Thread: MITCH MCCONNELL: the mob was fed lies, and provoked by Trump

.




.


Unfortunately, the biggest lie told, which shut down 76 million people who wanted nothing more than our Supreme Court to give a hearing to a list of grievances found in the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT, a shutdown by the Court which understandably provoked 76 million American Citizens, has suspiciously been ignored by Mitch McConnell ___ the biggest lie told was the Supreme Court falsely asserting that Texas had not demonstrated a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”.


The assertion that Texas had not demonstrated a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, when the charges set forth in the Texas brief and complaint summarize and detail both illegal and fraudulent election practices in not one, but in four States _ practices which undeniably violate our federal Constitution and have corrupted the outcome of a federal election _ most certainly do demonstrate a judicially cognizable interest, not only for the State of Texas, but for the entire United States and her citizens.


As succinctly stated by a noteworthy Justice of our Supreme Court eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” _ __ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

I guess Mitch McConnell will get away with his misrepresentation of the facts. Which "Republican" in the Senate had the gumption to confront Mitch's misrepresentations of the facts?


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

Originally Posted by Judy

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court, along with Mitch MCCONNELL, ignored the rule of law!

President Trump was absolutely correct when asserting the election was rigged!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law [1]


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.

As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

[1] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.


JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

Originally Posted by Judy

.
Texas did submit a BILL OF COMPLAINT to the Supreme Court of the United States, and instead of giving it a hearing, examine evidence and listen to sworn witnesses, members on the Court lied and RULED that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”




But, the irrefutable fact is, elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people, not only in a state doing so, but in other states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in the offending state, and therefore, states so offended by illegal voting practices in a federal electoral process do have a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [1]


If, after counting the PA election results a particular candidate would win, and election officials in PA do not like that candidate and add a million illegal ballots to the count so their candidate of choice wins, such action not only is an infringement upon the right to vote for PA’s voters, but likewise negatively affects voters in other States. The fact is, the collective vote of voters within each State, for their chosen candidate who is not liked by PA election officials, is diminished by the illegal ballots added to PA’s election results which not only illegally tilts the election results in the State of PA, but also awards PAs Electoral College vote to a candidate who had really lost in the State of PA…[2]


So, once again, as succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, who you and others apparently disagree with, and without a legitimately expressed reason, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".


[1] "The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court." See Texas Bill of Complaint


[2] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.







.
JWK


“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel