Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,704 posts)
36. I didn't say it couldn't
Tue Jan 24, 2023, 04:09 PM
Jan 2023

But what I DID say was that when these types of things HAVE gone there, they were waved away.

This is what I posted -

which is why the SCOTUS had waived away all those whining lawsuits from the Kraken crew and their minions like Graham, who were being told to testify in GA. Those SCOTUS rejections gave them no other recourse and forced the sea monsters to testify.


It happened many times where in PA for the same types of nonsense from the loons here trying to throw out our election law (Act-77) that the GOP here WROTE and almost unanimously voted for (save for 1 member), and then who suddenly didn't want it anymore, and instead wanted to declare it "unconstitutional" so they could throw out our votes, and overturn our electoral count.

There were over 60 cases filed (64 per this), some state and some federal, and all but one that THEY lost, a couple being appeals of the PA State Supreme Court decisions eventually taken to the SCOTUS. A good list is here - https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/

By the numbers: President Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election

William Cummings, Joey Garrison and Jim Sergent USA TODAY
Published 5:01 AM EST Jan. 6, 2021 Updated 10:50 AM EST Jan. 6, 2021

(snip)

The U.S. Supreme Court twice refused to take up Trump-endorsed lawsuits that sought to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 election.

In a one-sentence denial, the Supreme Court on Dec. 8 rejected a request from Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to overturn Biden's win in the state. The challenge, led Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., claimed that the Republican-led state legislature's expansion of absentee voting violated the state's constitution.

Three days later, the Supreme Court refused to let Texas challenge the election results in four battleground states critical to Trump's defeat. The court said Texas did not demonstrate "a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections."

(snip)
"has recommended multiple indictments and her decision on whether to bring charges is imminent." Botany Jan 2023 #1
K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t RKP5637 Jan 2023 #2
I'm guessing that is the equivalent to a BumRushDaShow Jan 2023 #4
As always....I'll have to see it to believe it. LiberalLovinLug Jan 2023 #40
I apologize for my legal ignorance DENVERPOPS Jan 2023 #3
This case is being handled by a county in the state of Georgia BumRushDaShow Jan 2023 #6
A state criminal case can certainly go to the US SC. former9thward Jan 2023 #32
I didn't say it couldn't BumRushDaShow Jan 2023 #36
No, and no.... getagrip_already Jan 2023 #8
Thx for the info nc DENVERPOPS Jan 2023 #14
Your advice boils down to: Give up, hand the keys to the Authoritarians, go home. No, no, no. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #9
I posed a sincere legal question DENVERPOPS Jan 2023 #13
You called the effort futile. Are you now saying you routinely advise people to do futile things? Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #15
Take it easy, big fella! We are all good people in here. secondwind Jan 2023 #17
Yes. But nonsense needs to be stepped on or it propagates. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #18
No one appointed you the gatekeeper for nonsense Orrex Jan 2023 #21
I'm not gatekeeping. Nothing I posted said they can't post. I call it nonsense. Poster doesn't Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #24
Right. Orrex Jan 2023 #27
You mischaracterize me again Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #30
Thank you DENVERPOPS Jan 2023 #20
You are complaining that someone has asked a reasonable question Orrex Jan 2023 #19
"Your opinion carries absolutely no more weight". You are correct. But you contradict yourself Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #26
The poster wasn't issuing a formal treatise Orrex Jan 2023 #29
Neither was I issuing a formal treatise. I don't have to and neither do they. :eyes: Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #31
Why are you scolding at all? Karma13612 Jan 2023 #44
I shared my opinion of the poster's opinion. That's debate. I scolded their opinion for nonsense Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #45
Impeachments Can't Be Overturned... GB_RN Jan 2023 #38
No, it wouldn't be futile Fiendish Thingy Jan 2023 #41
thank you Skittles Jan 2023 #43
Saw a blip on the TV machine that MOMFUDSKI Jan 2023 #5
Read the OP. They must be kept sealed because charging decisions are being made. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2023 #10
Am wondering BumRushDaShow Jan 2023 #11
Yeah, Smith and Willis ancianita Jan 2023 #22
She doesn't want the evidence to leak to defendents yet... getagrip_already Jan 2023 #12
Possible defendants know what she has. former9thward Jan 2023 #34
She has to present the case(s) to a regular Grand Jury and ask them to vote to indict. Justice matters. Jan 2023 #16
....... trusty elf Jan 2023 #7
Some are saying that really big fines FredGarvin Jan 2023 #23
Yes but a criminal conviction is the important thing FakeNoose Jan 2023 #35
A President tried to overturn an election and he gets fined? If anyone is going Scrivener7 Jan 2023 #42
Wonder if by "imminent" she means in a few days, after a regular grand jury ancianita Jan 2023 #25
like it republianmushroom Jan 2023 #28
Ditto. Make it imminent as in today. Im dyin' from old age having to wait here onetexan Jan 2023 #33
Me too! phoenix75 Jan 2023 #37
I'm glad she's hinting at it ... ificandream Jan 2023 #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'Decisions are imminent' ...»Reply #36