[Dr. Franklin]

Thus, having not take the time out to investigate further the allegation of foreign interference of an election, especially one that involves the presidency, is a clear violation of the oath administered to support this Constitution. For nothing is a more serious threat to this nation than a foreign actor interfering with the election of the highest office holder in the nation.

This appears to be the argument that some at SCOTUS want to address. I just think the action needed to have been brought in the D.C. District Court for proper venue and jurisdiction. D. C. was the "scene of the crime", and all present that day can reasonably expect to answer for that act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. I will volunteer to be the lead plaintiff if a D.C. attorney wants to file that case. Once filed, the clerk at SCOTUS should be notified of its potential jurisdiction in a second case.

Any takers?

[philman_36]

I just think the action needed to have been brought in the D.C. District Court for proper venue and jurisdiction.
Too late. So sad.

Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen...
Rule 11 to the rescue.

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before Judgment

A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

And the sheep graze quietly on...

[Robert DeLong]

In my opinion, the fact that it wasn't brought in the D.C. District Court was either intentional brilliance or a divine act, for it would have been shot down faster than the ink had dried on the paper.

Perhaps you learned nothing with regards to the cases Durham brought against Michael Sussman & Igor Danchenko? No case involving Trump will be won there, no matter how strong the evidence may be.

So, they bypassed the one court system that should be abolished quite frankly, and achieved getting it before the U.S. Supreme Court to be considered by them to be heard in their court.

Besides that, the scene of the crime was hardly limited to D.C. It may have been hatched there, but it was carried out well beyond the borders of D.C. Across state lines, and quite possibly across our nations borders and into the borders of foreign adversaries to coordinate with foreign actors to make the theft possible.

I mean, look at J6 and the political prisoners who have been denied their rights to a speedy trial by juries of their peers even for simple charges such as trespassing and parading. There have even been allegations of brutality & torture inflict on these same people, and nothing has been done in the form of an investigation. They will never receive fair trials where justice is supposedly blind, and only that evidence that is presented to the courts is to be considered. In reality they have been subjected to kangaroo courts rife with proprietorial misconduct. They deny them even basic rights, such as discovery by their defense attorneys.

[meadsjn]

D. C. was the "scene of the crime", and all present that day can reasonably expect to answer for that act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Not so. There were multiple scenes of the crimes, in multiple states.

The State Legislatures have authority over election processes in the various states. State courts and bureaucrats usurped the legitimate authority of the Legislatures by changing or ignoring laws on the fly.

What are the four scenarios where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction?

For federal courts, original jurisdiction is granted in disputes involving maritime law, United States law, cases concerning citizens of different states, cases involving different state governments, disputes where the United States is a party, and in cases between foreign nations and ambassadors.