[Tom Bishop]

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Because they rule on fact.

[Rama Set]

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

[Tom Bishop]

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which went to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

[Rama Set]

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

[stack]

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Because they rule on fact.

I'm hoping they do rule on fact. But that doesn't answer the question. What do you think the significance is for the justice-to-state assignment? Why did you explicitly point that out?

[AATW]

Because they rule on fact.

And you think that’s a good thing for Trump do you?
He wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked him round the chops.

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won. Because for all their bluster in public, when they get into court and they’re under oath they’ve got nothing. Sometimes the judges are pretty much openly asking the lawyers what they’re doing there and why they’re wasting the court’s time.

But if these judges you’re getting so excited about keep ruling against Trump will you finally concede that the facts just aren’t on Trump’s side and that Biden won fair and square?

[Tom Bishop]

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

Check your notes. Trump's campaign was not part of the Georgia lawsuit, and because they were not a part of it, that's a reason for why it was rejected.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/

"When Wood’s attorney Ray Stallings Smith III said he was retained by Trump’s campaign, Judge Grimberg called it significant that the campaign is not a party to the case.

Grimberg called Trump’s lack of an appearance in the case one of the reasons he found a lack of standing."

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won.

You seem to think that the things you hear are fact.

Prove that the number is 31 to 1 and prove that Trump's campaign was involved in all of them, and prove that those cases were dismissed based on merit rather than a technicality like the Georgia judge used above.

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry . Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

[AATW]

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry

What are you going on then?
Are you suggesting that Trump’s team are knocking it out of the park? I found this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/trump-campaign-drops-michigan-election-lawsuit-rudy-giuliani-says.html

The 0-3 result for Trump’s campaign on Thursday came on the heels of its decision to drop the federal lawsuit in Michigan, which had sought to stop the certification of ballots in Wayne County, Michigan.

And it came after the campaign and its allies had already lost or withdrew 29 other post-election legal cases, according to the Democracydocket.com, which is tracking such cases.

As for:

Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

Oh well, if a sociopathic compulsive liar says it then how could anyone possibly doubt it?

I note that you ignored the question about accepting the election result of the judges you are celebrating the appointment of throw out Trump’s nonsense. By your own logic (these people deal in facts), that would indicate that the facts just aren’t on Trump’s side, no?

[Rama Set]

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

Check your notes. Trump's campaign was not part of the Georgia lawsuit, and because they were not a part of it, that's a reason for why it was rejected.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/

"When Wood’s attorney Ray Stallings Smith III said he was retained by Trump’s campaign, Judge Grimberg called it significant that the campaign is not a party to the case.

Grimberg called Trump’s lack of an appearance in the case one of the reasons he found a lack of standing."

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won.

You seem to think that the things you hear are fact.

Prove that the number is 31 to 1 and prove that Trump's campaign was involved in all of them, and prove that those cases were dismissed based on merit rather than a technicality like the Georgia judge used above.

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry . Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

Who cares if Trump was specifically party to this or not? The original point was to address an implied dearth of conservative judges that have been ruling on cases related to challenging the election. They obviously have been already. Having these SCOTUS judges overseeing these districts (real subtle Barr and Trump) isn’t going to suddenly make Trumps’s pathetic attempts at litigating democracy away successful.

My prediction is this: Donald J Trump will resign sometime between Dec 8th and Dec 14th. There will be a press conference where he speaks at length about how everyone is against him, he was some version of the best president ever and he will be back. He won’t take questions and he won’t do anything to ease the transfer to of power to Biden. That seems the likeliest way for a narcissist like Trump to acknowledge his defeat of over 6M votes.

[AATW]

This is pretty funny.
This is the level of evidence they’re presenting in court.



It’s a real head-scratcher that they’re not getting very far.

[GreatATuin]

Trump Supporters in Georgia Threaten to Destroy GOP, Boycott Runoff Elections

If the GOP loses the Senate because of Trump's "stop the steal" campaign, that'd be even better than the "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" episode.

[Iceman]

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

[Rama Set]

Evidence of election fraud:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-wisconsin-elections-dcb7da95578fc7289122c6d372575a9b

[AATW]

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

[Pete Svarrior]

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

That's hilarious, although it might turn ugly - someone, somewhere, is encouraging a target group to submit invalid ballots. Could it be the Spooкy Naтion?

[GreatATuin]

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

I don't think they expect to win these court cases and overturn the results. They just want to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about the integrity of the election, as part of a larger strategy.

A long, but interesting read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

[Rama Set]

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

A republican judge, no less.

[AATW]

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

A republican judge, no less.

I hear they deal in facts, so...

[Iceman]

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

That's hilarious, although it might turn ugly - someone, somewhere, is encouraging a target group to submit invalid ballots. Could it be the Spooкy Naтion?

I agree completely. Hilarious, but potentially verrrry problematic.

Would whatever is under Rudy's  skinsuit be the leader of the whatever the spooky nation is? 

[AATW]

A long, but interesting read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

That is interesting but I don’t think any of the nightmare scenarios are going to play out here. Because, actually, the election result wasn’t that close. Nowhere near “2000” close.

Trump’s only real chance is if he can demonstrate the widespread fraud which he alleges happened. The problem is there just isn’t any evidence for that. I mean, there’s a load of people saying stuff which shows a complete lack of understanding of how elections work. There’s people like the USPS dude who, stirred up by the POTUS sowing suspicion everywhere, says “hey, I heard a thing”. But on the gentlest cross examination admits he heard part of a conversation and assumed the rest.

They keep saying they have a lot of evidence but in court they keep failing to produce anything credible. Even other Republicans are starting to call him out on this now, one quite publicly calling it embarrassing today.