- Joined
- May 6, 2019
All of them have Democrat AGs... except Georgia. Though I don't know of Carr is a RINO or not.
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
- Status
Reisen Storm
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
Welp, civil war is a go in Michigan.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Stage 3 properly begins, the beast lashes out now that a wound it cannot prevent appears.
WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
Instead of 1776 we are in 1861?
Dr J
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2020
Oh gee, that's totally not an incriminating video that won't be used against her in a court of law. Nope, no sir
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
That’s some glow posting alright. She was insufferable during the Michigan hearing, so if she gets lawsuits for this, I won’t feel sympathy for her.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Also, looking a bit into the merit of the lawsuits they actually have a very strong case unrelated to fraud.
The crux of their argument will likely be that the changes made to the system were improper, circumnavigating the fraud issue. Many of the changes were made by governors and electoral committees, the problem being that electoral law is, constitutionally, mandated to the LEGISLATURES.
So the Texas challenge is that, as a signing party to the original contract saying that all electoral law must be decided by the legislatures, they are injured due to these states flaunting that and a president being elected through them as a result. Effectively, saying they abided by a contract but the other side did not.
Whether they throw in any other challenges related to fraud would need to be seen, but I'd suspect that to be their main line of attack and any fraud things being meant to demonstrate the potential injury that resulted there from.
Addendum: Its also worth noting this gives the SC an out, a way to narrowly tailor their reasoning without it having too great a knock-on effect. "We are merely striking these down due to a failure to comply with the constitution, at the behest of the other States in the Union". This kind of weasel word reasoning is -exactly- what they need to ensure Kavanaugh doesn't split. It also fairly well locks Barrett and Thomas. Alito is pissed so he's a lock for the same reason.
That's 4 justices. Only Gorsuch, Roberts, or Breyer need to be convinced of it. And that's not a hard sell to two of them.
The crux of their argument will likely be that the changes made to the system were improper, circumnavigating the fraud issue. Many of the changes were made by governors and electoral committees, the problem being that electoral law is, constitutionally, mandated to the LEGISLATURES.
So the Texas challenge is that, as a signing party to the original contract saying that all electoral law must be decided by the legislatures, they are injured due to these states flaunting that and a president being elected through them as a result. Effectively, saying they abided by a contract but the other side did not.
Whether they throw in any other challenges related to fraud would need to be seen, but I'd suspect that to be their main line of attack and any fraud things being meant to demonstrate the potential injury that resulted there from.
Addendum: Its also worth noting this gives the SC an out, a way to narrowly tailor their reasoning without it having too great a knock-on effect. "We are merely striking these down due to a failure to comply with the constitution, at the behest of the other States in the Union". This kind of weasel word reasoning is -exactly- what they need to ensure Kavanaugh doesn't split. It also fairly well locks Barrett and Thomas. Alito is pissed so he's a lock for the same reason.
That's 4 justices. Only Gorsuch, Roberts, or Breyer need to be convinced of it. And that's not a hard sell to two of them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
Holy Shiite! Actual fedposting from a member of the Michigan House. To any FBI agents reading this here's an archive in case she deletes the tweet. I got you, fam!
Also if you interviewed her and she lies to you, that's a crime.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UncleGulag/status/1336531504869076993
https://archive.vn/wip/MVIlw
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
It’s a good thing the FBI reads the Farms!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
Nietzsche
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
I was waiting for something major to go down there. They weren't touched by the riots somehow.
Dr J
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2020
Trump does like to compare himself to Lincoln. I hope they don't shoot him in the theatre
Lawsuits? I want to see her go to prison where she belongs
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
If I were a patriotic FBI agent I'd interview her for an hour. She's bound to contradict herself and then that's lying to the FBI
WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
So fbi are you going to investigate C.A. Johnson instead of a troll? Because she's glowing like a green lantern.
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
I will say this. I was not expecting fedposting from an elected official over this election. It’s one thing if it’s a random citizen, but to see an elected official do it is surprising. I know she represents Detroit, but even so, most politicians are smart enough not to fedpost.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
Flat out advocation for political intimadation and violence. That was a smart thing to say as an elected official in these times.
The doomer in me say she'll be ignored or get a slap on the wrist at worst though.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Never underestimate how much people love image and PR. Or the power of social media brownie points.
So what happens in the next episode of Death Note 2020? What's the other side's keikaku?
Good PR, I'm assuming. If anything, try to prove that the US should be the one to guide the world into the future.
You see this woman. Would you bang?
So what I'm hearing is that the Supreme Court doesn't like to rock the boat and likes their status. From this, it seems they could go against Trump to avoid a cataclysmic change, but also try to do everything they can do to avoid court packing.
- Status