Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › His Fraudulency, Joe Biden Junior › Reply To: His Fraudulency, Joe Biden Junior
@Ben Levi – It is ridiculous that you still persist here.
Let’s make this very easy as apparently you and some others are having trouble with basic facts and legalities.
1. Alan Dershowitz, regardless of whether I agree with his opinion or not, said to Brietbart (which anyone talking to Brietbart I have serious doubts about) that IF the segregated ballots can make a difference THEN the supreme court could take it up. In that case he thinks Trump has a good case. Just remember the IF. There has to be enough ballots at issue before the Supreme Court would take this up, per Alan Dershowitz.
2. PA officials have said that there is only about 10,000 segregated votes.
3. Joe Biden leads in PA by about 67,000 votes.
So let’s put this together. If somehow the segregated votes were not counted the most that could happen is Biden’s lead goes from 67,000 to 57,000. Biden still wins. So no, what Alan Dershowitz said would not be a valid legal argument in this election, since it clearly does not apply.
So for the umpteenth time, Joe Biden is still president-elect. No one has presented any legal arguments nor evidence that calls this into question.
And finally, can we stop with the semantics. It is ridiculous that you think there is an issue calling the clear winner of the election the president-elect. Trump whining about it, or refusing to concede, is ridiculous.
Oh, as to the lawsuits being frivolous, the one or two that have relevant legal issues are one thing, but the rest are garbage. Going to court saying the count should stop or the vote not be certified because you claim you can, if given enough time, find fraud is getting old. By that logic, anyone who wants to, can contest a vote based on eventually finding fraud and elections would be meaningless.
To restate, because you and some others are having trouble with this… Joe Biden is the President-elect. You want to deny that, then present evidence or valid legal arguments.