Graham chooses closeted reality over facts trying to safeguard his own political future.

Trump created an unquestioning moronic loyalist party while he was in office. We already had that with the left. He was fine policy wise but his rhetoric and his political maneuvering was awful and people who want him to run again when he's 90 are ridiculous human beings.

"Unquestioning moronic loyalist party" is the understatement of the year. The Republican party - under Trump - has devolved into a cult and as history has repeatedly proven, followers of such always end up destroying not only their own personal and professional lives but oftentimes, martyring themselves to some demagogue who only ever really cared about themselves and their own ego, not them.

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Time (which too is not without bias) historically produces quality reporting - unlike many publications today - so I'm willing to read this. I'll get back to you after I've read it,

Basically their was a "conspiracy" to get the election result that was the "proper outcome" i.e. Trump not getting reelected.

Good article. Thanks for the link. I wouldn't use the word 'conspiracy' however to describe what occurred behind the scenes as that term generally denotes illegal and nefarious actions. Nothing they did meets that standard. If anything, it was a well planned, coordinated and implemented strategy by multiple stakeholders to prevent Trump from getting away with his plans to subvert the election and steal the outcome for himself. I applaud them for that.

Illegally changing laws does, manipulating news should get you busted for libel when it is knowingly wrong, and undeclared support should get you busted for illegal campaign contributions.

Reality check... no laws were illegally changed and you would know that had you followed legislative proceedings and court filings made in multiple states both prior to and post the election that addressed issues relating to such rather than naively trusting the utterances of your favored right wing media personality that were busy spinning a yarn of total BS to their followers.

With respect to manipulating the news, it seems to me that the ones truly guilty of such - FOX, OANN and Newsmax - are all currently facing multi billion dollar lawsuits for their deceptions as well as a number of their propagandist hosts - Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro - as too Rudy Giuliani, Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, Mike Lindell and others.

If you didn't already know that, you should be asking yourself why you didn't.

False, the laws in Pennsylvania where changed in violation of the constitution, or so the lower courts have said. The higher court simply refused to rule on the case at all.

And for course we have the whataboutism ignoring basic facts like calling the Hunter Biden laptop a Russian plant, hacked, or just plain ignoring it. Nothing you said even attempts to disprove that point at all.

What you're harking on about in PA is a case wherein the legislature body having reformed their voting laws and protocals in 2019 - expanding mail in ballots among other things - and setting the deadline date for receiving such to be 8:00 pm on election day was later sued in 2020 to have the deadline expanded by 3 days (for the general election) in order the accomodate the extraordinarily high volume of absentee ballots and the slowdown in the mail service due to Covid.

The GOP argued that PA's Supreme Court’s (which permitted such) had violated the U.S. Constitution that says state legislatures control how their elections are run and that the court had no business interfering in such. The Dems contended, however, that once the basic methods and procedures had been chosen by the legislature, adjustments to that procedure by the courts don’t run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, particularly during an emergency situation such as the Covid outbreak.

The GOP appealed to SCOTUS to overturn the lower court's decision, which they refused to hear because only 10,000 ballots received after election day would have been affected had they been tossed out, which would not have changed the outcome of the race in PA as Biden won the state by over 80,000 votes.

And what's this about Hunter Biden? I have never once mentioned him, his laptop, nor the investigation involving in so have no idea what you are going on about.

So basically you know nothing about the case or the constitutional violation they made. PA is required under the state constitution to put expansion of mail-in voting to a public vote before implementing it.

The PA supreme court didn't permit the change, they refused to hear the case at all based on Laches saying it was too late to matter. However if a lawsuit came from before the election it would have been dismissed for lack of standing because you need injury to sue.

And the 3 day extension was stuck down by the court as that change didn't even go though the legislators.

This is what I know and where my facts primarily originate...

Pennsylvania Election Code - Omnibus Amendment, Act 77, P.L. 552 (Oct 31, 2019)
Crossey v. Bookvar, No. 108 MM 2020
PA Democratic Party v. Boockvar, No. 133 MM 2020, 2020 WL 5554644
Donald J. Trump v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-CV-966
Bognet v. Boockvar, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa.)
Bognet v. Boockvar, No. No. 20-3214 (3d. Cir.)
Scarnati v. Boockvar, No. 20A53 (SCOTUS)
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20-542 (SCOTUS)

Where are you getting your information from?

Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

I think you mean 'accepted' not 'excepted'.

Yes, I don't know if I misspelled it, or autocorrect got me.

Providing that link doesn't mean you actually read any of those documents. All it shows is that you googled the case and found a site that provided a listing of filed documents pertaining to such.

I see lots of huff and bluster on your part, along with big false assumptions and no facts to back you up. The timing between win the law change was past and when the suit was filed shows your contention that the change was COVID induced to be nothing more than a false talking point and shows you have not actually reviewed the basic facts of the case.

I'm genuinely curious how you ascertained that Kelly v. Pennsylvania to be the pertinent case with respect to the constitutionality of the changes made to PA's election laws and on which you base your current opinion. Is that due to something you read or did you hear about it in the media?

Though Kelly v. Pennyslvania (among 15 or so other cases that have transpired in PA) was not included in previous listing, don't assume I haven't read them nor have plenty to say about them.

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should forbid Pennsylvania from certifying its 2020 election results because the state legislature's provision of no-excuse absentee voting violated both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.

So you don't see how that issue is relevant, or you have no idea what you're talking about?

You didn't answer my question so I'm assuming you've never actually read any of the documents filed in any of the courts and are relying strictly upon what you've been told to believe by some media source or another.

The legal documents tell a completely different story. Do you need me to actually send them to you to prove it? Kelly v PA fell on standing, merit, procedure, facts and laches.

I answered your question, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I'm the ill informed one. The Penn State constitution sets when absentee voting is allowed and the state law change violated that.

http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/election-2020/kelly-parnell-frank-kierzek-magee-sauter-kincaid-logan-vs-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-pa-general-assembly-wolf-and-boockvar

Wrong! I've spent more than two decades in the legal profession, primarily engaged in civil litigation. While I'm neither a resident of PA nor an expert in election law, I do however know how to follow applicable rules of court, rules of evidence, etc. as well as being able to read and completely comprehend what each court filing both states and represents.

More huff and bluster, and a self referencing appeal to anonymous authority that wouldn't be excepted in court.