one thing to dismiss a case out of hand, compared to ruling that the evidence isn't sufficient.
What about a federal crime committed is a federal crime. Who cares what the end result of the election was. Federal laws were committed and there is shit tons of evidence.
Hang the judges for being complicit in these crimes. Find new uncorrupted judges.
What about a federal crime committed is a federal crime. Who cares what the end result of the election was. Federal laws were committed and there is shit tons of evidence.
Hang the judges for being complicit in these crimes. Find new uncorrupted judges.
The fact they will not even allow it to be debated means they know their position is indefensible.
The fact they will not even allow it to be debated means they know their position is indefensible.
(post is archived)