You seem to lack the capacity of the task it takes to gather evidence and prosecute it. That takes years unfortunately. It's possibly true that there are tribunals at the White House since we know the White House is not occupied and there is a very strange but firm temporary structure in the back yard as per aerial photos of today's White House, which is also fenced now.
You seem to lack the capacity of the task it takes to gather evidence and prosecute it. That takes years unfortunately. It's possibly true that there are tribunals at the White House since we know the White House is not occupied and there is a very strange but firm temporary structure in the back yard as per aerial photos of today's White House, which is also fenced now.
After reading this reply to me, I can honestly say I have no idea what you are addressing in my post. I said nothing about trials, tribunals, or anything else. I mentioned Trump proving election fraud to the SCOTUS. He already has the evidence - at least he says he does. SCOTUS is a civil court, not a criminal court. They don't prosecute. The "fence" around the white house is a construction fence surrounding the fountain in front, as Nancy Drew's videos clearly indicate. So honestly, I have no clue what it is you think I don't grasp. My point was whatever is devolved - if it is - pertains only to the Executive branch.
It’s very clear that you lack reading comprehension and this blog is above your pay grade. The reason zero cases have been in front of any courts is because they are corrupt. The Scotus was kicked saying they lack standing which is pure insanity. The cabal is deep. You’re assuming things work like under normal circumstances.
First, genius, you're so stunningly wrong about "zero cases having been in front of any court" that it speaks loudly to who it is between us that has the far lower pay grade. A total of 87 cases made their way into the court system dealing with the fraud of the 2020 election. Of those 87, Trump & the GOP won 71% of those.
So before you go around insulting people about what they do and don't know, get your own cluelessness shored up first. It took me all of 10 seconds to find this link to prove you don't know what you're talking about. So sit down. Stay quiet. And let those of us who have a clue hash this out. If your opinion is asked for, someone will call on you. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, given you demonstrate no grasp of anything that's , you know, factual.
Great! Where's the decertification due to the 87 cases? And if you knew this, then why are you asking stupid questions. You are so dim you couldn't comprehend what I was saying, only what you wish to scream. So sit this one out Nicky.
LOL! You were the one who was flat out wrong, and you don't even have the integrity to admit it. Now you wanna demand where this mysterious "decertification" is, based on court cases you were adamant never existed. You're proven wrong about "0" cases, and to avoid being called out as the know-nothing you are, you just move on to the next complaint: where is "decertification"?? Tell you what, outline the statutes in each state that show all of us in detail what this "decertification" process is, legislatively. Show us what statutes exist now for all these legislatures to produce this "decertification" you demand - Screaming High-Chair Queen that you are. Go ahead...we'll wait. In the meantime..
Given all you do is ankle-bite bitching via a varying laundry list of complaints that had nothing to do with anything I wrote about, you outed yourself: one of those buffoons who thinks their thimble-sized intellect constitutes "expertise". Like I said: sit down, shut up, and let those who actually know things sort this out. It's painfully obvious this is already way out of your league.
You seem to lack the capacity of the task it takes to gather evidence and prosecute it. That takes years unfortunately. It's possibly true that there are tribunals at the White House since we know the White House is not occupied and there is a very strange but firm temporary structure in the back yard as per aerial photos of today's White House, which is also fenced now.
After reading this reply to me, I can honestly say I have no idea what you are addressing in my post. I said nothing about trials, tribunals, or anything else. I mentioned Trump proving election fraud to the SCOTUS. He already has the evidence - at least he says he does. SCOTUS is a civil court, not a criminal court. They don't prosecute. The "fence" around the white house is a construction fence surrounding the fountain in front, as Nancy Drew's videos clearly indicate. So honestly, I have no clue what it is you think I don't grasp. My point was whatever is devolved - if it is - pertains only to the Executive branch.
It’s very clear that you lack reading comprehension and this blog is above your pay grade. The reason zero cases have been in front of any courts is because they are corrupt. The Scotus was kicked saying they lack standing which is pure insanity. The cabal is deep. You’re assuming things work like under normal circumstances.
First, genius, you're so stunningly wrong about "zero cases having been in front of any court" that it speaks loudly to who it is between us that has the far lower pay grade. A total of 87 cases made their way into the court system dealing with the fraud of the 2020 election. Of those 87, Trump & the GOP won 71% of those.
https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/updated-list-of-2020-election-fraud-cases-shows-87-total-cases-trump-gop-won-71-of-cases/
So before you go around insulting people about what they do and don't know, get your own cluelessness shored up first. It took me all of 10 seconds to find this link to prove you don't know what you're talking about. So sit down. Stay quiet. And let those of us who have a clue hash this out. If your opinion is asked for, someone will call on you. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, given you demonstrate no grasp of anything that's , you know, factual.
Great! Where's the decertification due to the 87 cases? And if you knew this, then why are you asking stupid questions. You are so dim you couldn't comprehend what I was saying, only what you wish to scream. So sit this one out Nicky.
LOL! You were the one who was flat out wrong, and you don't even have the integrity to admit it. Now you wanna demand where this mysterious "decertification" is, based on court cases you were adamant never existed. You're proven wrong about "0" cases, and to avoid being called out as the know-nothing you are, you just move on to the next complaint: where is "decertification"?? Tell you what, outline the statutes in each state that show all of us in detail what this "decertification" process is, legislatively. Show us what statutes exist now for all these legislatures to produce this "decertification" you demand - Screaming High-Chair Queen that you are. Go ahead...we'll wait. In the meantime..
Given all you do is ankle-bite bitching via a varying laundry list of complaints that had nothing to do with anything I wrote about, you outed yourself: one of those buffoons who thinks their thimble-sized intellect constitutes "expertise". Like I said: sit down, shut up, and let those who actually know things sort this out. It's painfully obvious this is already way out of your league.