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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: 'Decisions are imminent' on charges in Trump's effort to overturn 2020 election in Georgia [View all]BumRushDaShow
(128,704 posts)36. I didn't say it couldn't
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)
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)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'Decisions are imminent' on charges in Trump's effort to overturn 2020 election in Georgia [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Jan 2023
OP
"has recommended multiple indictments and her decision on whether to bring charges is imminent."
Botany
Jan 2023
#1
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
You called the effort futile. Are you now saying you routinely advise people to do futile things?
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2023
#15
Yes. But nonsense needs to be stepped on or it propagates. . . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2023
#18
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
"Your opinion carries absolutely no more weight". You are correct. But you contradict yourself
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2023
#26
Neither was I issuing a formal treatise. I don't have to and neither do they. :eyes:
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2023
#31
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
Read the OP. They must be kept sealed because charging decisions are being made. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2023
#10
She has to present the case(s) to a regular Grand Jury and ask them to vote to indict.
Justice matters.
Jan 2023
#16
A President tried to overturn an election and he gets fined? If anyone is going
Scrivener7
Jan 2023
#42
Ditto. Make it imminent as in today. Im dyin' from old age having to wait here
onetexan
Jan 2023
#33