Theory on why the courts won't take the election fraud case - The Great Awakening

Theory on why the courts won't take the election fraud case

posted 4 years ago by weholdthesetruths 4 years ago by weholdthesetruths +750 / -0

This may be a flimsy theory but I was just thinking, what if "standing" is just a red herring?

Is it possible that due to the influence of a foreign power in this case, the issue isn't that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing, but that the courts themselves lack jurisdiction?

Q always said the military was the only way--is it possible that military courts are the only way too when election fraud involves foreign actors?

205 comments

205 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (205)

sorted by:

▲ 104 ▼

– FemalePatriot 104 points 4 years ago +105 / -1

Hmmmm that’s actually a descent thought.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 27 ▼

– Forkyou 27 points 4 years ago +29 / -2

Don't you just wish they would have said it in court?

In a recent Pennsylvania federal case, Giuliani alleged “widespread, nationwide voter fraud” in his opening remarks. But under questioning from the judge, he retreated. “This is not a fraud case,” Giuliani later admitted. In the same case, Trump lawyer Linda Kearns said explicitly that she is “not proceeding” on allegations of fraud.

In a separate state case in Montgomery County, Pa., a judge asked Trump lawyer Jonathan S. Goldstein whether he was alleging fraud. “Your honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step,” Goldstein said. “And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith.” The judge pressed Goldstein to answer the specific question: “Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?” To which Goldstein replied: “To my knowledge at present, no.”