BREAKING: Pennsylvania Dems Respond to Justice Alito Arguing – Despite Historically Rampant Election Fraud Don’t Do Anything Because No One Else Ever Has

This morning, per an order from Justice Alito, the Democrats running the fraudulent election in Pennsylvania responded to a case from a couple Republicans in the state.  Their response was baffling.

Before the election, Judge Alito demanded that Democrats set aside all ballots that came in after the Election day deadline of 8pm (the time the polls close in Pennsylvania):

BREAKING: Justice Alito Orders Any Ballots Received After 8pm on Election Day in Pennsylvania be Segregated and Secured – Counted Separately

But it appeared that the state ignored his order and accepted ballots after the election and we don’t know if any were segregated.  If the ballots were segregated, they were not reviewed by Republicans during the chain of custody because Democrats in the Pennsylvania forcefully did not permit Republicans their right to observe activities during the election counting process.

A lawsuit ensued from two Pennsylvania Republicans where they argued that the election went against Pennsylvania law, especially when mail-in ballots were received and counted after the election deadline.  The due date for the response from the Democrat leadership in the state was moved up to this morning:

Justice Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing in Pennsylvania Lawsuit to Flip the Election

The Democrat leaders who promoted massive mail-in ballots and due dates up to three days after the election responded to Justice Alito per Law and Crime:

Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday morning filed court papers before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to oppose a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from that state who zealously supports President Donald Trump. Kelly’s lawsuit argues that Pennsylvania’s supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution when it failed to rule recently that state election law violated the Pennsylvania constitution. In Kelly’s view, Pennsylvania’s bipartisan decision to expand the use of mail-in ballots via a 2019 law known as Act 77 conflicts with more narrow absentee voter provisions contained in the state constitution. In summary, Kelly’s case seeks basically to flip the election in Trump’s favor in Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth’s Democrat attorneys got right to the point in the first paragraph of their response:

Basically what the brilliant minds from the left claimed is that – no one has ever stopped us before so don’t be the first:

This case is now in Supreme Court Justice Alito’s court.

Photo of author
Joe Hoft is a Radio Host at, Author, Former International Corporate Executive in Hong Kong for a Decade, and a Contributor at TGP since 2016. Joe is the author of five books, including his new bestseller, "The Steal: Volume II - The Impossible Occurs" which addresses the stolen 2020 Election and provides an inventory of issues that prove that the 2020 Election was uncertifiable and never should have been certified for Joe Biden.

You can email Joe Hoft here, and read more of Joe Hoft's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!