An hour after Trump's rally ended, the rat-bastard socialists at the Atlantic had their hit-piece on-line

One of the ways propagandists work their nastiness is by phrasing things deliberately imprecisely.  For example, last night, ten minutes after Trump wrapped up his rally in Dalton, Georgia, the rat-bastard socialist Democrats at the Atlantic already had their story on-line.

The piece is titled "Trump's erratic election-eve rally," with the sub-head "The president went down to Georgia for a rally that was sometimes entertaining, often incoherent, and entirely terrifying."  The venom practically drips off the page.

Early in the piece--5th paragraph--the author provides an example of the propaganda technique noted above, claiming that "Trump’s claims of fraud have come up short in every venue they’ve been pleaded."

"Claims of fraud have come up short in every venue they've been pleaded," eh?  The naive or merely uninformed reader understandably interprets this as "These lawsuits have been tried in dozens of courts, and have always lost."

But that's not even remotely correct--something the lying rat-bastard author of the Atlantic's piece should know quite well.  Because the fact is that not a single lawsuit has gone to trial.  Instead, in every instance the judge or judges of the court have refused to accept the case and take it to trial.  Instead, judges have refused every single lawsuit--including one filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court--on what are called "procedural grounds."  That is, no judge has ever examined the evidence--hundreds of sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses to what appeared to those witnesses to be fraud, forensic audits of Dominion voting machines showing their operating software was designed for easy hacking, revelation that the machines connected to the internet wirelessly, though they supposedly weren't supposed to be able to do that.

In open court, witnesses could testify and be cross-examined on the record.  Speculative claims or misunderstandings could be rebutted.  The ability or inability of Dominion vote-counting machines to connect via Wi-Fi (i.e. without needing an Ethernet cable) could be conclusively proven or disproven in open court.  But none of that ever happened.

Instead, judges refused to hear a single case, citing reasons like "you filed too early," or "You filed too late," or "This is the wrong court to hear this lawsuit."  Or my favorite: "You don't have standing to sue."

That was the "explanation" given by the U.S. Supreme Court for refusing to take the case brought by the state of Texas against the six states that had huge evidence of fraud.

If the f'n Supreme Court rules that a state government can't sue to have the Supreme Court hear evidence of massive election fraud, on the grounds that the state "lacks standing" to sue, by that "logic" who can possibly HAVE standing to demand honest elections?

See, the Supreme Court couldn't use the grounds cited by lower courts that "This court isn't the right place for this lawsuit" cuz it says right in the Constitution (a document that apparently doesn't count for much with today's judges) that the Supreme Court "has original jurisdiction" when one state sues another.  So they were left with just "lack of standing."

The fallout from this is gonna be...interesting.