Comments by "Voix de la raison" (@voixdelaraison593) on "Not everything is a crisis | Greg Kelly" video.

  1. What the judge said: U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican, dismissed the case Saturday, throwing it out before the Trump campaign said it had a chance to even get started. And he didn’t just close the door. He slammed it, with a 37-page ruling that at times amounted to accusing the campaign of undermining democracy.
Among the most notable portions of his writing:
• “[The Trump campaign asks] this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
• “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.” (In other words, the judge alleges the Trump campaign tried to sew up baseless accusations in the hopes the judge wouldn’t notice they didn’t have a concrete one.)
• “[Two voters who say their ballots were thrown out] have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary [of State Kathy] Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes.”
• “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”
    2
  2. The only fool is you for stuffing your brain with conspiracy crap offered up by the Russians.
    2
  3. What the judge said: U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican, dismissed the case Saturday, throwing it out before the Trump campaign said it had a chance to even get started. And he didn’t just close the door. He slammed it, with a 37-page ruling that at times amounted to accusing the campaign of undermining democracy.
Among the most notable portions of his writing:
• “[The Trump campaign asks] this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
• “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.” (In other words, the judge alleges the Trump campaign tried to sew up baseless accusations in the hopes the judge wouldn’t notice they didn’t have a concrete one.)
• “[Two voters who say their ballots were thrown out] have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary [of State Kathy] Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes.”
• “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”
    1
  4. By the way Captain Obvious we are not technically America either, assuming you want to get that picky. If you look up American Democracy you will find that the term has become short hand for our form of government just as America has become short hand for the U.S.
    1
  5. But you love Trumpian Rightwing Neo Nazism.
    1
  6. What the judge said: U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican, dismissed the case Saturday, throwing it out before the Trump campaign said it had a chance to even get started. And he didn’t just close the door. He slammed it, with a 37-page ruling that at times amounted to accusing the campaign of undermining democracy.
Among the most notable portions of his writing:
• “[The Trump campaign asks] this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
• “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.” (In other words, the judge alleges the Trump campaign tried to sew up baseless accusations in the hopes the judge wouldn’t notice they didn’t have a concrete one.)
• “[Two voters who say their ballots were thrown out] have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary [of State Kathy] Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes.”
• “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”
    1
  7.  @eleanordefreitas3755  God rejected Trump for his evil ways. Ask yourself this: How many of the 7 Deadly Sins has Trump committed and many on a daily basis. How many of the 10 Commandments has Trump broken and many on a daily basis. God has used the repentant sinner before but never the unrepentant sinner.
    1
  8. What the judge said: U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican, dismissed the case Saturday, throwing it out before the Trump campaign said it had a chance to even get started. And he didn’t just close the door. He slammed it, with a 37-page ruling that at times amounted to accusing the campaign of undermining democracy.
Among the most notable portions of his writing:
• “[The Trump campaign asks] this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
• “Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.” (In other words, the judge alleges the Trump campaign tried to sew up baseless accusations in the hopes the judge wouldn’t notice they didn’t have a concrete one.)
• “[Two voters who say their ballots were thrown out] have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary [of State Kathy] Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes.”
• “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”
    1