re: Steve Scalise Frustrates Chris Wallace- Election Stolen

quote:

---

laws were changed by the states SOS instead of going through that states proper channels to have laws changed.

---

How did they do that? What power did he use? Where did the power the sec of state used to change those laws come from?

quote:

---

means that this state is not certified according to the constitution.

---

Are you saying the state electors are violating the law when they voted to certify?

quote:

---

Stay in your lane.

---

Sorry I missed that response. Too funny.

Let's see.
In my lane, we know there were thousands of machine produced test ballots in Georgia indistinguishable from election day ballots. They were never audited. We have no idea whether DVS test ballots were mixed into the election day pool or not, because no audit of them or the Fulton DVS operation was conducted.
As soon as those test cards were created and not destroyed, they became counterfeit ballots. Yet no one has been granted access to investigate.

You say you "thought you had to have actual voters connected to a ballot for it to count." Given presence of a counterfeit printing center, presumably you understand differently now. At this stage though, considering DVS was allowed to work independent of election officials' oversight at the test center, there is every likelihood any evidence of fraud would long ago have been destroyed. But the fact no one even looked is inexcusable. The fact it doesn't bother you, and in fact that you seem happy as a clam about it, is appalling. Disgusting. That is your lane.

Regarding the SCOTUS "no standing ruling", the issue is quite simple. SCOTUS was desperate to avoid the case. Congressional Marxists cowed SCOTUS into belief that if it acted or even raised questions about the election, they would pack the court, institutionally ruining it in perpetuity. So instead of risking Congressional attack, SCOTUS cowered in a corner. Instead of doing the right thing, SCOTUS ruled that a state could not suffer any sort of actual harm as result of a national election which was fraudulently achieved and antithetical to that state's interests. The assertion is inconceivably inane. Texas being overrun by a flood of illegals stands as certain proof of the stupidity of the position.

As I said, it is the worst SCOTUS ruling since Dred Scott.
It is also the most demonstrable example of SCOTUS cowardice in US history.
Yet you seem happy as a clam about it as well. Again appalling.
But that is your lane.

The problem with refusal to investigate electoral transgressions, obstruction of transparency, and judicial cowardice is the populace loses confidence in its democracy. You seem to envision that endpoint as tolerable, or even desirable. The past reveals predictable results of such vapidity. So as disgusting as your "lane" already is, it also evidently bypasses any intersection with history.