I hope you didn't send money. If you did. they are wasting your money. Only about 8-9 Million has gone for the nuisance suits. another ~25% is going into the RNC coffers. The remainder of the >$200 Million raised by Trump since the election is going effectiverly into Trump's pocket, according to those familiar with Trumps "PAC" scam.
Possible Election Fraud in Progress
- Thread starter BeautifulStranger
- Start date
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/rabobank-texas-opens-huge-can-worms-nobody-media-will-cover-it
By Michael Every of Rabobank
A Texas-sized mess may have just appeared but if you check the news you will not see much reference to it.
Yesterday, the Arizona supreme court refused to hear a Trump appeal, and the Nevada supreme court looks to be leaning against a similar case too. Those moves towards ‘game over’ for Trump got covered. The US Supreme Court heard the reply from Pennsylvania in the case over the constitutionality of voting by mail there, which basically did not deny the complaint but said “You really don’t want to open this constitutional can of worms”; and the Court then denied the call for emergency injunctive relief against certifying its election results. That ‘game over’ got covered too.
What did not get covered is that Texas filed a case with the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin calling for the election results to be overturned in those states, and for the constitutional remedy of returning the selection of electors to state legislatures, claiming:
Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:
“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”
In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000, which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.
Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case: because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.
Markets don’t know how to price these kind of tail risks. They will ignore this right up until the last second: but if we get a surprise result, be ready for resulting surprises.
By Michael Every of Rabobank
A Texas-sized mess may have just appeared but if you check the news you will not see much reference to it.
Yesterday, the Arizona supreme court refused to hear a Trump appeal, and the Nevada supreme court looks to be leaning against a similar case too. Those moves towards ‘game over’ for Trump got covered. The US Supreme Court heard the reply from Pennsylvania in the case over the constitutionality of voting by mail there, which basically did not deny the complaint but said “You really don’t want to open this constitutional can of worms”; and the Court then denied the call for emergency injunctive relief against certifying its election results. That ‘game over’ got covered too.
What did not get covered is that Texas filed a case with the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin calling for the election results to be overturned in those states, and for the constitutional remedy of returning the selection of electors to state legislatures, claiming:
- Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
- Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters -whether lawful or unlawful– in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
- The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.
Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:
“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”
In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000, which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.
Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case: because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.
Markets don’t know how to price these kind of tail risks. They will ignore this right up until the last second: but if we get a surprise result, be ready for resulting surprises.
Texas can claim women have three tits and bigfoot is gay...
But until Texas can show 3 titty women ina picture with Bigfoot sucking dick.....then it is meaningless.
But until Texas can show 3 titty women ina picture with Bigfoot sucking dick.....then it is meaningless.
If only you could understand one thing, you could figure things out for yourself.
What you're missing is that Trump is a "sociopath". He has what psychiatrists would diagnose as a severe Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). Look it up, note the diagnostic criteria. Then compare those criteria to Trump's behavior.
You are not the only one who fails to realize that Trump has a very severe personality disorder that renders him dangerous. Even many who simply look at what he does and recognize it as lunacy don't realize the severity of his disorder.
Last edited:
Biden checks all the boxes.
Is it SOP for the lady in the upper left of the video to run the same ballots through the tabulator 3 times?
Probably it is SOP
It sounds like the US Supreme Court acts upon legal principle and is not partisan, right?
Therefore, should the US Supreme Court rule in favor of the Trump Administration, you would be ok with that, right?
Tabulator can't track duplicates? How did the handcount miss this?
Even if one out of maybe near a hundred witnesses at this point is impeached, at least the Trump Campaign still has the others. So no, the case of Election Fraud in the 2020 US Presidential Elections is not closed and Rudy Giuliani did not lose. Nice try.
The point I making in the post you quoted is that when it comes to evidence involving alleged scandals by the Democrats, the Democrats often only have one or a handful of witnesses who ultimately get discredited, while when Republicans allege a scandal, such as election fraud, they have many dozens of corroborating witness who signed affidavits on material, verifable matters, not alleged non-reported sex crimes from decades ago by a apparent DNC operative, such as Mrs. Ford.
It takes a biased media in favor of Democrats for it to be possible for them to maintain such an unequal assessment of the scale of the evidence and its impact on the relative seriousness and credibility of a scandal.