You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win, deny the lawful votes, disenfranchise the lawful voters, and order a re-do?

Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching. And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed date are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win, deny the lawful voters, and order a re-do?

Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching.

And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed date are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win and order a re-do?

Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching.

And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win and order a re-do?

Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching.

And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win and order a re-do?

Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching. And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one partly hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win and order a re-do? Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching.

You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.

Your citation has to do with invalidatingcontracts, not elections.

Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one partly hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win andorder a re-do? Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching.