Assuming Facts Not in Evidence

This is actually amazing legal history. How many other issues, in the history of the legal profession in America, can show a record of being thrown out, dismissed, contempt threats issued to the attorneys, and just basically demonstrate a national conspiracy by Federal Judges, than the issue of whether the man sitting in the Oval Office has a right to be there?

Federal judges, being appointed, have no fear of needing to be re-elected, nor have any sense of accountability to the public. They are only accountable to their puppet master, the one who appointed them, and who, through the Congress, can remove them if a charge can be "found". Judges are suppose to follow a standard of ethics, called a Code of Conduct.

Cannon 3 includes: A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned...

Based on some of the comments from the judges, there is no impartiality on this issue. In all the cases, all the judges refusing to proceed are guilty of assuming the facts. They are making a decision without hearing the evidence.