Thank you baker
> sorry for the Picture
kek.
Always when you think you nailed it, there's always a forgotten sock in the laundry.
The new tiktok Cuckbook challenge is to burn snow with a lighter to prove the snow storm was sent by gubbment.
Spoiler- it was sent by Saruman the White (#NoRacism)
>Speaking of the Durhams, what Jurisdictions are Special Counsels given Authority over?
Here's Durham's scope letter
>Zip it, Im trying to have a conversation with my cigarette at the moment…
>On how face masks dumb down society- with great examples and scientific evidence
>Must share with normies
Normies don't wear face masks because of science.
Normies don't scream believe in science out of concern for the scientific method
Normies do it to virtue signal.
It's about public displays of virtuosity in order to cover up for the iniquity that lies in their hearts.
If you had an article saying Hollywood celebs and the DNC say masks are stupid, then you could change hearts and minds.
For PA case concerning the illegality of mail in votes SCOTUS will say, "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court already ruled on this. Why are you here? Actually you know what? Get the fuck out."
For Sidney Powell's case, that's a horse of a different color. Sidney is stating 4 states, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin had electors sent by their legislative bodies as prescribed by the constitution but the Governors of those states signed off on sending a different batch of electors despite evidence of election fraud. The election fraud is a bit secondary, but does have a role to play. The key part is the electors for the electoral college.
Here's the thing, you nor my vote don't count for the election of POTUS as written in the constitution, were not even mentioned in the process. So stealing our vote is moot because us even voting for the President is moot. But what does count is that electors for the electoral college must be sent by state legislatures. That process was not followed here. So we do have a huge violation of the constitution. What will SCOTUS say? I don't know, but I know Sidney has a point and I know they should accept it. But will they?
>>13015434 was meant for this post >>13015292
The Pennsylvania case will be rejected because SCOTUS will not contradict the PA supreme court. Also the PA case is weak from a legal stand point. The PA Case argues that the law that permitted mail in voting was a change to the PA constitution and did not follow the steps necessary that PA constitutional changes are meant to follow by law.
But the law that allowed PA mail in voting was not officially a change to the PA constitution. It acts and functions in every way like a change to the PA constitution but it is not titled as such. It's like Bush or Obama circumventing asking Congress to declare war because Iraq or Syria is not officially a war but a military "action" or "operation". Anyone with two eyes can see it's a war but legally Bush and Obama are protected because they didn't call it a "war."
Same with the PA mail in voting,bit functions like a constitutional change but isn't officially called one. But even before getting into all that the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling of the PA supreme court, because that's what they do when the argument is weak. What needs to happen for the PA mail in voting to be struck down in the future is a different case challenging just that law. The OA case is juggling too many balls, it's challenging that law for the goal of invalidating the election. The invalidating election part is a non starter.