Breaking Election News: You Wont Believe What They Found in Maricopa County

[roamer_1]

While I don't necessarily agree that the "standing" argument is definitive, I do lay blame primarily at the doors of the respective state legislatures.  Legislatures that won't protect their own authorities as the directly elected representatives of the people, and that won't guard the integrity of the people's vote, should be replaced at election time by others that will.  And the legislative action to protect its own authority need not be limited to asking the judiciary to agree.

Were I in one of these state legislatures some AGs and judges would be facing the business end of severe budget cuts, stripping of jurisdiction, and impeachment resolutions.

Agreed. The very same condition exists in the Fed - A Congress conveniently refusing to be jealous of its powers. Much of what the courts have done should have been smacked down by Congress for overstepping.

[Bigun]

no, state legislators. Not the legislature itself to my knowledge.

I believe that is incorrect! 

And besides that, Texas vs Pennsylvania was an original jurisdiction case and the court lacks any constitutional authority to deny it a hearing.

[roamer_1]

I believe that is incorrect! 

I remember instances of Republican legislators, but not the legislature itself - In fact, if the legislature had a bee in their bonnet, they could have moved as a body outside the court, and passed laws clarifying their position. They could have moved as a body to impeach judges and state agents - They did nothing. That is in fact, passive acquiescence by it's very definition.

And besides that, Texas vs Pennsylvania was an original jurisdiction case and the court lacks any constitutional authority to deny it a hearing.

I see no way that case can be adjudicated - Or New York get to tell Montana how to do things. Screw that.

[Bigun]

I remember instances of Republican legislators, but not the legislature itself - In fact, if the legislature had a bee in their bonnet, they could have moved as a body outside the court, and passed laws clarifying their position. They could have moved as a body to impeach judges and state agents - They did nothing. That is in fact, passive acquiescence by it's very definition.

I see no way that case can be adjudicated - Or New York get to tell Montana how to do things. Screw that.

But what you don't see is that that case was not seeking to do ANYTHING other than enforce the United States Constitution which clearly states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,..."

[skeeter]

There is a reason for 'process'. be careful what you wish for.

ALL 30 cases...

[roamer_1]

But what you don't see is that that case was not seeking to do ANYTHING other than enforce the United States Constitution which clearly states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,..."

no, I understand the argument perfectly. The legislature DID direct, passively, by not asserting itself as it should have. It ALLOWED agents of the court and agents of the state to function in their (the legislature's) capacity. Inaction is acquiescence... tacit approval, and thus direction.

[Bigun]

no, I understand the argument perfectly. The legislature DID direct, passively, by not asserting itself as it should have. It ALLOWED agents of the court and agents of the state to function in their (the legislature's) capacity. Inaction is acquiescence... tacit approval, and thus direction.

The sole and entire purpose of SCOTUS is to enforce the Constitution period! And the Pennsylvania Constitution itself prohibits changes to election law by anyone other than the legislature.

[roamer_1]

ALL 30 cases...

 

If Republicans had offered any resistance over the past decades, things may have turned out differently. But generally speaking, those cases failed to provide standing. I don't believe the lawyers presenting those cases ever thought they were going to win. They no doubt knew they had no standing right off the bat.

Thus in my mind those cases were lofted just for the outrage that could be milled in the conservative press... And the more elusive legitimate proof becomes, the more it looks like sour grapes.

And that, even as I am sure that fraud occurred. Doesn't matter until it is proven.

I really DO hope it is proven, even after the fact, which is why I am watching this AZ audit closely.

 

[roamer_1]

The sole and entire purpose of SCOTUS is to enforce the Constitution period! And the Pennsylvania Constitution itself prohibits changes to election law by anyone other than the legislature.

Right.

[Victoria33]

Exactly.  It's desirable to validate signatures and stop at that prior to the Election.  Saves a lot of time on election day, and doesn't risk spoiling the ballots accidentally.  Just don't open the envelopes until the morning of election day.  I understand a lot of states with the skeezy mail-in election schemes use the "envelope within the envelope" strategy.

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@DB
@catfish1957

In Texas, we do that for security.  The mailing envelope is opened and inside is the ballot inside a separate envelope, called the "ballot envelope".  If the ballot is NOT in that ballot envelope, but loose in there, it is rejected.  The ballot is in that ballot envelope so no one can see how the voter voted.  Once the voter's materials are evaluated and are correct, the ballot envelope is stacked with the other ballot envelopes. 

At some point when there is a stack of those envelopes, the envelopes are opened and the actual ballots are stacked up.  No one knows how any voter voted since the ballot envelope was removed from the voter's mail envelope and all the ballot envelopes are stacked in a pile.  (Also, if it takes days to evaluate mail ballots, at the end of each  day, all that material is locked in metal boxes with two locks and kept in a locked room until the next day when the process starts again.)

Then, finally, on election day, the stacked actual ballots are taken to the counting station in that building.

Let's mention again, there is one Democrat and one Republican who work on a ballot's materials to verify the paperwork.  There can be poll watchers in there if they have a poll watcher document.  During the years I was that Judge, poll watchers did come but also left fairly soon as it was boring to sit there and watch ballot materials be evaluated.

People from the outside cannot look through windows to watch that process.  Only legal poll watchers can be there.  In that instance when film showed windows being covered up so outsiders could not see in, I would have covered those windows, too.

The worst election fraud happens in nursing homes. If the Judge of the board knew, read the election code how to evaluate ballots from nursing homes, millions of those votes would be thrown out.  I did that in my county and the district attorney tried to get me removed as judge of that board - I won that case, he did not. 

[Sled Dog]

no, I understand the argument perfectly. The legislature DID direct, passively, by not asserting itself as it should have. It ALLOWED agents of the court and agents of the state to function in their (the legislature's) capacity. Inaction is acquiescence... tacit approval, and thus direction.

I remember those early Fakebook commercials with the fat old lady saying "that isn't how any of this works".

The legislature did direct.

Until the legislature directs otherwise, what the legislature did direct is how the process stands.  The courts and executives do not get a vote.

THAT is how this works.

[roamer_1]

I remember those early Fakebook commercials with the fat old lady saying "that isn't how any of this works".

The legislature did direct.

Until the legislature directs otherwise, what the legislature did direct is how the process stands.  The courts and executives do not get a vote.

THAT is how this works.

Not exactly, as lawyers in court will gladly show you.

[Sled Dog]

If Republicans had offered any resistance over the past decades, things may have turned out differently. But generally speaking, those cases failed to provide standing. I don't believe the lawyers presenting those cases ever thought they were going to win. They no doubt knew they had no standing right off the bat.

Thus in my mind those cases were lofted just for the outrage that could be milled in the conservative press... And the more elusive legitimate proof becomes, the more it looks like sour grapes.

And that, even as I am sure that fraud occurred. Doesn't matter until it is proven.

I really DO hope it is proven, even after the fact, which is why I am watching this AZ audit closely.

^^^ RINO complaining that RINOs didn't complain ^^^

[Sled Dog]

Not exactly, as lawyers in court will gladly show you.

Yes, exactly.

Lawyers are those people willing to argue before a judge that your cow actually belongs to your neighbor.

You should peruse more Swiftly.

[Sled Dog]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@DB
@catfish1957

In Texas, we do that for security.  The mailing envelope is opened and inside is the ballot inside a separate envelope, called the "ballot envelope".  If the ballot is NOT in that ballot envelope, but loose in there, it is rejected.  The ballot is in that ballot envelope so no one can see how the voter voted.  Once the voter's materials are evaluated and are correct, the ballot envelope is stacked with the other ballot envelopes. 

At some point when there is a stack of those envelopes, the envelopes are opened and the actual ballots are stacked up.  No one knows how any voter voted since the ballot envelope was removed from the voter's mail envelope and all the ballot envelopes are stacked in a pile.  (Also, if it takes days to evaluate mail ballots, at the end of each  day, all that material is locked in metal boxes with two locks and kept in a locked room until the next day when the process starts again.)

Then, finally, on election day, the stacked actual ballots are taken to the counting station in that building.

Let's mention again, there is one Democrat and one Republican who work on a ballot's materials to verify the paperwork.  There can be poll watchers in there if they have a poll watcher document.  During the years I was that Judge, poll watchers did come but also left fairly soon as it was boring to sit there and watch ballot materials be evaluated.

People from the outside cannot look through windows to watch that process.  Only legal poll watchers can be there.  In that instance when film showed windows being covered up so outsiders could not see in, I would have covered those windows, too.

The worst election fraud happens in nursing homes. If the Judge of the board knew, read the election code how to evaluate ballots from nursing homes, millions of those votes would be thrown out.  I did that in my county and the district attorney tried to get me removed as judge of that board - I won that case, he did not.

There is no valid reason the public cannot observe the process.   Democrats thrive in Darkness is the rule to pay attention to here.

Why do the Rodents suddenly want to stop the public from viewing vote counts and vote audits?

Because the public saw the Rodents doing everything they could to steal the Floriduh Electors from Bush in 2000 and realized that blatantly and openly attempting to steal elections right in public view gave them bad press.

They don't object to blatantly and openly stealing the election of 2020, but they don't want to be seen doing it because so useful to them to have RINO idiots demanding "proof" and other such nonsense when the proof has already been given.

[roamer_1]

^^^ RINO complaining that RINOs didn't complain ^^^

Not a RINO. Not an 'R' of any sort.

[roamer_1]

Yes, exactly.

Lawyers are those people willing to argue before a judge that your cow actually belongs to your neighbor.

You should peruse more Swiftly.

Yeah right... That's why thirty cases got thrown out on their keister.

[Bigun]

Not exactly, as lawyers in court will gladly show you.

What court? When? 

[Sled Dog]

Not a RINO. Not an 'R' of any sort.

We know.

That's why the word "American" has an "R" in it.  So some people will demand proof before they're accused of being one.

Don't you worry, I'll never accuse you of being an American.

[roamer_1]

What court? When?

Exactly.

[Sled Dog]

Yeah right... That's why thirty cases got thrown out on their keister.

Is "keister" Yiddish for "refusing to see the evidence before deciding to throw the case out"?  Because that's what happened.

[Bigun]

Yeah right... That's why thirty cases got thrown out on their keister.

Thirty cases got thrown out because the courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the swamp. Perhaps more so in fact!

[roamer_1]

Thirty cases got thrown out because the courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the swamp. Perhaps more so in fact!

OR there was not enough of a case to warrant merit... Which the lawyers HAD to know going in, unless they are inept.

[Bigun]

OR there was not enough of a case to warrant merit... Which the lawyers HAD to know going in, unless they are inept.

MORE bovine excrement from you!  Either the Constitution, every word of it, means what it says or it doesn't and it's more than clear to me now that it no longer does.

[Sled Dog]

OR there was not enough of a case to warrant merit... Which the lawyers HAD to know going in, unless they are inept.

Or, and this is the real answer, the courts are corrupt.

Prima facie evidence that the electors presented by the states of MI, WI, PA, AZ and GA were faithless electors, chosen by processes not authorized under the Constitution, was brought before the Supreme Court, which had the Constitutional duty to review the case and rule on the electors, and that case was summarily dismissed by a process that can only be described as "corrupt" since the court had no basis to reject the case and rule summarily for the faithless electors without a hearing of the evidence.

Then some jackasses claim there was no evidence because the corrupt courts corruptly refused to hear the evidence available.

The judge:  Get that body out of the court, I don't want to see no bodies.
The prosecution:  Your honor, we are here to prosecute AZWIMIPAGA for the murder of the Republic of the United States of America...
The Judge:  Case dismissed. You haven't presented a body of evidence.
The Reporter:  The court dismissed the case because the prosecution had no evidence to present.