No conflict of interest here!
It means if there are any emergency appeals for a stay (or to prevent) the electoral commissions in those states from certifying the electoral results for those states, it will be handled by the justices assigned to those district courts. Having conservative justices making that decision pending full Supreme Court review is HUGE!Can you please explain what this means?
I wonder who the "we" is that could send in the seals?Time to mend and unite?
Bullshit says Divider in Chief BHO
![]()
Obama Tells Jimmy Kimmel: 'We Can Always Send the Navy SEALS' to Remove Trump from White House
Former President Barack Obama told ABC's left-wing late night host Jimmy Kimmel that "we can always send the Navy SEALs" to physically remove President Donald Trump from the White House.www.breitbart.com

If, and it is a big if, this happens I hope they wouldn't be afraid to do the right thing for fear of the violence that would occur if Trump was declared the victor. It should be right over wrong, not fear of violence for a decision.It means if there are any emergency appeals for a stay (or to prevent) the electoral commissions in those states from certifying the electoral results for those states, it will be handled by the justices assigned to those district courts. Having conservative justices making that decision pending full Supreme Court review is HUGE!
Maybe they should balance the violence that might occur if Trump wins with the violence that could occur if Biden is alowed to steal the election in their decision.If, and it is a big if, this happens I hope they wouldn't be afraid to do the right thing for fear of the violence that would occur if Trump was declared the victor. It should be right over wrong, not fear of violence for a decision.
HA! Get fucked!
Lets see what hunter throws inHA! Get fucked!
10% for the big guy.Lets see what hunter throws in
C'mon man why not ask your buddy the author supposedly he's sold 1 million books on Amazon
you know that thing old times sakeOnce state votes are certified by the respective governors, there is no constitutional option to "uncertify" those results even if additional information comes to light.Where does it say it must be done within two weeks of the election? Give it some time. Its a legal matter and "I's must be dotted and the "T's" crossed.
That's not the approach that the courts will take.They can't prove the votes are legitimate.
This is a convenient scape goat. “Yes the countwas right , but the ballots themselves are false. Proof? I have no proof...I just feel it.”I'm not sure there is anything at this point that could convince most people it was legitimate.
Many of us could see this coming well ahead of time. The existing system lacks enough protections for it to deliver a trustworthy result. There is no way to reconcile this election without re-doing it with robust audit trails and proper transparency.
You can count and recount fraudulent ballots as many times as you want, it's the validity of the ballots themselves that's in question.
Think of it this way, if the IRS went to audit your return, but you had tossed all your receipts, etc. What could you do ?
Would it even matter if all your deductions were legitimate if you couldn't prove it ? The IRS isn't going to sit there and try to prove your deduction is fraudulent, they're just going to say "you can't prove it's legitimate, so that makes it invalid"
They can't prove the votes are legitimate.
Recounts are just checking the math on the 1040. Without the proof the deductions are legitimate it doesn't prove anything just because the totals add up.
Proof coming tomorrow. Stay tuned! Big news!This is a convenient scape goat. “Yes the countwas right , but the ballots themselves are false. Proof? I have no proof...I just feel it.”
Without proof it’s worth a bag of hair.
IDK how this is going to play out but I get a kick out of those who feel their entitled to be given all the evidence hashed out in the media.
Didn't you know media is the New Woke jury judge and executioner 