How long before the Republican Party figures out a way to allow Elon Musk run for President in 2024?

I can’t see it happening. It would be so short sighted. I think they would be too afraid a “Mexican immigrant” could become president. Although, in politics they don’t always think things through. Lol. The hypocrisy after the birther schtick would be unbelievable, but hypocrisy wouldn’t stop them.

I personally am in favor of getting rid of the natural born citizen clause, but still having requirements for how much time spent in the US and various parameters.

I doubt Musk will try to run for president. The hurdles are too high.

Edit: I think Musk does have a grandparent who was American, but his parents weren’t. They could try to argue some sort of US ancestry BS I guess if this is true, but it still would be insanely hypocritical considering Obama had an American mother.

I thought “hypocrisy” was their middle name!!! The higher the hurdle, the harder Musk seems to desire it. He LOVES a challenge!!! He has a dual citizenship, so he’s half covered. I don’t see him trying either, but 4 weeks ago I didn’t see him owning Twitter or trying to own Coca~Cola. He seems to be on a power trip right now, so a Presidential run no longer seems that far fetched!!!

@JLeslie Where did “Mexican immigrant” come from?
Musk was born in South Africa.

@chyna Build the Wall. Criminals coming across the border. That was what the Republican cheering section was saying for 5 years.

If you let an immigrant become president then all immigrants can become president.

I hope he runs. He will lose massively. We have had enough amateurs in the position.

But think about it – with SpaceX’ contracts with the US, and Tesla’s influence on autmotive tech, there would be major entanglements. It will never happen.

I hope he doesn’t run because we have enough idiots who would vote for him just because he’s famous

Musk’s Mother was Canadian and his Dad was South African. I’ve read that he holds a dual Canadian/US citizenship. He became a US Citizen when he was 31 as an“EB-5 immigrant investor

Out of around 3 hundred million American citizens, you would think we could find at least one who can run the company.

If the Constitution were amended so that Musk could run, he would lose to Arnold Schwarzenegger in the primaries.

He is not a natural born US citizen. He can run all he wants but he can’t have the job based on the 12th amendment.

I’m no fan of Musk’s political activities, his business practices, his corrupt networks, his stupid face…pretty much anything about him.

But even Elon Musk has WAY too much independence and integrity to be a Republican candidate for high office. Build a few confederate statues in Austin, then maybe he’ll have a chance.

If they could have changed it, they would have for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I don’t believe Musk has the temperament for politics. To begin with, his justifiable arrogance grants him the curse of an impossibly low tolerance for open stupidity, as well as those who depend and thrive on it.

Elon doesn’t need to run for President. He can just buy Republicans.

@Pandora, and Democrats.

Billionaires should be barred from running for president. Their interest is not primarily the public world but the commercial world.

The COCA-COLA purchase tweet was merely to provoke (“putting the cocaïne back in”...).
And maybe hit back at the people that are worried he’ll be doing bad things to Twitter.

Is he so right wing orientated then?
Could he not run as a democratic?
(Not that I want him to run at all, by the way).

Too early to tell if Musk would end up as the next trumpish personality out there that Republicans would want to back him up as an eligible Presidential candidate.

Musk it seems to me is simply enjoying the fact he can play with billions while getting enough attention for himself. Vanity. Ego. The personal belief that he is doing something good for society. Who knows.

@Jeruba True, he can buy any of them but his track record is mostly Republicans. Though on the books he doesn’t give much but he has lobbyists to put the pressure on for him.
I wish lobbyists would disappear and the rich were not allowed to donate any money to politicians unless it’s a family member.

If it ever came to pass that they made the Muskrat their candidate, it would show that the only African American they would ever really vote for, is a white one.

At the very least, I think we ought to require some experience in government and not let a rookie run things. Despite all those fish-out-of-water movies in which some guy off the street becomes king or a janitor becomes the company CEO.

Meanwhile, George Will had an interesting column yesterday in which he argued that senators should be barred from the presidency. I have to say it made a lot of sense.

^^Makes sense but it will also eliminate potentially good candidates for President. Yet, if more and more political clowns are put into office and gets continuous support from their voters, Will’s idea might be worth supporting.

———-

“The 328 senators of the previous 50 years have illustrated the tyranny of the bell-shaped curve: a few of them dreadful, a few excellent, most mediocre.

Although Josh Hawley, Missouri’s freshman Republican, might not be worse than all the other 327, he exemplifies the worst about would-be presidents incubated in the Senate. Arriving there in January 2019, he hit the ground running — away from the Senate.

Twenty-four months later, he was the principal catalyst of the attempted nullification of the presidential election preceding the one that he hopes will elevate him.

Nimbly clambering aboard every passing bandwagon that can carry him to the Fox News greenroom, he treats the Senate as a mere steppingstone for his ascent to an office commensurate with his estimate of his talents.” ( excerpt from George Will’s article )

Why all the Elon Musk hate??

^^ i don’t hate him. At the same time, I justIdon’t trust him either

@Blackwater_Park These are just the known Things about Musk. He’s an over-aged frat boy like Trump and just as vindictive.

If Musk gives even a hint that he’s interested in the Presidency, I will be beyond shocked.

@Pandora LOL, he is nothing like Trump. Quirky, awkward and sometimes off base…sure. Ultimately though, he is a net gain in a big way through his accomplishments which should speak for a lot.

I hope Trump runs.

@Blackwater_Park I think the big thing with him is when he fires whistleblowers and anyone who disagrees with him (so a mini dictator) is anti-union, like all rich people who want slaves and not employees.
I’m just answering why people don’t like him and distrust him. The only reason he wants twitter is so he can say whatever he wants and attack his opponents and block anyone who would say anything against him. Mark my words. This is exactly how it will play out.
Not to mention he also gains power with politicians who kiss his butt. They too will be allowed this so-called free speech. To those who win his favor, I’m sure he will have huge favor request from them as well to profit his business.
Think of how he can use it. Whatever side promises him what he wants he can give them free range to spread garbage and cut their opponents out.

@Blackwater_Park “Why all the Elon Musk hate??” That’s an easy one. Most on the left are worried because he just took over Twitter and wants to make it an actual free speech platform, not one that censors out right leaning people. That is threatening to them. So in true leftist fashion, they will make up stuff and spew hatred at the source of their fear.

Answering the original question: first off, the article cited listed a joke Musk made and tried making it a true statement. That just shows hatred of Musk. But having Musk run for office? I would not support that. I think he is smart enough for the job, focused enough for the job, and I think he would do a good job. BUT…he isn’t an American citizen. I would not support that and would denounce any Republicans that supported trying to change the Constitution to make it possible. But I don’t believe they would…no reason for them to do so.

@KRD Are you old enough to vote?

@seawulf575 Bet you won’t be so offended when the right censors the left. You’ll have another phony excuse

Although the article listed the comment as a joke, I felt that was a false assumption. He sounded serious

When one of his customers dared criticise a launch event, Musk personally cancelled the guy’s preorder for a Model X.

He sued Top Gear over a negative review of his roadster (and lost).

He excluded the German ZDF from the opening of his factory in Brandenburg, and when they held their reporting in front of the premises, he tried to call the cops on them. All in retaliation for critical reporting in the past.

When his asinine proposal to use a mini sub to rescue some boys trapped in a cave was rejected as stupid, Musk called the guy in charge of the rescue a paedophile, and hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the man in retaliation.

When Chinese customers started raising concerns over failing brakes in Teslas, he asked to Chinese government to use their censorship powers to forbid critical posts on Chinese social media.

He doxxed an anonymous investor after critical blog posts, and reported him to his employer.

The man is not pro-free speech. Anyone who thinks he is, is a complete and utter moron.

It’s a good thing that the decision is not up to the Republican party.

I agree with @JLeslie that if changes are made to allow him to run, this would open the door to other “undesirables” (which I mean not undesirable to me but to prejudiced Americans). Undesirables being Mexicans, Arabs, etc.

^^I could be First Lady.

@ragingloli That pedo name calling thing he did with the rescuer was pretty shitty. He certainly is a little too sensitive to criticism and reacts to it in a petty, strange way. I would not want to work for him but I’ll admit that I’m hoping he is successful in many of his projects. This Twitter thing is about money though.

Hmmmm:
Power Hungry
Won’t admit when he loses
Wants all his women to be young, submissive and blonde
Won’t take no for an answer
Racist
Sexist
Calls people names when they outdo him
Elitist
Told his wife on their wedding day that he was the Alpha in the relationship

Sounds perfect following the parties last choice.

@SEKA It’s nice to hear that you are at least admitting that the left has been censoring the right. But you are wrong about me. I am all about free speech. I firmly believe that all voices should be heard…even those some might consider evil or stupid. I believe I am smart enough to interpret and assimilate ideas I didn’t come up with but which make sense to me. I’m also smart enough to do research so I don’t fall blindly into someone else’s reality. And I absolutely believe that trying to change the criteria for being POTUS even for someone I respect and/or admire is about the most horrible idea there is. Right after creating a department within the DHS to “protect us” from disinformation. After all, our government, and especially the Democrats, have shown they push disinformation and try to actively block factual reports by claiming it is disinformation. That is worse than the POTUS thing…but not by much.

It was a joke. He’s not going to buy Coca-Cola and he’s not going to run for president. He bought twitter, get the fuck over it, he’s not a threat to you or your lifestyle.

I’m also smart enough to do research so I don’t fall blindly into someone else’s reality.

You seem pretty fuckin blind to me. You refuse to leave thumper’s reality even for a second

It’s been explained to you a minimum of a million times that only the government can censor you. A business can only ban you for breaking their rules

The left has censored no one where the right is doing their damnedest to rewrite history in hopes of making themselves look better—ain’t gonna help

Somebody really needs to take a close look at themselves in a mirror and not censor what they should be plainly seeing

@SEKA If you actually went back and researched most of what people slam Trump about, it was all lies. Russia Collusion, Quid pro quo, racism, even the instigating an “insurrection”. Every single one of these things (and many more) were lies created and spread by either the Dems or the media. YOU are the one that is falling blindly into a created reality, refusing to accept even for a second that the media and the Dems lie to you all the time.

As for censoring, I have explained it to all of you a million times that the government is not the only ones that can censor you. Here, let me help you again, not that it will do any good at all. From good old Merriam Webster:

censor verb
censored; censoring\ ˈsen(t)-​sə-​riŋ , ˈsen(t)s-​riŋ \
Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
censor the news
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
censor out indecent passages

Nowhere in that definition is the government mentioned. In fact it points more at media.

Maybe someone really needs to take a close look at themselves in a mirror to realize you are being brainwashed.

Great! You do have a dictionary. And you’re expert at showing us verbatim quotes. Please print up Webster’s quotes for instigation and insurrection. Then tell us how these do not EXACTLY and ACCURATELY depict Trump’s INSTIGATION of the January 6th INSURRECTION. Is it possible that Webster’s dictionary and the English language itself are merely brainwashing leftist inventions?

@HP What’s the matter, you can’t cut and paste a definition? I just showed you how CENSOR is not the government-only thing you claimed. You were W-R-O-N-G. Go look that definition up. Now you want ME to do your homework for you. You won’t like it when I do. But here we go!

insurrection
ĭn″sə-rĕk′shən
noun
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
A rising up; uprising.
The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.

Well, by that definition Jan 6 was most certainly NOT an insurrection. There was no “open revolt”, there was no “rising up”, and there was no “armed resistance” involved. Even the one protester that was shot was unarmed. Funny they don’t look into that shooting, isn’t it? But let’s look at INSTIGATION now:

instigation
noun
The act of instigating; incitement, as to wrong-doing; temptation; prompting.
The act of instigating, or the state of being instigated; incitement; esp. to evil or wickedness.
The act of instigating, or the state of being instigated; incitement; especially to evil or wickedness.

Now, let’s see what Trump ACTUALLY said to “instigate” the crowd to do wrong:

He said: ”“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” ” AND he said “he and the crowd would “walk down to the Capitol” to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” Yeah, that sounds like instigation to urge on violence. Sorry, it doesn’t play. However now let’s look at Ray Epps. He was walking around telling people how they can break through the barricades, urging them to do so, trying to fire them up, and even leading them to do that. He was on the FBI Most Wanted List for Jan 6 protesters initially but then mysteriously fell off that list with no explanation. The videos were still there showing him to be “Instigating” violence yet the FBI didn’t want to arrest or charge him. Does that sound right to you? The only way that sounds right is if he was planted to instigate violence. So the instigation doesn’t hold true since Ray Epps was brought in and then released with the demand that he not talk about anything concerning Jan 6. And it certainly doesn’t hold true for Trump since he was calling for a peaceful march.

So there are your definitions and how they apply to Jan 6th. It was NOT an insurrection and there was NO instigation from Trump at all. Told you that you wouldn’t like me doing your homework for you.

Homework? You left out just a few incidentals regarding those Trump quotes. For example “we must march on the Capitol and STOP THE STEAL”. And I don’t know how you missed it with all your research, but the army of thugs which stormed and pillaged the Capitiol had baseball bats, body armor and other “peaceful” implements to employ in their mission propelled at Trump’s INSTIGATION. And there was more than one instance of the mob overwhelming and disarming police officers, confiscating their firearms. The siege, then pillaging of the Capitol building was by ANY SENSIBLE definition a TEXTBOOK example of an insurrection against the GOVERNMENT of the United States. To argue otherwise destroys any hope of you being taken seriously. Give up on this one. Believe me. No dictionary or pile of laborious research can relieve you from that determination.

@HP admit it…the Dems and the media (and probably the FBI and capitol police as well) are creating, through innuendo, the story that Trump urged violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is just like when they claimed, through innuendo, that he said White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis were “very fine people”. It never happened. In fact he specifically stated he WASN’T talking about them and that they should be denounced. But the media decided to claim a lie, spread it 24/7, and try ridiculing anyone that argued against it. They are doing the same. Taking a snippet here and a snippet there and then try saying they mean something they don’t. Kinda like the “8 times Trump specifically asked Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Biden…or else”. It never happened. But facts are not a strong suit on the left.

And so we are at a point where I HAVE shown definitions and how they don’t fit your narrative. You, in contrast, create a whole new definition through innuendo, claim it to be the real deal, and then try to ridicule me for daring to not believe it. Where have I heard that before?

Innuendo? Now you are telling me that the Dems, the FBI, the media, and the Capitol police are all in league to create the myth of Trump’s involvement in a fracas with a “few bad actors”. There was no insurrection, and Trump had nothing to do with whatever it was that occurred. Welllll That’s a large pill to swallow. From what I recall, the jackass rambled on for about an hour in the Ellipse before the non event in front of a crowd stuffed with those people you say he wants to denounce, yet inexplicably worship him nonetheless. Directly after his pep talk the crowd rushes to the Capitol building, overwhelms the security forces, invades, pillages and loots the place with both bodies of the Congress mid session. The fool’s non involvement innuendo earns him his second impeachment on the specific grounds of “insighting insurrection”. That’s your view of it?

@HP yep and you just verified my accuracy. What is your proof here? Trump talked for an hour and eventually some bad players entered the Capitol. But you left off the part of the police letting many in, in fact escorting them. Very few of the people that were in the Capitol that day forced their way in. Yeah, that doesn’t fit the narrative, does it? You see people listening to Trump and you automatically assume them to be White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis because, after all, who else would listen to Trump?

Meanwhile let’s look at what I have suggested. The Capitol police were in on it: They actually let people into the Capitol and escorted some…and those people were arrested for storming the castle so to speak. That’s why they are starting to get acquitted on the charges. The FBI was in on it: I already talked with you about Ray Epps. You have a guy that is encouraging illegal entry and destruction and actually does go inside. He is on the FBI most wanted for protesters and is actually brought in. He is promptly released and removed from the most wanted list. Why? No answer was ever given to that anomaly. And as we have seen in the past, the FBI is not above doing illegal things to try framing Trump. The Dems: Who is in charge of the Capitol Police? Nancy Pelosi. ‘nuff said. And who reports it all as an insurrection and claims, without any proof, that Trump incited it? The media. They had to lie to get that story, but that never stopped them in the past. They have a long and technicolor past of trying to create stories about Trump and his followers to make them look ridiculous. They have claimed the most outrageous and illogical things, even doctoring video to try supporting it, and fools on the left, such as yourself, eat it up as “proof”.

So to sum it up…I have a lot more reason and facts behind my claims. You have…well…none. And yet you have no problem trying to claim it is the reverse.

Let’s see now . The left which now includes the FBI, capitol police and Democratic Congress deliberately invites the hooligans into the nation’s Capitol building to loot and kill. And all of this as an excuse to point the finger at Trump. Now I ask you. If you want the world to believe you are not an escapee from a mental institution, which description of 6 January, is the narrative of a sane man? My friend, it is sadly not the brainwashed fluther lefties, nor the Capitol police, the FBI or the mainstream media who claim the most “outrageous and illogical things”.

I never said those actions were those of sane people. Devious, obsessed, yes, sane, no.

By now I understand that I should just leave this alone. This is certainly not the first time I’ve arrived here. But it’s actually pretty fascinating. So let me ask you whether you believe your version of events (if true) will ever be uncovered? There are just too many participants for such a massive plot to not slip out. And I confess yours is the most creative, imaginative and movie worthy description of that day, I have come across. Meanwhile, do yourself a favor and pull up some you tube footage of those events.

@HP, of course they will come out. Whether anything will happen to the players or not is another story. But think back…I said that the Trump/Russia Collusion was a made up thing perpetrated by Hillary, the DNC with the help of the FBI. I said the FBI was spying on Trump before he was elected. I said Hunter Biden’s Laptop was a true story and that it was being suppressed by the FBI, the DNC, and the media. I was ridiculed by you fools on the left, with almost the exact words you are using now. And in every one of those cases we eventually found out I was 100% correct. When are you going to wake up? These cover-ups and schemes happen all the time, especially since Trump broke up the expected game by beating Hillary. The American public dared to show they had a say. And then, 4 years later, Biden wins by not even campaigning. The irregularities surrounding that election were massive and I have said from the start it was rigged. Now Arizona has come out and proven that there was so much fraud that Trump should have won Arizona. Other states are doing similar looks at the last election. It won’t change the outcome of the election but it shows there was cheating going on. So I count that as a win.

Meanwhile, you have made wild accusations and have failed to show one iota of evidence to back it up. That is highly typical of the brainwashed left. And when confronted with facts you fall back to “how could you believe that?”. I think the real question is, when faced with facts, how could you NOT believe it?

^^Trump fanaticism at its best.

60+ lawsuits to overturn the election, and they lost damn nearly all of them, because they had not one shred of credible evidence for their alleged fraud.
On the contrary, their legendary “kraken” lawyers got sanctioned for their frivolous lawsuits.

From the ruling:

“This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.
It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an
allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a
federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed,
without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what
happened here.

Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate
allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. But attorneys
cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same.
And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order.

Here’s why. America’s civil litigation system affords individuals the
privilege to file a lawsuit to allege a violation of law. Individuals, however, must
litigate within the established parameters for filing a claim. Such parameters are
set forth in statutes, rules of civil procedure, local court rules, and professional
rules of responsibility and ethics. Every attorney who files a claim on behalf of a
client is charged with the obligation to know these statutes and rules, as well as the
law allegedly violated.

Specifically, attorneys have an obligation to the judiciary, their profession,
and the public (i) to conduct some degree of due diligence before presenting
allegations as truth; (ii) to advance only tenable claims; and (iii) to proceed with a
lawsuit in good faith and based on a proper purpose. Attorneys also have an
obligation to dismiss a lawsuit when it becomes clear that the requested relief is
unavailable.

This matter comes before the Court upon allegations that Plaintiffs’ counsel
did none of these things. To be clear, for the purpose of the pending sanctions
motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there
was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the State of Michigan.1 Rather, the
question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in litigation
practices that are abusive and, in turn, sanctionable. The short answer is yes.

The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules
applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law;
proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and
unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging
in the required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after
they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought.

And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the
People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.
While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social
media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced, such
expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law. And while we
as a country pride ourselves on the freedoms embodied within the First
Amendment, it is well-established that an attorney’s freedom of speech is
circumscribed upon “entering” the courtroom.2

Indeed, attorneys take an oath to uphold and honor our legal system. The
sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when
attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose
sanctions when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion,
and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing
is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules,
and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.3
As such
the Court is duty-bound to grant the motions for sanctions filed by Defendants and
Intervenor-Defendants and is imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and its own inherent authority.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf

@ragingloli most, if not all of those lawsuits were rejected not because of no evidence, not because the evidence was made up, not because there was no case. They were rejected because the respective courts didn’t see they were the “right court” to hear the case. The evidence was never presented. It was never really ruled on. The ruling you cited was a fine example. They were ruling that the suing lawyers didn’t do their due diligence and were bringing forth claims that were false. I find that odd since their own ruling stated ” To be clear, for the purpose of the pending sanctions motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the State of Michigan.1 Rather, the question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in litigation practices that are abusive and, in turn, sanctionable. The short answer is yes.” How they come to the determination that the litigation practices are abusive when they have no idea of the evidence being brought is amazing to me. They admit they have no idea if there was fraud or not. That was not their decision to make. Therefore they didn’t look at any evidence, they didn’t hear any testimony, they didn’t have anything to base it on except their own view of the process. It’s kind of contradictory to say you can’t rule on whether there was fraud or not but then turn around and say the lawsuit is an effort to undermine democracy.

Read the PDF. It is all in there.

@ragingloli I did read the PDF. If you read it (which I doubt you actually did), you will see that the case for fraud was never actually heard. It was rejected as being filed too late and being filed by a person that did not live in Michigan. That is why the judge HAD to say he wasn’t ruling on whether there was fraud or not…your entire citation had nothing to do with that.

I have read it. I doubt you did. Scratch that. I know you did not.
Because if you had, you would have seen the various examples they gave of the kraken lawyers not checking their “evidence” and “affidavits” if they were actually evidence, and the court pointed out why they were worthless.

And if you had read it you would seen that their evidence in the form of sworn afidavits and expert evaluations was never reviewed. Their case was rejected. They filed emergency injunctions to appeal. That was denied without ever looking at the evidence. In fact, at no point in your entire citation was it stated that the evidence was ever looked at and evaluated. It was rejected out of hand. So to claim there was no evidence is foolishness.

And this judge who rants about their lack of evidence admits he isn’t ruling about fraud…yet he says there is no evidence. How do you, as a sitting judge, denounce sworn affidavits and expert opinions without having them evaluated in court? Seems completely off norm. So no, I don’t believe you ever read it or at least don’t have the wit to understand what you are reading.

I forgot that you lack the ability to read.

And to further cement that you did not read the document, you did not even know that the Judge in question is a Woman, not a man.
Not only are you a demagogue, but also a bald-faced liar.

For anyone else who is not completely brain-dead, the examples of the kraken’s “evidence” being evicerated is on pages 58 through 86.

For anyone not wanting to read the document, you can also listen to a reading of it by a lawyer, Leonard J. French, Esq., on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb690RDrCeU

^^Interesting that between the kraken lawyers themselves, at least one seems to claim he did not explicitly said he wanted his name on a brief yet the others put his name on it. If I’m not mistaken.

@ragingloli Funny that you jump into personal attacks. I pointed out many points that show how useless that citation was and yet you didn’t attempt to address them, you just want to be insulting. Typical Euro lefty.

So now the judicial system joins the FBI, mainstream media, Capitol Police, Democratic party and apparently God himself in this leftist cabal against Trump. The so called election fraud evidence has been consistently and routinely rejected by every court that looks at. And this in an age where conservatives have stuffed their judges into the courts in unprecedented numbers. Salient point loli. That citation is beautifully written and logically impeccable. It succinctly and accurately states the matter as it is.

Trump and his trogolytes have the impertinence to believe the courts the venue to have a turd legally declared a gold brick. The whole Trump phenomena no longer puzzles me. As the marvelous Greek economist (whose name I cannot pronounce nor spell) summed it up: “Trump was elected because Obama failed to place the cost of the 2008 collapse on the 1% responsible for it”.

@HP part of the problem with out judicial system for a LONG time has been judges that want to rule on ideology. When we get to a point in our world where you have to worry about who appointed what judge, it tells you things are out of control with the judicial system. And as much as you want to believe “Trump and his trogolytes (sic)” are the only ones that try to game the judiciary, it just isn’t true. If you don’t see that the left is just as guilty as the right, you are a fool.

Again, you are (as usual) drawing conclusions from facts exclusively of your own invention. For there is not a single clue that I believe the left any less prone toward utilizing the courts toward advancinig its agenda. The left is decidedly better at it for obvious reasons, none of which have anything to do with the imaginary bias you swear permeates every arena in which you clowns fall short. This time, to put it simply, the Trump team fails because his crew of idiot lawyers is just plain subpar and have NO CASE. There are certain things a competent judge can not accept regardless of how passionate their ideology favors those presenting them. Simply put, no judge can accept the presentation of a turd and declare it a gold brick. Contrary to those representing the turd, the judge FULLY understands that such certification immediately certifies him unfit for office. Thank God, judges are not (yet) permitted the leeway of our hopeless electorate.