You’re making too many assumptions.
If there was widespread fraud, how come CyberNinjas didn’t find anything substantive?
First, that’s a lie. 100% lie.
It’s not bound by Congress, it’s bound by the Constitution. The SCOTUS just interprets what’s Constitutional or not. What you’re wanting is for the Supreme Court to somehow violate the Constitution. Again, your typical MO is to want to trash the Constitution and our laws. You’re a terrible American
False. That’s why over 80 legal cases there thrown out. Sham investigations have turned up nada, even to the point of being outright illegal (see Arizona).
Flat out, you’re full of shit, 100% full of shit. The actual legal cases didn’t even allege fraud. We have Powell legally stating no reasonable person should believe her and Rudy admitting to a judge in a recording that he wasn’t even alleging fraud. You’re a victim of being a dolt who watches too much right wing propaganda. You have the absolute least credible people involved in this shit. It’s astonishing you have the gall to act like these are even slightly real. But, you’ve demonstrated your absolute lack of integrity as a person and disdain for this country, so on par.
Again - 100% lie. Rasmussen is horseshit as pollster and only polls landlines, along with Scott Rassmussen literally working for Trump at one point, being a paid consultant for the Bush campaign. Any other poll?
Also, you believe in Qanon. Admitted.
It’s not- Storm cited it multiple times.
It is.
Lmao! This guy is a fucking complete joke. Doesn’t know his jurisprudence.
The Congress can amend the constitution with ratification by the states. They can unbind anything bound in the constitution if the will is there to do it.
The constitution itself is pretty clear about who decides elections. It’s the state legislatures. If they decertify the SCOTUS will be powerless against them.
This retard didn’t read anything I wrote earlier. I’ve already summarized why you’re wrong.
If Rasmussen switched ideologies tomorrow you’d support them.
Me- I think all pollsters are shit (except for Traflagar perhaps).
But that’s the only consensus data we can draw conclusions from no matter how flawed.
It’s clear- the American people are with me and Storm. Not you.
Storm was fucking idiot who believed Trump was still President. Not the best source, dumbass.
The twisting and turning you’re trying to do in order to justify what…overturning a legal election. Just like you wanting to take over private businesses, you’re little more than an authoritarian, a fascist. What a terrible American.
Again, twists and turns to try and OVERTURN A LEGAL ELECTION. What a joke you are. There is no doubt your entire family views you as the same joke we do.
in your minds…but, again - SCOREBOARD. How do I prove I’m right? We won the election dipshit. You’ve lost ever national popular vote but 1 in 33 years. Again, there is no doubt your friends and family think of you as the same total jerkoff the rest of us do.
LOL. From very reliable and objective sources right? 
Yes, by supermajority. Good luck with that.
And in order to decertify you better have ironclad proof of the need to do so. There’s no proof. Just none that’s blatant, widespread or would in any way indicate that the outcome would be different.
So you’re saying Powell is incorrect in her statement to the court that no reasonable person would believe there’s election fraud? That’s just about the only thing I agree with her on.
I didn’t mention Powell, but I GUARANTEE you didn’t take the time to read the answer.
The quote (attributed to her) was taken out of context.
Firstly, SHE didn’t say anything. She’s being represented by attorney. And HE said that her statements about Dominion were her opinion and not statements of fact “that no reasonable person” would believe.
But this is the way attorneys work. If I were representing Sidney I’d go a similar route. An opinion is something that doesn’t need to be proven. It just is what it is. If the attorney claims her statements were facts, now she’s liable to defend them.
Being that this is her own personal case I’d doubt any attorney would force it this way. Just a dumb move.
Weird to have that belief but constantly parrot the 59% statistic as fact…
Just….wow. So you’re saying she’s trying to save her own skin (don’t blame her) by getting her attorney to tell the court that no reasonable person should believe this garbage………and that apparently gives her a pass to continue the lie? Just….wow.
This is an odd statement considering she’s been trying to pass her “opinion” as fact for……how long now?
You can’t make this up. 
51- she’s involved in a defamation case. There’s only 2 things that essentially save you in a case like this.
The truth
Opinions
The truth has to be verified.
Opinions are constructs of the mind. You only have to believe them.
What’s so difficult about this?
The difficulty is understanding the mental gymnastics you put yourself through with lies on top of lies to convince yourself that you are right.
A very tall order. That’s why it doesn’t happen often.
I’m not saying it’s likely to happen. A constitutional convention is extremely rare. But I’m just making a point because Warden thinks Congress is powerless when it comes to the constitution…. It’s not.
What’s difficult to understand? What mental gymnastics?
People have money, reputation, and sometimes their lives on the line when involved in litigation. At the end of the day, you select winning strategies. The winning strategy on this case is to stay out of making definitive claims.
It’s not difficult. That’s my point. She out claiming massive election fraud, holding pressers, etc. then she gets sued by dominion and is not saying no reasonable person should believe her.
And all the while, you find her credible. It’s hilarious.
GSC, I agree with you. You have a point.
You can’t, however, ignore that she’s taking the easy way out in court, and acknowledging a hit to her reputation in the process. She willingly ceded the moral high ground by publicly putting out that she was stating opinions not facts. That’s the objective truth.
Yup- it’s pretty simple. There’s no need to subject herself to further scrutiny if it doesn’t benefit her.
If I’m her lawyer we play the “it’s my personal opinion game” all along. In fact, Trump campaign dropping her helps her. It demonstrates she wasn’t acting in a legal/professional capacity when making the claims.
Whether she believes her statement to the court is immaterial. And I will agree with you that it does hurt her credibility. But I understand the strategy.
Do you need strategies if you have rock solid incontrovertible evidence?
You have to understand the rules of evidence in some cases. Perhaps what she has isn’t admissible in this case or in this court. I don’t know the particulars.
Perhaps she’s bound not to share it until it’s in the right venue. Who knows!
There’s a reason she’s being sued by Dominion.
Perhaps she’s a huckster. Who knows!
1 Like