I don't know if that's true or not and @rocketsjudoka can response. But the idea that standing is the real issue here is wrong. Standing isn't the reason why they lost 2000 court cases in the last 40 days related to the election. Most of the cases were heard and lost. Most of them didn't even argue there was fraud and those that did have no evidence of fraud. Those that were denied based on standing have comments from the Judges that indicate it would have failed anyway or there are no serious evidences of fraud. A few cases still on appeal have nothing to do with fraud but legal procedures and some of those were dismissed on lack of legal standing. It's all legal and nothing to do with fraud. There simply has been no evidences of fraud that would have impacted the election result. Bill Barr stated the same. It's all public diarrhea from the Trump people with no actual evidence to back them up.
I think it has gotten to the point that Trump doesn't even try to hide his outright illegal and treasonous acts. He will lie, cheat, and steal to win, and keep collecting as much money from the dumbas*es contributing to a lost cause as long as he can. Funneling money into secret accounts perhaps? Maybe, but he will just pardon himself when it all backfires on him, and his attempted coup fails.
Looks like both cotton and mike lee (both trump defenders) have left ted cruz out to dry after the trump tape was released...
Many of the sidebar cases have been thrown out for lack of standing. But most of Trump's have not. Several judges have asked the Trump team to produce evidence - and each time, the Trump legal team withdraws their case or removes the fraud accusations. Here are examples from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - from the National Review: Trump Campaign Wisconsin Election Lawsuit: Court Rejects Allegations | National Review The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court’s rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits. After all that’s been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court’s workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting): With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court. A “stipulated set of facts,” in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial. ... So what happened in Wisconsin? Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles. In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment. There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.” ... The Trump team started out as audaciously on claimed constitutional violations as it had been on public allegations of fraud. It claimed Wisconsin officials had run roughshod over the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment — the array of allegations they’ve made in other battleground states as well. When it became clear, however, that the court was willing to entertain the president’s case but would scrutinize it closely, the Trump team quickly dropped the First Amendment and Due Process claims. ... Nor can it be ignored that this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court. In Pennsylvania, just days before the date a federal judge had set aside for a hearing on the Trump campaign’s complaint, the campaign dropped its fraud charges and agreed that no hearing would be necessary. In Michigan, the campaign dropped its lawsuit after a federal judge threatened to dismiss it for failure to prosecute — nearly a week after filing the case with great fanfare, the campaign had still not served its complaint on the secretary of state. It has become an article of faith among ardent Trump followers that the election was stolen. The president continues to insist that this is the case, and these flames were further fanned by 19 Republican-controlled state governments, along with 126 Republican members of Congress, who joined the meritless Texas lawsuit, tossed out by the Supreme Court on Friday. The rationalization behind that stunt was that the president has been denied his day in court. But every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds. Why is that?
I read some of Tom Cotton's Twitter replies, apparently now he's the Antichrist. I think one guy shinning through all this is Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger. A bright young conservative voice arguing for the integrity of the GOP. He looks good, sounds good, and is saying very patriotic things. With Romney and Sasse, and the bailout of Cotton and a Cornyn, I think we will see a shift back to reality. Cruz is hated as a ambitious grandstander anyway. His and a couple of other people's isolation from party leadership is coming I believe. Partly because I think corporate money will back them and dry up for the seditious radicals. I don't think they will want to be associated with insanity.
Trump re-tweeting Ron Watson. LOFL. If you’re unaware, he and his father run/ran 8chan and have been implicated as knowing the person behind ‘Q’ or acting as ‘Q’ themselves.
Just saying, the way Congress is designed and apportioned is expressly designed to thwart the will of the voters....so i guess that means something.
Georgia election official eviscerates Trump election lies one by one: ‘Such a long list’ Griffin Connolly Washington 4 minutes ago Just a couple of the Liar in Chief's BS claims from the article below. Last week, Mr Trump tweeted to his 88.5m followers the false claim that Mr Raffensperger had a brother Ron who worked for the Chinese tech company Huawei. The secretary’s brother is not named Ron, and he does not have any family members who work for Huawei. Among the false claims — many of which have filtered their way through the online conservative ecosystem — were assertions that more than 2,000 felons, 66,248 underage teenagers, and 2,423 unregistered people voted in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. The Georgia secretary of state’s office has isolated just 74 potential felons who may have cast ballots before their sentences expired. Zero underage people voted. Four people requested ballots when they were 17, but were 18 by the time they voted. Zero unregistered Georgians voted. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...election-trump-gabriel-sterling-b1782291.html
The podcast goes into details. ~10min long. Worth the listen. Dominion plans to sue Sidney Powell, doesn't rule out Trump - Axios Dominion Voting Systems plans to sue attorney Sidney Powell "imminently" for defamation, and is continuing to explore similar suits against President Trump and others, company founder and CEO John Poulos told the Axios Re:Cap podcast on Monday. Between the lines: Dominion, which makes the voting machines used in Georgia and elsewhere, has been the subject of baseless accusations of malfeasance during last November's elections. Trump, during his leaked call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, called the U.S.-based company "corrupt" and had to be corrected by Raffensperger after claiming machines had been recently removed and/or altered by Dominion employees. Dominion says that the rhetorical barrage has led to death threats against its employees, including one who remains unable to return to his home.
I hope Dominion sues Trump on what he said on the phone call or least ask him to keep records of his evidence and conversations regarding machines being removed or altered by Dominion
