I think it will be rejected again. I believe the justices will decide that it would be too disruptive to do anything.
A few legal minds that have commented on the Brunson case say it is not legally sound for reasons I can’t remember etc. I can dig up one of the articles, if I find I’ll post and ping you.
think it will be rejected again. I believe the justices will decide that it would be too disruptive to do anything.
Unfortunately, I feel the same way. But, there’s always that slim hope in my soul!
Every one of these judges who refuse to hear evidence of election fraud needs to be added to the list. Failing to acknowledge that 15 million votes in the 2020 election don’t have supporting ballots is just too much to let pass.