(H/T Scissorhead Weird Dave)
Guys, Lord Damp Nut has lost Pennsylvania AGAIN –
Federal appeals court panel rejects Trump request to block certification of Pennsylvania’s election results
“In a scathing 21-page opinion, the 3rd Circuit said that the Trump campaign’s challenge of the district court’s decision had ‘no merit.’ The opinion was written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Trump. Bibas was joined by two other Republican-appointed judges in a unanimous vote by the three-member panel.
“‘Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,’ Bibas wrote. ‘Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.’”
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark!
But, rest assured, Prznint Stupid is taking it well:
And of course, he hit upon this ego-saving solution: proving a negative!
Frigging buttercup. Pity Party at Mar-a-Lardo. $10K cover charge. Bring your own frigging kleenexes and pearls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do believe the very definition of “proving a negative” is “a big unsolvable problem.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe Giuliani can explain “burden of proof” to Diaper Don, right after he figures out what “opacity” means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeezo peet, I gotta stop reading these posts for a while. They’re giving me flashbacks.
Although, even dad had a better attitude when he occasionally lost one. Sis, on the other hand, has never, ever been wrong. Just ask her.
LikeLike
From our friends at Snopes:
Did Pennsylvania Record Many More Mail-In Votes than Ballots Requested?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pa-mailin-votes-ballots/
There is further analysis and, you know, facts but that’s the bottom line. (Yeah, I know. Shocking!)
LikeLike