That is a great question. She might even be right. But it is HEARSAY, which means nothing. I wish there would be no posting of BS. Let it be proclaimed when it is official, because it is malicious intent to toot your own horn for your own purposes. Does it make Amanda happy, to rile up the folks???? Or was it some desire to “scoop” the officials? Gossip serves no purpose.
What I love about this site, the wealth of information we have access to not available from the brainwashed mainstream media.Unfortunately a lot of questionable stories also come through here as well and we all need to do our due diligence and responsible reasoning investigating to make sure they are confirmed and true.Freepers eventually weed out the truth, just a matter of time to investigate and get it right....that’s why I am here.
Initial reports from some never heard of person are not to be fully believed without further backup and other verification.
If she is wrong, she blames the informant.
I thought the court voted 6-3 to hear the case? I understood there will be no oral arguments or if there are it will be limited. So, if they are declining the case, why vote to hear it. On Parler yesterday a legal group said the court will review the briefs and decline the case. They will not try to choose which voters get disenfranchised. The other possibility is they make a ruling that will impact future elections, stopping the use of mail in ballots.
They had one (sadly) very valid point. While this group is not denying fraud took place and mail in ballots were the vehicle. Except for PA, no GOP legislative branch in WI, MI, GA or AZ tried to stop the ballots before the election. The Legislature could have all sued to stop their AG’s, or Secretaries from issuing the ballots. Had the GOP fought this battle before the election, then Texas would have a legal trail and a better case of disenfranchised voters in Texas because those five States violated their own State Constitutions. The GOP was out to lunch as always.