Posted on 08/08/2023 9:54:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When the subject of legal challenges to election fraud or irregularities in 2020 comes up, Lefties love to sneer, “Oh, you guys didn’t win a single case.” In the most technical sense, they have a point, but that doesn’t mean they’re right. All one has to do is consider the abject partisan, corrupt collapse of America’s legal system at the present moment — a former president and 2024 frontrunner under attack by his opponent’s DOJ as well as little-league state DAs who literally campaigned on promises to “get Trump.” Clearly, Leftism has overthrown Justice as the goal of far too many JDs.
Now, people on the right are insisting that they don’t want a rehash of 2020 and that bringing it up again is killing Trump’s chances in 2024. But they also want to know what his plan is for making sure it doesn’t happen again.
We can’t have a plan for 2024 if we don’t first take an honest accounting of how our legal fight for election integrity was thwarted in 2020.
So let’s look at some of the specifics of how Systemic Leftism in the legal world discriminated against the fight for a fair, truthful election before, during, and after November 2020. This is crucial to understanding how it’s even more potent in the run-up to 2024.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If these commies were so confident about the election results, then why did they fight against any investigations? We know.
Whatever is done is far and away too late by 3 years. Expect 2024 to closely resemble 2020. After which, there will no need for national selections. State and local selections to follow in the years to come.
there was a reason for their treason...
the rally was too powerful
https://rumble.com/v181401-january-6th-rally-2021.html
RE: the rally was too powerful
Do you, or does anybody know the estimated number of protesters who were in Washington DC on January 6, 2021?
i did some wide shots, but haven’t heard of the number... park police will keep it low... unless they are storming the capitol...
WE are the (neo) marxists now.
We have a one party centralized-state and its rabid woke ideology in control of all the major organs and positions of executive, law, media, corporate power, with political purges within the country, and warfare all over the globe.
Sounds exactly like sone of the rattletraps on FR.
.
Most of the cases were denied a hearing because they were brought by people determined to not have standing.
I think three were heard there were two victories though.
Here’s why
The bribe money was spread around throughout The Democrat Party Organized Crime Syndicate.
RE: they were brought by people determined to not have standing.
That would include the 18 American states that joined in the lawsuit to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential elections. These states include Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
The states were determined not tohave any standing.
The next question to ask is this -— WHO HAS?
RE: I think three were heard there were two victories though.
1) What cases were they and who filed the lawsuits?
2) Where were they tried?
3) What victories were they and why did this not matter to the election results?
“The next question to ask is this -— WHO HAS?”
____________________________
Certainly not the voters or their attorneys, eh.
Did? They still are. J6 is part of the cover up.
In other words: When it comes time to give benefit of doubt the cause of the Right doesn’t get any.
Bump for later.
“RE: I think three were heard there were two victories though.
1) What cases were they and who filed the lawsuits?
2) Where were they tried?
3) What victories were they and why did this not matter to the election results?”
_______________________________________________
Robert Barnes on his podcasts addresses this a lot. He has successfully litigated some elections cases.
1) Even lawyers who are “on our side,” such as Andy McCarthy, are former fed prosecutors who have this deep reverence of the gubment and don’t really believe the STRUCTURE is corrupt. The “few bad apples” argument. So rarely will you get inventive ways of getting past the obstacles with this group.
2) Barnes is of the opinion that machines were NOT the problem, showing evidence that Trump did very well in some machine states. He thinks it was stolen the “old fashioned way” with the 2000 mules packing ballot recepticles.
3) The two biggest hurdles in any case are “latches” and “standing.” The first is a legal concept that you can’t bring pre-emptory challenges because there is no harm-—but with elections cases, the courts immediately ALSO turn it on its head after the elections and say, in essence, “Too late. X won” under the guise of not wanting to be political. So you are prevented from stopping stuff before it happens and usually don’t get any fair hearing afterwards.
With “standing,” courts have (unconstitutionally, in my opinion) limited standing to only those politicians specifically harmed by a result. So I, as an Arizona citizen, cannot sue that Lake was cheated, only Lake can sue. My view is that this is a gross violation of the Constitution, that ANY AMERICAN HAS STANDING TO SUE IN ANY NATIONAL ELECTION because we are all harmed by fraud. But the courts don’t see it that way. So what they don’t toss on “standing” they toss on “Latches.” Not one case ever reached the evidentiary stage, except the Lake governor race, wherein the Supes allowed the lower court to set the rules about signature verification, which excluded almost all fraud.
To date, we have not had ONE SINGLE NATIONAL SIGNATURE VERIFICATION CASE REACH TRIAL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.