Trump cases going to Supreme Court?

[BNIBoiler]

So maaaaybe Soros, Oprah, Fauci, Hillary, and Hunter tooooo!! Gotcha Mr. “I’m Not A Sucker Who’s Been Conned.”

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

Do also suspect, or can’t rule out: Obama, Billy Carter, Rosie O’Donnell, or LeBron James?!!? Maybe the Geico Lizard! Shifty eyes ya know.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

I kinda feel sorry for Mr. Boilermaker03. He is a Chumper through and through. He will defend this man to no end. It’s sad that one human being can put the whammies on these people. If this MAGA crap is not a cult, then I don’t know what. These MAGA folks has been had, they’ve been took. They’ve been hoodwinked. Bamboozaled. Run astray. Run amuck. Boilermaker03 is going to be living in a South American jungle soon enough. The last time that happened, it did not end well.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So maaaaybe Soros, Oprah, Fauci, Hillary, and Hunter tooooo!! Gotcha Mr. “I’m Not A Sucker Who’s Been Conned.”

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

Do also suspect, or can’t rule out: Obama, Billy Carter, Rosie O’Donnell, or LeBron James?!!? Maybe the Geico Lizard! Shifty eyes ya know.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

You have a problem. The issue with Zuckerberg was bad enough that many states have banned it from happening again.

States Banning or Restricting “Zuck Bucks”—UPDATED 05/25/2023

Private financing of government election offices under the guise of COVID-19 relief skewed voter turnout in the 2020 election and may have tipped the presidential election to Joe Biden. As detailed below, at least a dozen state legislatures have responded to these revelations with bills to...

capitalresearch.org

 

[Boilermaker03]

I kinda feel sorry for Mr. Boilermaker03. He is a Chumper through and through. He will defend this man to no end. It’s sad that one human being can put the whammies on these people. If this MAGA crap is not a cult, then I don’t know what. These MAGA folks has been had, they’ve been took. They’ve been hoodwinked. Bamboozaled. Run astray. Run amuck. Boilermaker03 is going to be living in a South American jungle soon enough. The last time that happened, it did not end well.

You come up with the dumbest shit, but I get a good laugh out of it.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Pretty snappy non-answer there, Tex.

Wasn't worth a substantive response because your response to what I said was ridiculously stupid.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So maaaaybe Soros, Oprah, Fauci, Hillary, and Hunter tooooo!! Gotcha Mr. “I’m Not A Sucker Who’s Been Conned.”

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

Do also suspect, or can’t rule out: Obama, Billy Carter, Rosie O’Donnell, or LeBron James?!!? Maybe the Geico Lizard! Shifty eyes ya know.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

"Private financing of government election offices under the guise of COVID-19 relief skewed voter turnout in the 2020 election and may have tipped the presidential election to Joe Biden.


The chief culprit was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who poured $350 million into one sleepy nonprofit, the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). CTCL then distributed grants to hundreds of county and city elections officials in 47 states and the District of Columbia.


Despite its claims that the grants were strictly for COVID-19 relief, not partisan advantage, the data show otherwise. CRC research into grants distributed in key states—Arizona and Nevada, Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Georgia—has documented their partisan effects. We have also catalogued our major findings at InfluenceWatch."

 

[HoosierfanJM]

"Private financing of government election offices under the guise of COVID-19 relief skewed voter turnout in the 2020 election and may have tipped the presidential election to Joe Biden.


The chief culprit was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who poured $350 million into one sleepy nonprofit, the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). CTCL then distributed grants to hundreds of county and city elections officials in 47 states and the District of Columbia.


Despite its claims that the grants were strictly for COVID-19 relief, not partisan advantage, the data show otherwise. CRC research into grants distributed in key states—Arizona and Nevada, Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Georgia—has documented their partisan effects. We have also catalogued our major findings at InfluenceWatch."

This subjective crap you cited is from an hyper-partisan organization led by disgraced Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.

Once again;
You
Are
A
Sucker.

Good lord I should expect that your mindset in favor of Trooommp motivates you to find the silliest sources on the internet, but you constantly self-own by exposing yourself when you quote nonsense, hyper-partisans.

 

[Boilermaker03]

This subjective crap you cited is from an hyper-partisan organization led by disgraced Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.

Once again;
You
Are
A
Sucker.

Good lord I should expect that your mindset in favor of Trooommp motivates you to find the silliest sources on the internet, but you constantly self-own by exposing yourself when you quote nonsense, hyper-partisans.

JHC, 25+ states passed laws/rules to prevent something like the Zuck Bucks from happening again. Do you think they did that based off of nothing? Stop being a moron.

 

[Boilermaker03]

This subjective crap you cited is from an hyper-partisan organization led by disgraced Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.

Once again;
You
Are
A
Sucker.

Good lord I should expect that your mindset in favor of Trooommp motivates you to find the silliest sources on the internet, but you constantly self-own by exposing yourself when you quote nonsense, hyper-partisans.

There were other links I could have used. I just chose the one that was the most concise.

The Wisconsin "Zuckerbucks" Problem: New Data Reveals Private Funding of Election Offices Was More Widespread Than Initially Estimated

Given the proliferation of Zuckerbucks in 2020, Wisconsin should be the next state to safeguard their elections from outside influence.

thefga.org

'Zuck Bucks 2.0': Zuckerberg-funded group pushing millions to influence local election offices, report says

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is continuing an effort to invest millions of dollars to influence the way local election offices function, according to a new report.

www.foxnews.com

Wisconsin, Drop Boxes, and the Taint of “Zuck Bucks”

Time has only revealed more evidence of serious irregularities in the 2020 election. Millions of Americans are asking important questions about the trustworthiness of our elections—and the corrupting influence of professional partisans in them, starting with Wisconsin. The Badger State…

capitalresearch.org

“Zuck Bucks” 2.0 Rolls into North Carolina

Private election administration funding, or "Zuck bucks," influenced the outcome of some races in the 2020 election in North Carolina. A new organization called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence seeks to influence county elections boards toward "progressive changes to election laws and...

www.johnlocke.org

Election report finds Facebook mogul’s ‘Zuck Bucks’ broke law, swayed election outcome in Wisconsin

A 2020 election integrity probe in Wisconsin reported findings Tuesday that a nonprofit group funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg committed election bribery when it targeted $8.8 million in get-out-the-vote funds to five heavily Democratic jurisdictions.

www.washingtontimes.com

Progressive groups finding ways around NC’s ‘Zuck bucks’ ban

On Oct. 10, the North Carolina General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto on critical election integrity legislation, Senate Bill 747. One aspect of the new law is a ban on accepting corrosive private funds for conducting elections, making North Carolina the 26th state to do so. These bans...

www.carolinajournal.com

I could keep going.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

There were other links I could have used. I just chose the one that was the most concise.

The Wisconsin "Zuckerbucks" Problem: New Data Reveals Private Funding of Election Offices Was More Widespread Than Initially Estimated

Given the proliferation of Zuckerbucks in 2020, Wisconsin should be the next state to safeguard their elections from outside influence.

thefga.org

'Zuck Bucks 2.0': Zuckerberg-funded group pushing millions to influence local election offices, report says

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is continuing an effort to invest millions of dollars to influence the way local election offices function, according to a new report.

www.foxnews.com

Wisconsin, Drop Boxes, and the Taint of “Zuck Bucks”

Time has only revealed more evidence of serious irregularities in the 2020 election. Millions of Americans are asking important questions about the trustworthiness of our elections—and the corrupting influence of professional partisans in them, starting with Wisconsin. The Badger State…

capitalresearch.org

“Zuck Bucks” 2.0 Rolls into North Carolina

Private election administration funding, or "Zuck bucks," influenced the outcome of some races in the 2020 election in North Carolina. A new organization called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence seeks to influence county elections boards toward "progressive changes to election laws and...

www.johnlocke.org

Election report finds Facebook mogul’s ‘Zuck Bucks’ broke law, swayed election outcome in Wisconsin

A 2020 election integrity probe in Wisconsin reported findings Tuesday that a nonprofit group funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg committed election bribery when it targeted $8.8 million in get-out-the-vote funds to five heavily Democratic jurisdictions.

www.washingtontimes.com

Progressive groups finding ways around NC’s ‘Zuck bucks’ ban

On Oct. 10, the North Carolina General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto on critical election integrity legislation, Senate Bill 747. One aspect of the new law is a ban on accepting corrosive private funds for conducting elections, making North Carolina the 26th state to do so. These bans...

www.carolinajournal.com

I could keep going.

You could keep going with not-credible , non-news sources that picked up on and recycled nonsense.

At its worst, an organization contributed to legal voting methods awareness throughout a state. During the worst of Covid. It’s a giant nothing burger.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Hey— Trump ALWAYS MAKES UP A FRAUD CLAIM YA KNOW!

Here is his tweet immediately after losing the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz in 2016:

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!”

Did any of you suckers believe the con then?

 

[Boilermaker03]

You could keep going with not-credible , non-news sources that picked up on and recycled nonsense.

At its worst, an organization contributed to legal voting methods awareness throughout a state. During the worst of Covid. It’s a giant nothing burger.

Hey, thinking about another moronic take you have, if it's so easy to build a case in 2 months, why did it take the DOJ 3 years to go after Trump over J6?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Hey, thinking about another moronic take you have, if it's so easy to build a case in 2 months, why did it take the DOJ 3 years to go after Trump over J6?

You need much better reading comprehension.

As I already said, it is most certainly not “so easy” to build a complex case in a few months. That’s why courts routinely enjoin action.

Instead of lashing out with nonsense and insults, look at the alternate perspective and learn facts.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You need much better reading comprehension.

As I already said, it is most certainly not “so easy” to build a complex case in a few months. That’s why courts routinely enjoin action.

Instead of lashing out with nonsense and insults, look at the alternate perspective and learn facts.

Bullshit. The basis of one of your responses to me was that since the Trump team couldn't come up with solid cases on every front over the election in 2 months was some sort of proof that they didn't have anything.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Bullshit. The basis of one of your responses to me was that since the Trump team couldn't come up with solid cases on every front over the election in 2 months was some sort of proof that they didn't have anything.

Do I need to bump the posts. Every single time I said they needed enough to ENJOIN further action. Like EVERY other complex case where a deadline necessitates it.

Reading comprehension.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Do I need to bump the posts. Every single time I said they needed enough to ENJOIN further action. Like EVERY other complex case where a deadline necessitates it.

Reading comprehension.

Nice smiley. In other words; you DID NOT read the prior posts carefully and have no idea that courts routinely enjoin given a viable initial claim.

My advice to you?

1) Try to learn and understand what I am saying before you post childish, uninformed responses.

2) Stop posting the smiley emojis. Your smiley emoji responses are clearly your predictable response when you have been owned. It’s the only time you use them.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Nice smiley. In other words; you DID NOT read the prior posts carefully and have no idea that courts routinely enjoin given a viable initial claim.

My advice to you?

1) Try to learn and understand what I am saying before you post childish, uninformed responses.

2) Stop posting the smiley emojis. Your smiley emoji responses are clearly your predictable response when you have been owned. It’s the only time you use them.

I love how you think you know what my response is what I laugh at your post. Classic

 

[Boilermaker03]

This is utter and absolute nonsense.

Lawsuits are not, nor are they expected to be tried in two months. But there has to be a proper filing and merit to enjoin and proceed. Every judge is more than willing to enjoin results upon a legitimate filing.

Here's what you originally said above.

First of all, I never said that anyone expected the cases to be tried in 2 months. I said it's near impossible to gather all of the data and file in that many jurisdictions in 2 months. MOST cases take years to gather all the facts because they aren't just lying out on the table for you to grab.

Second, you keep using this term enjoin. What exactly did you think they were going to do? I really would like to know.

 

[Boilermaker03]

@HoosierfanJM Are you going to answer my question above?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

@HoosierfanJM Are you going to answer my question above?

Absolutely and fair:

If there was a viable initial claim, a court of competent jurisdiction and authority could absolutely have delayed the tabulation and finality of election results while that claim was adjudicated.

In some ways that’s what happened with Bush v Gore.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Absolutely and fair:

If there was a viable initial claim, a court of competent jurisdiction and authority could absolutely have delayed the tabulation and finality of election results while that claim was adjudicated.

In some ways that’s what happened with Bush v Gore.

This is a very different scenario than what happened in the 2020 election. A simple hand recount wasn't going to solve the problem and would have taken MUCH more time. Therefore, it would have been impossible to enjoin since the date in which a new president is sworn in is set in stone.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

This is a very different scenario than what happened in the 2020 election. A simple hand recount wasn't going to solve the problem and would have taken MUCH more time. Therefore, it would have been impossible to enjoin since the date in which a new president is sworn in is set in stone.

As i said "in some ways." Meaning a court of competent jurisdiction can enjoin action for an election scenario. Things are not "set in stone" if the judicial branch states otherwise and grants cert.

Of course, in this case, EVERY. SINGLE. COURT found that there was no actionable claim.

And as you said, a hand count is far, far less reliable than electronic counting. So are paper ballots. Infinitely less reliable.

 

[Boilermaker03]

As i said "in some ways." Meaning a court of competent jurisdiction can enjoin action for an election scenario. Things are not "set in stone" if the judicial branch states otherwise and grants cert.

Of course, in this case, EVERY. SINGLE. COURT found that there was no actionable claim.

And as you said, a hand count is far, far less reliable than electronic counting. So are paper ballots. Infinitely less reliable.

Yes, the date in which a new president is confirmed is 100% set in stone. The Constitution explicitly says what day it must occur. Therefore, no court could legally state otherwise. That's why it was near impossible for Trump to win in court, because the extremely limited time between the election and certification. The left knew this and used it to it's advantage.

"The Constitution and federal law establish a detailed timetable following the presidential election
during which time the members of the electoral college convene in the 50 state capitals and in the
District of Columbia, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and submit their votes
through state officials to both houses of Congress."

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

Of course, in this case, only 5 courts found there was no actionable claim. FIFY because your statement was demonstrably false as I have shown multiple times.

I made no such statement in regards to a hand count. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Yes, the date in which a new president is confirmed is 100% set in stone. The Constitution explicitly says what day it must occur. Therefore, no court could legally state otherwise. That's why it was near impossible for Trump to win in court, because the extremely limited time between the election and certification. The left knew this and used it to it's advantage.

"The Constitution and federal law establish a detailed timetable following the presidential election
during which time the members of the electoral college convene in the 50 state capitals and in the
District of Columbia, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and submit their votes
through state officials to both houses of Congress."

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

Of course, in this case, only 5 courts found there was no actionable claim. FIFY because your statement was demonstrably false as I have shown multiple times.

I made no such statement in regards to a hand count. Please don't put words in my mouth.

1) So you haven't said either way: Do you think that a hand count is more reliable? Do you think that is the case only in districts that support Donald Trump? So for instance, if a hand count replaced digital voting machines in Philadelphia, are you considering that an improvement to the process?

2) The date is set in stone unless the Supreme Court finds grounds to cite a finding otherwise. They would have to find case law or legislative intent to the contrary, but that is absolutely possible if circumstances were appropriate.

3) Maybe we aren't comparing apples to apples, but when 60 separate courts find no cause to proceed, in my summary phrasing that equates to no actionable claim. That could be for a variety of reasons; no standing, improper venue, a claim that was heard and rejected, etc.

 

[Boilermaker03]

1) So you haven't said either way: Do you think that a hand count is more reliable? Do you think that is the case only in districts that support Donald Trump? So for instance, if a hand count replaced digital voting machines in Philadelphia, are you considering that an improvement to the process?

I don't think a hand count inherently makes it more or less reliable. It all depends on how it's done. I don't understand where you're going with this. I've never said anything about hand counting helping Trump in any way.

2) The date is set in stone unless the Supreme Court finds grounds to cite a finding otherwise. They would have to find case law or legislative intent to the contrary, but that is absolutely possible if circumstances were appropriate.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution IS the letter of the law and cannot be changed by a court order.

3) Maybe we aren't comparing apples to apples, but when 60 separate courts find no cause to proceed, in my summary phrasing that equates to no actionable claim. That could be for a variety of reasons; no standing, improper venue, a claim that was heard and rejected, etc.

When 60 cases are filed and only 6 are heard based on the merits, there's a major problem. Most of the court cases that were dismissed due to having no standing, the argument was that the person filing wasn't the person hurt. IMO this was a cop out to not hear the case. IMO anyone should be able to have standing in a presidential election case because voter fraud effects everyone.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

I don't think a hand count inherently makes it more or less reliable. It all depends on how it's done. I don't understand where you're going with this. I've never said anything about hand counting helping Trump in any way.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution IS the letter of the law and cannot be changed by a court order.

When 60 cases are filed and only 6 are heard based on the merits, there's a major problem. Most of the court cases that were dismissed due to having no standing, the argument was that the person filing wasn't the person hurt. IMO this was a cop out to not hear the case. IMO anyone should be able to have standing in a presidential election case because voter fraud effects everyone.

Only six were heard because court after court ruled that the others were, to summarize, patently ridiculous and without standing.

Can you even imagine a judicial system where parties without standing got their cases heard? Aye caramba—talk about a massively bloated government and the venue shopping would be unimaginable.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I don't think a hand count inherently makes it more or less reliable. It all depends on how it's done. I don't understand where you're going with this. I've never said anything about hand counting helping Trump in any way.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution IS the letter of the law and cannot be changed by a court order.

When 60 cases are filed and only 6 are heard based on the merits, there's a major problem. Most of the court cases that were dismissed due to having no standing, the argument was that the person filing wasn't the person hurt. IMO this was a cop out to not hear the case. IMO anyone should be able to have standing in a presidential election case because voter fraud effects everyone.

You need to link something that says only 6 were heard on merit.

I’m gonna get you a link but I looked into this the last time you were on this rant. In several cases that were dismissed on standing, the courts also made remarks about the lack of evidence. They were called baseless and absurd. Lawyers are being sanctioned for filing them. Just because some were dismissed for lack of standing doesn’t mean they were going anywhere if they were heard by the courts.

 

[Riveting-]

@HoosierfanJM Are you going to answer my question above?

I expected hoofpub to say - only if you promise to take the TDS quiz he worked so hard on.

 

[Riveting-]

If this MAGA crap is not a cult, then I don’t know what.

By Jove, I think you've got it, Uncle Willis.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Only six were heard because court after court ruled that the others were, to summarize, patently ridiculous and without standing.

Wrong. Those are two very different things btw. Only 5 were found to be without merit. The media led you to believe this was the case with the rest.

Can you even imagine a judicial system where parties without standing got their cases heard? Aye caramba—talk about a massively bloated government and the venue shopping would be unimaginable.

I never said any party at any time could have a case heard. Jesus, do you even read what I write?

 

[Boilermaker03]

You need to link something that says only 6 were heard on merit.

I already have. I don't remember what thread it was in, but it said that 5 cases were dismissed due to lack of evidence. 1 case was won in favor of Trump. 33 were dismissed due to lack of standing and 14 were withdrawn (most likely due to the trend of lack of standing).

I’m gonna get you a link but I looked into this the last time you were on this rant. In several cases that were dismissed on standing, the courts also made remarks about the lack of evidence. They were called baseless and absurd. Lawyers are being sanctioned for filing them. Just because some were dismissed for lack of standing doesn’t mean they were going anywhere if they were heard by the courts.

I'm sure there were a few, as I said before, it's really hard to gather evidence in a very short period of time as these law suits were on a time crunch. I can promise you though, that wasn't the case with all of them.

 

[Boilermaker03]

By Jove, I think you've got it, Uncle Willis.

Him and his MAGA cult dumb shit response just makes me shake my head. Little does he know that he is in the TDS cult. Keeps saying I'm going to move into a jungle. WTF does that even mean or have to do with anything? I can't imagine thinking something so stupid. I'm not even a huge proponent of Trump the man. I just liked his policies and want someone not a part of the swamp to lead us. So if not Trump then Vivek. The next closest is Desantis. For the love of god not Hailey or Christie.