Did you hear this from a judge or read it from bookface? If a judge didn’t decide its true then, I just refuse to believe it.

Trump is winning!

Weird how safe and secure elections keep finding more votes or more fraud... and our resident "pro-gun, pro-Constitution" guy will accept "evidence" from his social media propaganda sources but we have to only get our information from court rulings...

Well this might satisfy him. Here's a court ruling to munch on.

In PA last night, a Judge either provided a supporting opinion or renewed the injunction (unclear at this moment) moving forward for PA, stating that these illegal vote issues are likely legit since the late ballots violate the law. We're almost certainly going to see hundreds of thousands of late and fraud ballots tossed out giving the state to Trump.

Regardless of what level of court this gets to, Trump will win this issue of law b/c all these late votes were illegal. And that's where Biden's alleged victory came from.

Other states are going to likely follow suit as these fraud dominos fall.

https://www.ntd.com/judge-republicans-w ... 33926.html

Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit
2020 ELECTIONIvan Pentchoukov Nov 27, 2020

"The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to not certify the results of the 2020 election wrote in an opinion on Friday that the Republicans who filed the related lawsuit will likely win the case.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough made the assessment as part of an opinion explaining her rationale for blocking Pennsylvania’s election certification.

A group of Republican lawmakers and candidates sued the Keystone State earlier this week, arguing that the state legislature’s mail-in voting law—Act 77—violated the commonwealth’s constitution.

“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” McCullough wrote.

When ruling on an emergency injunction, judges have to consider whether the party which requested the injunction is likely to win the case or “succeed on the merits.” McCullough opined that the “petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene” the plain language of the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution which deals with absentee voting.

Pennsylvania said that it had certified the results of the election for president and vice president on Nov. 24 while the court was reviewing briefings from both parties. In response, the plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency injunction, arguing that that state need not have acted so fast.

“It appears that respondents’ actions may have been accelerated in response to the application for emergency relief … in an effort to preclude any remedial action by this court faster than this court was able to evaluate the application for emergency relief and the answers to it,” the plaintiffs wrote.

The emergency request underlined that while Pennsylvania completed vote-counting and submitted the signed certification to the U.S. archivist, a number of steps still remain for the formal certification process to be completed.

“While Respondents may have proactively attempted to avoid potential injunctive relief granted by this Court, Respondents duties with regard to finalization of the full election results are far from complete,” the filing states.

Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania released a memo on Nov. 27, advising that they will soon introduce a resolution to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

The resolution states that the executive and judicial branches of the Keystone State’s government usurped the legislature’s constitutional power to set the rules of the election.

The resolution “declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this commonwealth is in dispute” and “urges the secretary of the commonwealth and the governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 general election.”

-----
Also in PA, GOP led legislature is positioning itself to block Biden's fraud from stealing the state and disenfranchising real voters. They are taking a lot of measures to do so after the very compelling public hearing and witnesses testimonies.

-----
Elsewhere:
In WI, sources are saying thousands of ballots have invalid signatures or other legal problems, and maybe 100,000 will be thrown out as being illegal, highly suspect, etc.

This is not one of Trump's lawsuits, nor is it one alleging fraud, at least not the kind we're generally talking about in this thread.

The lawsuit was thought up by Republic state legislature candidate Sean Parnell, among others, and is focused on the alleged unconstitutionality (at the state level) of PA act 77. In PA, the state constitution is what spells out the absentee and mail-in voting process, and required an amendment to change it. Act 77 did not follow that constitutional amendment process, but made changes to absentee and mail-in voting, meaning, potentially, all mail-in and absentee ballots cast in the state may have been cast in accordance with an unconstitutional law.

To amend the constitution in PA, the state legislature has to pass the change, as a bill, in one legislative session, then put the change in two newspapers in every county that has newspapers, then pass it again in another legislative session, then back in the newspapers, then it goes on a ballot for a general vote. Only after all those steps does the state constitution actually get amended and the change takes effect legally.

PA Act 77 was passed in a single legislative session in 2019. So, they've got a problem.

Now, the outcome of the lawsuit may have a net benefit to Trump, but he and his team isn't involved in this one, as far as I know.

From the county officials doing the recount.

Correct. It's a dispute over the legality of the Republican supported bill that allows mail in voting without an excuse.

No allegation of fraud is made, the fraud claims appear to be a scam orchestrated by the Trump campaign.

The suit over the legality of mail voting in PA is going to be an interesting one. There are numerous issues here:

1. Is it actually in violation of the PA Constitution

2. Does the PA Constitution control, or can state legislatures ignore it when specifying the manner in which Federal electors are be appointed, because this is a "Federal function"

3. Did the deadline to challenge it pass, given the suit wasn't filed until after the election?

4. Even if it's a violation, does disenfranchising those who voted also constitute an infringement?

I see this one going to the SC and the issues here are all interesting.

PA SC just shot it down for reason #3, saying the time to challenge it was before the election. They could try and appeal to SCOTUS.

If they contaminated the segregation hopefully PA is ordered to do a new election via in person only.

So, I get that the deadline for challenging certain election results could pass, but how can there be a deadline on challenging an allegedly unconstitutional law? That seems an odd precedent to set. Laws can be on the books for years and not be known (officially) to be unconstitutional.

Smells fishy.

It's because they were asking to invalidate all mail in ballots for this election. I'm sure they can challenge it later, but it won't affect this election.

I can see the logic both ways.

On the one hand, why didn't they challenge it months ago, instead of waiting until challenging it would disenfranchise millions of people who followed the process in good faith? That almost seems like entrapment considering the GOP supported this law originally, and I can see courts taking a dim view of "tricking" people out of their right to vote

On the other hand if it's unconstitutional that's a problem too.

I can see this is going to SCOTUS.

The other 3 issues weren't considered in this ruling so even if it goes to SCOTUS there are more issues to deal with.

I'm going to make this crystal clear. Every member here must follow the CoC. Period, full stop. This thread has been given some pretty generous blind eyes. Trying to allow adults to adult. As soon as those adults start acting out, is when we have had to step in. You want to discuss the facts, to articles, the rumors, fine.. let's DO THAT. You want to take jabs at members, call them names, act like a child? Log-out. Come back when you can have a decent conversation that shows that we can be mature people.

I believe they tried to take it to court, before the elections.

And were told they can't make a challenge until something actually happens.

Now where is that tantrum emoji?

I listened to Sean Parnell on a podcast. In the lawsuit, tossing the votes was listed as a potential remedy, because you have to tell the judge what you would have them do, but they also deferred to the court's judgment on how to proceed, meaning tossing out all the votes wasn't the only possible remedy, even though all the stories I can find are making it sound like that. As usual, Republican bad, Trump bad. The election has only intensified that.

As far as the timing goes, until this election, mail-in voting hasn't been as big of a mainstream issue. Sure, it's been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats, and it isn't new, but the Kung Flu happening this year has triggered mail-in and absentee voting in a scale that hasn't been seen before. It goes without saying that problems with the method not noticed before have a higher chance of being noticed now that the method is being used on such a large scale.

Do you have a reference? They could have asked for an injunction preventing ballots from being mailed out to people. It's not like it was as surprise that it happened, given that the people who challenged the legislation were the very same people who voted for it.