[TheRealThing]

mr.fundamentalHoot you know better. Find me a case in court to prove voter fraud. Dodge, skip around, videos of whatever, EVIDENCE in COURT. I have a video of big foot.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps...1606058414

---

Hoot, if it was so clear cut, one would think Bill Barr and the DOJ would pursue it. One would think if it was so clear cut one of these courts would have ruled in favor of President Trump. If the evidence is so clear donors would not have sued to get their monies back. If the evidence was so clear Hoot would run around showing the Court Documents aka Ruling.

Yet I see nothing from Hoot other than look at this youtube video, look at this or that, yet in COURT, where it matters not ine single ruling.

Hoot, I love ya! You are in fact a Hoot! Keep up the work. Please donate to the cause, please own all libs and not vote in '22.
end quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One minute you're talking about 40 cases which have been either thrown out or rejected for standing, which is absurd, and the next you're saying nothing has shown up in court. Can't have it both ways mrtvtime, even in La-La-Land.

The last thing the left wants is to see this thing in court. That's where evidence would have to come out, and in that 'case,' have to be legally dealt with. And I can assure it would not be good for Biden. The Trump legal team cases have been thrown out, sidestepped, and run over by so-called impartial judges who cannot separate their political bent from matters of the law. They could never allow cases filed by the President's legal team to see the light of day because they would have to admit the evidence involved, not just deny its existence outside the court system without giving any of those cases a fair hearing. Trump's legal team is knocking at the door of the court, nobody will answer.

It is laughably amazing to listen to Democrats, leaders and fomentors of the resistance the past decade, now speak of the sanctity of the Constitution and adherence to the law. Conservatives have good reason for strict constitutionalist interpretation of the law. The founders intended it to be that way. But Dems have ever more steadfastly denied a strict interpretation of the law in favor of the 'living document' philosophy. Under which, light and transient social causes more often than not, supersede established law. Conservatives want to preserve proven law; progressives want a sliding scale to blend with the changing norms they have used a sympathetic court to legislate for them. And why? Because the people would never have accepted the changing of those norms. We've been legislated into submission.

Lawlessness very nearly is now, and soon surely will be the rule rather than the oft exception. I mean, Dems can't let a little thing like the law get in the way of free immigration and free trade. That's not who Barack said we are. But as I have said, in diminishing the binding nature of the law we are preparing the way for the soon coming reveal of antichrist.
2 Thess 2; 8-10  
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,
10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.