Jump to content

CRIMINAL trump slammed by Pennsylvania’s AG for his ‘devoid of reality’ OUTBURST during GOP’s ‘fake hearing’


Recommended Posts

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro blasted Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president insisted that he had won the state “by a lot.”

 

Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania held a hearing with Rudy Giuliani at the Wyndham Hotel in Gettysburg to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election. Trump phoned into the meeting to demand that election officials “turn over the results” of the election because of alleged voter fraud.

 

“The sitting president’s remarks today were devoid of reality,” Shapiro wrote on Twitter.

 

“The election is over. Pennsylvania has certified results & declared Joe Biden the winner of our Commonwealth.”

 

“Lying through a cell phone at a fake hearing changes nothing,” Shapiro added.

 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, benson13 said:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro blasted Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president insisted that he had won the state “by a lot.”

 

Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania held a hearing with Rudy Giuliani at the Wyndham Hotel in Gettysburg to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election. Trump phoned into the meeting to demand that election officials “turn over the results” of the election because of alleged voter fraud.

 

“The sitting president’s remarks today were devoid of reality,” Shapiro wrote on Twitter.

 

“The election is over. Pennsylvania has certified results & declared Joe Biden the winner of our Commonwealth.”

 

“Lying through a cell phone at a fake hearing changes nothing,” Shapiro added.

 

That won't stop Rudy and the Gang from soliciting for more donations. Keep the gravy train rolling as long as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, benson13 said:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro blasted Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president insisted that he had won the state “by a lot.”

 

Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania held a hearing with Rudy Giuliani at the Wyndham Hotel in Gettysburg to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election. Trump phoned into the meeting to demand that election officials “turn over the results” of the election because of alleged voter fraud.

 

“The sitting president’s remarks today were devoid of reality,” Shapiro wrote on Twitter.

 

“The election is over. Pennsylvania has certified results & declared Joe Biden the winner of our Commonwealth.”

 

“Lying through a cell phone at a fake hearing changes nothing,” Shapiro added.

 

 

 

     AH OH media not reporting reality again.

 

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dontlooknow said:

I see no evidence. 

 

 

YOU'RE ABOUT TO, SHITSTAIN!!!

Along with the EXPOSING OF YOU SHITSTAINS LYING AND CHEATING TO WIN!!!

Are you NOT WANTING TO BE ASSURED THAT THE ELECTION WAS HONEST, FAIR, AND ABOVE BOARD AND THAT NO ONE CHEATED, COMMITTED FRAUD, OR STOLE THIS ELECTION???


SMART people would want to know NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Avlon tore into President Donald Trump for his “delusional” claim that he’s the real winner of the election.

 

“Let’s not normalize that lie, because it is delusional,” said Avlon. “It’s the political equivalent of someone standing outside and saying that the sky is green, that the moon is made out of cheese and they’re Napoleon. It’s pathetic. It shows a fundamental disrespect for fact and reality, and frankly, his supporters as well. It’s a symptom of an unwell person.”

 

“We should not normalize it because it’s just Trump lying trying to overturn the election as he wants to do. No, he’s delusional,” added Avlon. “People who follow him are being sucked into a vortex by someone who is struggling with his own soul.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, benson13 said:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro...

 

so wait...a Liberal Lunatic like you hath deemed the hearing, fake, because Donald Trump conducted it.  Which means, Josh Shapiro needs to be checked into a mental ward ---for not calling Trump's hearing fake.  Josh Shapiro, needs to be taken to the mental asylum ---for treating Trump's meeting like it is a real event. 

 

Or, do you owe Trump an apology for telling more of your stupid lies that verified you cannot be taken seriously on this website??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, benson13 said:

Judge destroys

The Supreme Court is locked and loaded to give the GOP a boost in the election

L3VCEZQKOMI6XG7GZ4S7WQU7DI.jpg&w=32
80600f48-c5c8-43d8-b2fb-80eb5b5721f2.png&w=55&h=55
Opinion by 
Paul Waldman
Columnist


The 2020 election could well end in the Supreme Court when the challenges to election procedures and results brought by the Trump campaign and the Republican Party reach their final conclusion.
Of course, Joe Biden may win by a wide enough margin that the Republican lawsuits won’t be able to turn the election in President Trump’s favor even if they successfully toss out a few thousand votes here and there.

But those lawsuits — every one seeking to restrict who can vote, make votes more difficult to cast and keep states from counting as many votes as possible — are already coming. They will continue after Election Day.
And the Supreme Court just showed us that it will probably be there to put a thumb on the scale for the GOP.

That’s not all. The legal ideas now being formulated could shape our elections long past this November. On Monday, the court turned back a lawsuit by Pennsylvania Republicans challenging a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court, which said that election officials must accept mail ballots received up to three days after Election Day. The justices did not explain why they declined to hear the case.
But they did say that four of them — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — would have granted a stay. Because there was a 4-4 tie, Pennsylvania Democrats prevailed, and the votes can be counted.

But if and when Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett, there will be no more 4-4 ties. And the fact that the court’s four most conservative justices may have been inclined to rule with Pennsylvania Republicans suggests that they are embracing a radical reimagining of the court’s role in determining voting laws for every state in the country — one that could help Republicans maintain minority rule even as they lose support among the American public.

To understand why, we have to know a bit about how election law works. The Constitution does not include a right to vote, but 49 of the 50 state constitutions do. (Arizona’s is the exception.) What it does say is that state legislatures determine the manner of appointing presidential electors (almost all states do so by statewide popular vote) and determine the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections.

The key question here is whether, when the Constitution mentions state legislatures, it should be understood as referring only to the institution of the legislature itself, or to a state’s whole lawmaking process.
If it means only the legislature itself, the Supreme Court could potentially use that interpretation to invalidate whatever a state constitution says about voting, strike down the power of a governor to veto voting regulations passed by the legislature or nullify ballot initiatives on voting passed by the voters themselves.

The Pennsylvania GOP argued essentially that because the U.S. Constitution says that the legislature determines voting laws for federal elections, a state supreme court has no right to weigh in, even when it’s ruling on how state law or the state constitution applies.

In this case, it would mean that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can’t be the judge of what the Pennsylvania state Constitution says when it comes to federal elections, because the state legislature’s power is almost absolute.

“I think there’s good reason to believe, and the 4-4 vote here confirms that,” Richard Pildes of New York University Law School told me, that soon there could be “a majority on the court that would endorse what’s called the ‘independent legislature’ doctrine.”

And this conservative Supreme Court majority — which is about to get even more conservative — has almos never met a voting restriction it didn’t like. Sweeping voter purges, discriminatory ID requirements, partisan gerrymandering — whatever Republican legislatures have come up with, this court has looked kindly on.

Among other things, in the future it could strike down independent redistricting commissions, which are now used in numerous states (California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan) to draw congressional district lines, because it’s not the “legislature” determining them.
In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s commission, which was created by voter initiative. But the vote was 5-4, with Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberals. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, Kennedy was later replaced by Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett is soon to join the court.

If they lean on a strict interpretation of the word “legislature,” the Supreme Court could rule that, for instance, voters couldn’t pass an initiative changing rules for congressional primaries. Given the conservatism of the court, it’s not hard to imagine them ruling for Republicans in case after case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...