Topic: They had a restack at the SCOTUS (normal thing to happen).
Posted by .
Unregistered


https://twitter.com/ScottFishman/status/1329893438498758657

Look who is in charge of the swing states.  :lol: 

Oh, look who has PA.  :rofl:


Posted by .
Unregistered


:lmao:


Posted by .
Unregistered


Oh...faggers gonna be triggered and frothy !

:trump:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: https://twitter.com/ScottFishman/status/1329893438498758657

Look who is in charge of the swing states.  :lol: 

Oh, look who has PA.  :rofl:

­The board libs are too motherfucking intellectually inept to understand this. :lol::fag:


Posted by .
Unregistered


What are you rednecks laughing at? Did somebody tell a "must be that global warming" joke?


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­The board libs are too motherfucking intellectually inept to understand this. :lol::fag:

­^ this. :potd:


Posted by .
Unregistered


You still need evidence which you haven’t been able to produce.

But maybe the SCOTUS will give you a favorable ruling with no credible evidence presented. :lol:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: You still need evidence which you haven’t been able to produce.

But maybe the SCOTUS will give you a favorable ruling with no credible evidence presented. :lol:

­Because a team of lawyers always gives their evidence to the public before presenting it in court!
\
:winner:


:facepalm:
\
Stupid stupid faggers.



Posted by .
Unregistered


How many affidavits of voter fraud do they need, fagger? :Lol:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: You still need evidence which you haven’t been able to produce.

But maybe the SCOTUS will give you a favorable ruling with no credible evidence presented. :lol:

­Because a team of lawyers always gives their evidence to the public before presenting it in court!
\
:winner:


:facepalm:
\
Stupid stupid faggers.


­Who said anything about public?
No, teams of lawyers typically present their evidence IN court. Something your side has been unable to do. Sorry.

We’re saving our super secret evidence for the SCOTUS!
\
:winner:


Posted by .
Unregistered


This is huge.

Joe and the whore set up shop at GITMO!


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said: You still need evidence which you haven’t been able to produce.

But maybe the SCOTUS will give you a favorable ruling with no credible evidence presented. :lol:

­Because a team of lawyers always gives their evidence to the public before presenting it in court!
\
:winner:


:facepalm:
\
Stupid stupid faggers.


­Who said anything about public?
No, teams of lawyers typically present their evidence IN court. Something your side has been unable to do. Sorry.

We’re saving our super secret evidence for the SCOTUS!
\
:winner:


Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record. You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence. Sorry baggers.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record.  You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence.   Sorry baggers.

­^ Bartlett Legal Services. We can't take your call right now because BriBri is massaging Tyrone's ballsack and Lori is comatose from Yodels and narcos.
:lmao:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record.  You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence.   Sorry baggers.

­^ Bartlett Legal Services. We can't take your call right now because BriBri is massaging Tyrone's ballsack and Lori is comatose from Yodels and narcos.
:lmao:

­

Hey, if you can’t refute it, just accuse them of being Spanky and invoke ballsacks.

It won’t convince anybody but at least it will make you feel better about losing. :thumbup:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said: Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record.  You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence.   Sorry baggers.

­^ Bartlett Legal Services. We can't take your call right now because BriBri is massaging Tyrone's ballsack and Lori is comatose from Yodels and narcos.
:lmao:

­

Hey, if you can’t refute it, just accuse them of being Spanky and invoke ballsacks.

It won’t convince anybody but at least it will make you feel better about losing. :thumbup:


:cry:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­Who said anything about public?
No, teams of lawyers typically present their evidence IN court. Something your side has been unable to do. Sorry.

We’re saving our super secret evidence for the SCOTUS!
\
:winner:

­
Indictments pending! Q drops!
\
:insane:

This is why the right loses, insanity and delusion; whereas the ProgTards know exactly what they’re doing to eviscerate the West.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record.  You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence.   Sorry baggers.

­^ Bartlett Legal Services. We can't take your call right now because BriBri is massaging Tyrone's ballsack and Lori is comatose from Yodels and narcos.
:lmao:

­
:rofl:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­

Hey, if you can’t refute it, just accuse them of being Spanky and invoke ballsacks.

It won’t convince anybody but at least it will make you feel better about losing. :thumbup:

­
No evidence!
\
:winner:

They have been posting it for almost a week now and get more by the day.  :facepalm:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­Because a team of lawyers always gives their evidence to the public before presenting it in court!
\
:winner:


:facepalm:
\
Stupid stupid faggers.


­Who said anything about public?
No, teams of lawyers typically present their evidence IN court.   Something your side has been unable to do.  Sorry.

We’re saving our super secret evidence for the SCOTUS!
\
:winner:


Baggers are so retarded they don’t realize that an appeal is limited to the trial court’s record.  You don’t get to prove new evidence. You are stuck with the trial court’s evidence.   Sorry baggers.

­Fancy Cat here. :fancy: ^ How can I hep you unnastand the OP link? Zzzzzzzzz (3 hour nap)


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­
No evidence!
\
:winner:

They have been posting it for almost a week now and get more by the day.  :facepalm:

­
and the crack legal team of Ghouliani, Powell, and Ellis have been doing a fine job of presenting that evidence to the court this week.  :lol:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
­

Hey, if you can’t refute it, just accuse them of being Spanky and invoke ballsacks.

It won’t convince anybody but at least it will make you feel better about losing. :thumbup:

­
No evidence!
\
:winner:

They have been posting it for almost a week now and get more by the day.  :facepalm:

­
Posting it? You need to prove it in court.

:facepalm:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­

Hey, if you can’t refute it, just accuse them of being Spanky and invoke ballsacks.

It won’t convince anybody but at least it will make you feel better about losing. :thumbup:

­
No evidence!
\
:winner:

They have been posting it for almost a week now and get more by the day.  :facepalm:

­
Posting it?  You need to prove it in court.

:facepalm:

­
We place evidence into the court record before the case begins!
\
:winner:

Harvard GED in Law at work here.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­
No evidence!
\
:winner:

They have been posting it for almost a week now and get more by the day.  :facepalm:

­
Posting it?  You need to prove it in court.

:facepalm:

­
We place evidence into the court record before the case begins!
\
:winner:

Harvard GED in Law at work here.


Exactly my point fat queer. You have to prove it in court which so far you have been able to do.

It’s not looking like you’ll be able to stop the certifications. sorry baggers :aww:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:

Exactly my point fat queer. You have to prove it in court which so far you have been able to do.

It’s not looking like you’ll be able to stop the certifications. sorry baggers :aww:

­
Read what you wrote, moron.

And have you ever had an original thought in your life?


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:

Exactly my point fat queer. You have to prove it in court which so far you have been able to do.

It’s not looking like you’ll be able to stop the certifications. sorry baggers :aww:

­
Read what you wrote, moron.

And have you ever had an original thought in your life?

­

Why do baggers get so triggered over the simplest of things?

The fact remains that you haven’t been able to prove much in courts so far. Why else would you have so many dismissals?

Poor baggers. :aww:



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close