Rudy Giuliani needs to be subpoenaed by Congress and placed under oath to present testimony about the voter fraud claims he's making. He has avoided telling his egregious lies in court, and hasn't presented any concrete evidence under oath.
Maybe the thought is to wait until he has no pardon protection from Trump. He can be pardoned for crap he's been pulling, but if he lies under oath to Congress on January 21st he's got trouble. And he knows it. And I think he would fold up like wet paper.
I can understand that. I've been looking at foxnews.com for a while now, to see how they're reporting things. Now that Trump and his supporters have abandoned Fox for Newsmax, I thought I'd take a look. Big mistake.
omigod. There's two Sekulows now?
The lawsuit that Sekulow was talking about was filed today. (Sorry for the Newsmax link, mrincredible.)
Ted Cruz has offered to give the oral argument if the Pa. case reaches the Supreme Court.
The request for an emergency injunction will not have oral arguments.
Cruz is not talking about an emergency injunction.
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told "Hannity" Monday that he agreed to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a key election-related case -- should the high court take the matter up -- because the matter "raises very serious issues."
"The case brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and Pennsylvania GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell, alleges that a 2019 state law allowing no-excuse mail-in voting is unconstitutional. If the court agrees, according to KDKA, Kelly and Parnell said most of the commonwealth's mail-in votes in this past presidential election could be thrown out.
Kelly and Parnell were initially granted a stay by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's administration summarily filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court; a 5-2 Democratic majority. The higher court sided with Wolf, and Kelly's team moved to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule."
Cruz is not talking about an emergency injunction.
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told "Hannity" Monday that he agreed to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a key election-related case -- should the high court take the matter up -- because the matter "raises very serious issues."
"The case brought by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and Pennsylvania GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell, alleges that a 2019 state law allowing no-excuse mail-in voting is unconstitutional. If the court agrees, according to KDKA, Kelly and Parnell said most of the commonwealth's mail-in votes in this past presidential election could be thrown out.
Kelly and Parnell were initially granted a stay by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's administration summarily filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court; a 5-2 Democratic majority. The higher court sided with Wolf, and Kelly's team moved to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule."
I'm not the constitutional lawyer that Ted Cruz is, but taking an argument based on the state constitution to the US Supreme Court doesn't sound like they'd get past even the preliminary standards for Federal review.
"U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., ordered Pennsylvania officials to respond to Rep. Mike Kelly’s election challenge a day earlier than previously scheduled, which will be on the same day known as the safe harbor deadline.
Kelly, a Republican, is seeking to have the court toss all the state’s mail-in ballots on the grounds that universal, no-excuses mail-in voting is unconstitutional and needs a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.
Alito, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously ordered that the state’s lawyers respond to Kelly’s suit by Dec. 9, a day after the safe harbor date, which would mean that Congress cannot challenge any electors already named in accordance with state law. The law frees up states from challenges as long as it settles legal issues and certifies results prior to the Electoral College meeting.
Alito moved Kelly’s case up 24 hours and wants state officials to respond by 9 a.m. on Tuesday, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. The report pointed out that the updated hearing on Dec. 8 “would give the court a few hours” to act on the information received."
yeah, but it's already been used as precedent. When the Justices said that " “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," they were joshing with us.
By their one-sentence denial, the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late. New Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to have participated in the case; no dissents or recusals were noted.
The state of Texas, yes Texas, has filed in the SC court a complaint against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. Their attempt to subvert the election.
The state of Texas, yes Texas, has filed in the SC court a complaint against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. Their attempt to subvert the election.
The state of Texas, yes Texas, has filed in the SC court a complaint against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. Their attempt to subvert the election.
Then we should imprison most of the GOP