The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2020 => Topic started by: rangerrebew on May 14, 2021, 02:58:01 pm
-
Breaking Election News: You Wont Believe What They Found in Maricopa County
By
Anastasia Boushee -
May 13, 2021
Before the machines were delivered to the Senate, an administrator deleted an entire directory full of election databases. According to the official Twitter account of the Maricopa County audit, this may amount to destruction of evidence.
“Breaking Update: Maricopa County deleted a directory full of election databases from the 2020 election cycle days before the election equipment was delivered to the audit. This is spoliation of evidence!” the tweet read.
https://deepstaterabbithole.com/breaking-election-news-you-wont-believe-what-they-found-in-maricopa-county/?utm_source=DRH%20Mailer%20&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:20694238&utm_campaign=Breaking%20Election%20News:%20You%20Wont%20Believe%20What%20They%20Found%20in%20Maricopa%20County
-
I am not one of those who believes there was widespread fraud in the last election, but things like this make me wonder. Is there a fear among the Dems that if the truth is known about what happened in Maricopa County, then the dominoes start falling? Else why are they obstructing and obfuscating so much?
-
If Maricopa County was truthful when they said they didn't have the Admin password, then this was done by a Dominion employee. If they lied, then the County probably did it.
When it comes to Rats and RINOs, my bet is on "they lied."
-
I am not one of those who believes there was widespread fraud in the last election, but things like this make me wonder. Is there a fear among the Dems that if the truth is known about what happened in Maricopa County, then the dominoes start falling? Else why are they obstructing and obfuscating so much?
I guess it all depends on how you define "widespread", all it takes is a few urban counties in a few key states and there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that it happened in 2020.
-
I hope they have a decent geek around. 'Deleted' is different than wiped.
-
I am not one of those who believes there was widespread fraud in the last election, but things like this make me wonder. Is there a fear among the Dems that if the truth is known about what happened in Maricopa County, then the dominoes start falling? Else why are they obstructing and obfuscating so much?
How about this:
If the Rodents didn't know they engaged in widespread fraud in the national election, they would have no reason to spoil evidence and otherwise interfere with the audit.
Destroying evidence of guilt is evidence of guilt.
-
Destroying evidence of guilt is evidence of guilt.
That is absolutely true in a Court of Law, which is why all those Judges all the way up to SCOTUS refused standing, so it is tried in the court of public opinion instead.
-
I hope they have a decent geek around. 'Deleted' is different than wiped.
I think the screen grab I've been seeing of deleted files is from a remote server, and basically says "file not found." The files probably do exist but they were moved. It would still be illegal if files were moved because they were under a subpoena and unavailable to the party that has that subpoena.
-
I think the screen grab I've been seeing of deleted files is from a remote server, and basically says "file not found." The files probably do exist but they were moved. It would still be illegal if files were moved because they were under a subpoena and unavailable to the party that has that subpoena.
Gotta lean on the geeks. Always ALWAYS there is a CYA file when you are ordered to do something you should not.
-
I guess it all depends on how you define "widespread", all it takes is a few urban counties in a few key states and there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that it happened in 2020.
True, but it had to be big enough to cover Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Yes, maybe only one or two counties in each place, but it had to be a conspiracy on a national scale. I think a lot of Republicans are waiting to see what comes out of this audit, and obviously the Dems seem very worried about it. In fact, the level of Dem panic really causes me to wonder.
-
There is more to what's coming out about Maricopa County than the missing files and refusal to produce images of the routers. There was a lot of so-called old fashioned tampering of the actual ballots. Seals were broken on a lot of the "ballot bags," and the total counts on the bags did not match how many ballots were actually in the bags. The actual ballots were fewer than the slips attached to them in almost all cases, meaning ballots are missing because they were removed and likely destroyed between the first tabulating in November and the Audit underway today.
Also, a number of the boxes where not sealed at all with tamper-proof tape, but ordinary packing tape instead. Ballots that were signature matched exist and can be paired with the envelopes, but were separated to make checking them much more difficult.
This isn't supposition, this is actual evidence coming out.
-
True, but it had to be big enough to cover Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Yes, maybe only one or two counties in each place, but it had to be a conspiracy on a national scale. I think a lot of Republicans are waiting to see what comes out of this audit, and obviously the Dems seem very worried about it. In fact, the level of Dem panic really causes me to wonder.
You don't think it's possible there was a national scale conspiracy?
-
There is more to what's coming out about Maricopa County than the missing files and refusal to produce images of the routers. There was a lot of so-called old fashioned tampering of the actual ballots. Seals were broken on a lot of the "ballot bags," and the total counts on the bags did not match how many ballots were actually on the bags. The actual ballots were fewer than the slips attached to them in almost all cases, meaning ballots are missing because they were removed and likely destroyed between the first tabulating in November and the Audit underway today.
Also, a number of the boxes where not sealed at all with tamper-proof tape, but ordinary packing tape instead. Ballots that were signature matched exist and can be paired with the envelopes, but were separated to make checking them much more difficult.
This isn't supposition, this is actual evidence coming out.
So is the AZ State Legislature going to pass laws that make all these things a felony with the local county executive held accountable?
-
True, but it had to be big enough to cover Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Yes, maybe only one or two counties in each place, but it had to be a conspiracy on a national scale. I think a lot of Republicans are waiting to see what comes out of this audit, and obviously the Dems seem very worried about it. In fact, the level of Dem panic really causes me to wonder.
I just have one question for you @massadvj in all your years of observing presidential elections, have you ever before seen urban counties in ALL the far-flung states you mentioned above stop counting at roughly the same time for no apparent reason? That was a first for me.
-
Gotta lean on the geeks. Always ALWAYS there is a CYA file when you are ordered to do something you should not.
Yup. And it sucks to be reliant on movement leftists to expose the chicanery. Since the election fiasco is being tried in something other than a court of law, the rules concerning Spoliation of Evidence do not apply. Partisans can ignore what would be a crime at their leisure, and that is exactly what they are doing.
-
So is the AZ State Legislature going to pass laws that make all these things a felony with the local county executive held accountable?
It's already a felony, so new laws to that effect would be as pointless as rewriting a Constitution that isn't being followed in the first place.
Letting the County people get away with it is why I detest AZ's AG.
-
I just have one question for you @massadvj in all your years of observing presidential elections, have you ever before seen urban counties in ALL the far-flung states you mentioned above stop counting at roughly the same time for no apparent reason? That was a first for me.
I know, right? All I can say is I have been following what is going on in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the folks in the GOP do not think Biden won this state illegitimately. Yes, they do think there was some fraud, but not enough to affect the outcome. The vast majority also say that Trump would have won in a landslide had the rules not been so relaxed on mail-in voting. But the rules were put into place based on a legal process, constitutionally flawed as it was.
I follow this on Twitter, and I am talking about people who are really inside the election process and know all the ins and outs. So far, not one credible Pennsylvania Republican I know of will say that Trump actually won this state based on the election rules that were in place at the time. I am hoping the Maricopa County result will help them know more about where to look, but as of now the matter is settled here.
-
It's already a felony, so new laws to that effect would be as pointless as rewriting a Constitution that isn't being followed in the first place.
Letting the County people get away with it is why I detest AZ's AG.
I suppose the county prosecutors with jurisdiction are Ds then, or perhaps NT Rs (I guess that's just about redundant). And if the AG lets it slide that's malfeasance in my book. All I can see is for the AZ R party to make this a key issue for state elections, and then if the voters don't mind that their local officials corrupted the franchise, we have to acknowledge that there is no rule of law nor anyone to bring it back.
Not trying to suggest there is anything distinctly wrong with the voters in AZ, only that this might be a kind of "canary in the coal mine" scenario as the audit continues to play out.
What is the feeling among people generally there? Does the proverbial "man on the street" see what you see and share with us?
-
You don't think it's possible there was a national scale conspiracy?
I don't rule out that it is possible. I never regarded it as zero probability. But up until now I have regarded it as improbable. That level of improbability keeps going down with each new drip out of Maricopa County.
Nothing would make me happier than to say I was wrong about it.
-
I know, right? All I can say is I have been following what is going on in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the folks in the GOP do not think Biden won this state illegitimately. Yes, they do think there was some fraud, but not enough to affect the outcome. The vast majority also say that Trump would have won in a landslide had the rules not been so relaxed on mail-in voting. But the rules were put into place based on a legal process, constitutionally flawed as it was.
I follow this on Twitter, and I am talking about people who are really inside the election process and know all the ins and outs. So far, not one credible Pennsylvania Republican I know of will say that Trump actually won this state. I am hoping the Maricopa County result will help them know more about where to look, but as of now the matter is settled here.
Well, all I can say to that is if the Constitution is no longer enforceable, which appears to be the case, it matters not at all who Republicans run for president in the future.
-
What is the feeling among people generally there? Does the proverbial "man on the street" see what you see and share with us?
I can't really say. This is a downside of living in one of the "reddest" counties in the whole of the US. The vast majority of the townspeople I see all think Trump won AZ, but I would not extrapolate that to anywhere outside of Mohave County. I don't travel about the State much, and when I do it's to things like the GOP state-wide Executive meetings. The last one was in far-leftist Pima County (Tucson) and we were cloistered in a Resort. :shrug:
It's that ol' "echo chamber" effect at work, and I realize that.
-
I don't rule out that it is possible. I never regraded it as zero probability. But up until now I have regarded it as improbable. That level of improbability keeps going down with each new drip out of Maricopa County.
Nothing would make me happier than to say I was wrong about it.
And this is why Rats all the way up to Sloe Joe are fighting tooth and nail to stop the Audit that is in progress.
-
I can't really say. This is a downside of living in one of the "reddest" counties in the whole of the US.
That's a good, fair-minded answer. It's easy to be misled by a biased sample when we live within that sample.
-
I just have one question for you @massadvj in all your years of observing presidential elections, have you ever before seen urban counties in ALL the far-flung states you mentioned above stop counting at roughly the same time for no apparent reason? That was a first for me.
@Cyber Liberty
Some counties start qualifying mail ballots before election day and finish up qualifying the last ones that come in on election day, then send the ballots to the counting station. There is no stop in counting ballots when counties use that method, which is the method in Texas. The first reporting of election results to the election division of the secretary of state, are the results of mail ballots and early voting ballots. Those are the first results to show up on their website election results.
Other counties, like the ones mentioned, cannot start qualifying mail ballots until voting stops on election day. That makes the county, who has finished counting election day ballots, have to stop counting until the mail ballots come in later in the evening. All states should start evaluating mail ballots before election day like Texas does.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Some counties start qualifying mail ballots before election day and finish up qualifying the last ones that come in on election day, then send the ballots to the counting station. There is no stop in counting ballots when counties use that method, which is the method in Texas. The first reporting of election results to the election division of the secretary of state, are the results of mail ballots and early voting ballots. Those are the first results to show up on their website election results.
Other counties, like the ones mentioned, cannot start qualifying mail ballots until voting stops on election day. That makes the county, who has finished counting election day ballots, have to stop counting until the mail ballots come in later in the evening. All states should start evaluating mail ballots before election day like Texas does.
@Victoria33
"Evaluate," yes. "Count," no. And that is how it worked in my smaller County. One would almost think Maricopa did not validate the ballots in advance in order to create more confusion and a backlog at the tabulation centers on purpose.
We have been talking exclusively about Maricopa County (Phoenix) but nothing at all about Pima County (Tucson) because there is not an Audit in progress there. If it turns out Maricopa really did cheat enough to affect the AZ results, then I'd be willing to guess there was probably a lot of cheating there, too. There's a difference: Pima has been a bastion of Democrats since well before I moved to AZ 40 years ago. I'd believe Sloe Joe won in Pima, as every Democrat Presidential Nominee has since then. The results may be way off true (affecting the statewide total), but that would truly be a situation of "not enough to change the election."
-
@Victoria33
"Evaluate," yes. "Count," no. And that is how it worked in my smaller County. One would almost think Maricopa did not validate the ballots in advance in order to create more confusion and a backlog at the tabulation centers on purpose.
@Cyber Liberty
Let me make this clearer since you use the words "evaluate", "count".
The by mail ballot board in Texas and other states (but not all states) evaluate mail ballots before election day and finish early on voting day evaluating mail ballots that come in on election day.
As soon on "election day" the evaluation is complete, the "ballots", are sent to the counting station to be "counted". The paper work of the board is given to the election administrator and kept for many months in a locked room with other election materials that must be kept.
Also, the Judge of the board must send a notice to each voter whose mail ballot was not counted, telling the voter why the ballot was rejected. The Judge's phone number must be on the notice. Some years I felt like leaving the county for a few days after sending those notices with my phone number. 44444heart
-
@Cyber Liberty
Let me make this clearer since you use the words "evaluate", "count".
The by mail ballot board in Texas and other states (but not all states) evaluate mail ballots before election day and finish early on voting day evaluating mail ballots that come in on election day.
As soon on "election day" the evaluation is complete, the "ballots", are sent to the counting station to be "counted". The paper work of the board is given to the election administrator and kept for many months in a locked room with other election materials that must be kept.
Also, the Judge of the board must send a notice to each voter whose mail ballot was not counted, telling the voter why the ballot was rejected. The Judge's phone number must be on the notice. Some years I felt like leaving the county for a few days after sending those notices with my phone number. 44444heart
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.
-
Well, all I can say to that is if the Constitution is no longer enforceable, which appears to be the case, it matters not at all who Republicans run for president in the future.
The constitution is only as good as the courts which interpret it. They have been imperfect since the founding. In this case, I think we both agree they were wrong.
That Biden won based on constitutionally questionable (but court upheld) rules and regulations that were in place is one thing. I think we all agree that was the case. It's quite another to allege that Biden won based on outright fraud with ballots, counting process or technology.
-
And this is why Rats all the way up to Sloe Joe are fighting tooth and nail to stop the Audit that is in progress.
And to denigrate it before any results are known. They have been relentless about attacking the firm that was hired, hoping that killing the messenger will kill the message.
-
And to denigrate it before any results are known. They have been relentless about attacking the firm that was hired, hoping that killing the messenger will kill the message.
The evidence is already in.
The vote in Maricopa County was hopelessly corrupt.
If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been any opposition to the audit.
-
You Wont Believe What They Found in Maricopa County......with just one weird trick.
-
True, but it had to be big enough to cover Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Yes, maybe only one or two counties in each place, but it had to be a conspiracy on a national scale. I think a lot of Republicans are waiting to see what comes out of this audit, and obviously the Dems seem very worried about it. In fact, the level of Dem panic really causes me to wonder.
Five states stopping counting at the same time isn't a hint?
-
I know, right? All I can say is I have been following what is going on in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the folks in the GOP do not think Biden won this state illegitimately. Yes, they do think there was some fraud, but not enough to affect the outcome. The vast majority also say that Trump would have won in a landslide had the rules not been so relaxed on mail-in voting. But the rules were put into place based on a legal process, constitutionally flawed as it was.
I follow this on Twitter, and I am talking about people who are really inside the election process and know all the ins and outs. So far, not one credible Pennsylvania Republican I know of will say that Trump actually won this state based on the election rules that were in place at the time. I am hoping the Maricopa County result will help them know more about where to look, but as of now the matter is settled here.
Were the rules put in place by the Legislature? If not, those rules were, themselves, unconstitutional. That isn't legal, and no election conducted under illegally promulgated rules should be legal, either.
-
The constitution is only as good as the courts which interpret it. They have been imperfect since the founding. In this case, I think we both agree they were wrong.
That Biden won based on constitutionally questionable (but court upheld) rules and regulations that were in place is one thing. I think we all agree that was the case. It's quite another to allege that Biden won based on outright fraud with ballots, counting process or technology.
The courts did not uphold the Constitutionality of the rules, they denied standing to the plaintiffs, or simply refused to hear the case. While that lets the rules remain in place, it is not a clean bill of health or legality for the rules.
-
Five states stopping counting at the same time isn't a hint?
Sure it's a hint... but a hint is not proof. @massadvj is right in my case. I am waiting for results, because my assumptions don't matter a row of pins. Proof is what is needed, and proof is all that will do.
-
Were the rules put in place by the Legislature? If not, those rules were, themselves, unconstitutional. That isn't legal, and no election conducted under illegally promulgated rules should be legal, either.
That was correct. It was the legislature that was usurped, it is the legislature that has standing. Their inaction is passive acquiescence.
-
Sure it's a hint... but a hint is not proof. @massadvj is right in my case. I am waiting for results, because my assumptions don't matter a row of pins. Proof is what is needed, and proof is all that will do.
If the evidence hasn't been destroyed by now, they should be hanged. They've had ample time, the courts didn't look at it, so it hasn't been made part of the judicial record, and they've had the DOJ's top investigators on it.
Just like the 'russia collusion' thingy, the fishing expeditions were to eliminate evidence of their own wrongdoing (Seth Rich, who wasn't robbed (boy, was that ever "botched"), and Epstein (who did not kill himself) wherever they could find it, or secure it and sit on it, where it can be conveniently 'lost' or 'misplaced'.
There's a lot of SSDD with those crooks, and they are very good at covering their butts.
-
That was correct. It was the legislature that was usurped, it is the legislature that has standing. Their inaction is passive acquiescence.
The urban areas of the States involved have significant populations in the areas most suspected of fraud of a demographic that was prominently and actively participating in rioting, looting, and destruction. It was urban areas which pulled off the fraud, if it can be proven. The legislatures, and the courts, were likely intimidated by prospects of widespread civil unrest, especially in light of obvious sympathies by other politicians in those areas.
-
The urban areas of the States involved have significant populations in the areas most suspected of fraud of a demographic that was prominently and actively participating in rioting, looting, and destruction. It was urban areas which pulled off the fraud, if it can be proven. The legislatures, and the courts, were likely intimidated by prospects of widespread civil unrest, especially in light of obvious sympathies by other politicians in those areas.
Which matters not a whit wrt the court and its decision. :shrug:
I have sympathy for your position. But rule of law is primary... faithless legislators quailing in their duties would require you to seek another way. That is not the fault of the court. And I have said from the beginning that proving it would be the trick. But prove it you must, even yet.
-
If the evidence hasn't been destroyed by now, they should be hanged. They've had ample time, the courts didn't look at it, so it hasn't been made part of the judicial record, and they've had the DOJ's top investigators on it.
Just like the 'russia collusion' thingy, the fishing expeditions were to eliminate evidence of their own wrongdoing (Seth Rich, who wasn't robbed (boy, was that ever "botched"), and Epstein (who did not kill himself) wherever they could find it, or secure it and sit on it, where it can be conveniently 'lost' or 'misplaced'.
There's a lot of SSDD with those crooks, and they are very good at covering their butts.
That's right, but it does not change the field. It means nothing until proof arrives...Tough sh*t, there it is. :shrug:
-
That was correct. It was the legislature that was usurped, it is the legislature that has standing. Their inaction is passive acquiescence.
No choice but to agree. I have to believe that state legislatures generally have powers of impeachment and of budgeting; why expect the judiciary to protect legislative authority that legislatures themselves won't protect through their own powers? Apparently deference to the judiciary has rendered legislatures supine.
-
No choice but to agree. I have to believe that state legislatures generally have powers of impeachment and of budgeting; why expect the judiciary to protect legislative authority that legislatures themselves won't protect through their own powers? Apparently deference to the judiciary has rendered legislatures supine.
That is indeed the dilemma. Not that it should be that way, mind you. But the court is not at fault in the 'no standing' decision.
-
The constitution is only as good as the courts which interpret it. They have been imperfect since the founding. In this case, I think we both agree they were wrong.
:yowsa: Very much so!
That Biden won based on constitutionally questionable (but court upheld) rules and regulations that were in place is one thing. I think we all agree that was the case. It's quite another to allege that Biden won based on outright fraud with ballots, counting process or technology.
Personally, I think it was both. And it is also my considered opinion that this COVID mess was and is part of that, a long-planned and perfectly executed attack that worked to perfection. So far that is.
-
That is indeed the dilemma. Not that it should be that way, mind you. But the court is not at fault in the 'no standing' decision.
Utter BS! USDA Choice! Grade A.
Clarence Thomas Dissent in Election Cases: ‘Our Fellow Citizens Deserve Better’ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/22/clarence-thomas-dissent-election-cases/)
-
Utter BS! USDA Choice! Grade A.
All 30 cases left un-adjudicated for process reasons. Bullsh*t is right.
-
Utter BS! USDA Choice! Grade A.
Well, you can say what you want... But that's the story. If the legislature did not take exception to the so-called 'emergency' measures put in place by either the courts or other agents of the state, no one else has room to challenge it. Were the legislature itself to stand before the court, they would have standing. Otherwise you can go after the judges and state agents at fault for their infractions as a matter of law, but that will get you little.
-
All 30 cases left un-adjudicated for process reasons. Bullsh*t is right.
There is a reason for 'process'. be careful what you wish for.
-
Well, you can say what you want... But that's the story. If the legislature did not take exception to the so-called 'emergency' measures put in place by either the courts or other agents of the state, no one else has room to challenge it. Were the legislature itself to stand before the court, they would have standing. Otherwise you can go after the judges and state agents at fault for their infractions as a matter of law, but that will get you little.
Many of the cases refused a hearing were cases filed by state legislatures!
-
Well, you can say what you want... But that's the story. If the legislature did not take exception to the so-called 'emergency' measures put in place by either the courts or other agents of the state, no one else has room to challenge it. Were the legislature itself to stand before the court, they would have standing. Otherwise you can go after the judges and state agents at fault for their infractions as a matter of law, but that will get you little.
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.
-
Many of the cases refused a hearing were cases filed by state legislatures!
no, state legislators. Not the legislature itself to my knowledge.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,..."
-
There is a reason for 'process'. be careful what you wish for.
ALL 30 cases...
-
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.
-
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.
-
ALL 30 cases...
:shrug:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
:shrug:
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 ^^^
-
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.
-
@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.
-
^^^ RINO complaining that RINOs didn't complain ^^^
Not a RINO. Not an 'R' of any sort.
-
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.
-
Not exactly, as lawyers in court will gladly show you.
What court? When?
-
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.
-
What court? When?
Exactly.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It is what it is. I don't know the ins and outs of it like the lawyers do. But whatever the case, 30 and 0 means it ain't working for you. A different tack would be called for, says here.
-
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.
Well then all that's left is war.
Have fun.
-
It is what it is. I don't know the ins and outs of it like the lawyers do. But whatever the case, 30 and 0 means it ain't working for you. A different tack would be called for, says here.
Yep! Only one box left and I'm just plain too old and crippled up for that now.
-
Yep! Only one box left and I'm just plain too old and crippled up for that now.
Probably so... But I ain't there yet. Like I said, I will wait and see what proves out.
-
Maricopa County Officials Refuse to Meet with Arizona State Senate to Resolve Election Audit Issues
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/18/maricopa-county-officials-refuse-to-meet-with-arizona-state-senate-to-resolve-election-audit-issues/
-
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?
@Sled Dog
@Cyber Liberty
IT IS FOR THE WORKER'S SAFETY.
Bad person looking through window can target someone in there and find that person later. Someone on outside of window could aim for someone inside and fire a weapon through the window. No way would I be the Judge up and walking around the room while others outside window could see me. As perhaps you can imagine, Democrats in my county were not "fond" of me.
There are half Democrats and half Republicans working in the room. It is not some secret meeting of Democrats cheating in an election. EVERY JUDGE OF THAT BOARD IN EVERY COUNTY IS A REPUBLICAN. Why? If the governor is a Republican, every precinct election Judge is a Republican in every county and that includes the Judge of that board. If we had a Democrat governor, all election judges in the state would be Democrats and a Democrat would have been the Judge of that Board.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9G20Iayv6Y
This video reports that the Maricopa County officials are re-iterating they will not conform to subpoenas and they demand the Arizona Senate immediately stop the audit.
@Cyber Liberty what does "subpoena" mean in the state of Arizona? I thought I had seen that a judge had ruled these subpoenas enforceable. Why are these people not being put in handcuffs?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9G20Iayv6Y
This video reports that the Maricopa County officials are re-iterating they will not conform to subpoenas and they demand the Arizona Senate immediately stop the audit.
@Cyber Liberty what does "subpoena" mean in the state of Arizona? I thought I had seen that a judge had ruled these subpoenas enforceable. Why are these people not being put in handcuffs?
Beats me, why the County thinks it can pick and choose what parts to follow, and what they don't have to if they don't feel like it. I, too want to see some frog marching in Maricopa.
-
@Sled Dog
@Cyber Liberty
IT IS FOR THE WORKER'S SAFETY.
Bad person looking through window can target someone in there and find that person later. Someone on outside of window could aim for someone inside and fire a weapon through the window. No way would I be the Judge up and walking around the room while others outside window could see me. As perhaps you can imagine, Democrats in my county were not "fond" of me.
There are half Democrats and half Republicans working in the room. It is not some secret meeting of Democrats cheating in an election. EVERY JUDGE OF THAT BOARD IN EVERY COUNTY IS A REPUBLICAN. Why? If the governor is a Republican, every precinct election Judge is a Republican in every county and that includes the Judge of that board. If we had a Democrat governor, all election judges in the state would be Democrats and a Democrat would have been the Judge of that Board.
I don't think both Democrats and Republicans must observe the Audit in progress in AZ. I say this because if that were the case the Audit would not be going forward at all, because the Democrats have been boycotting every aspect of this count as a means of sabotaging it and saying "It's just more of them Republican lies we're always telling you about."
They pulled this trick in November, which is why it took weeks instead of days to move through the corrupt Maricopa count. They boycotted the count then, and I'm sure they are now. It's how Democrats operate in the real world these days.
-
IT IS FOR THE WORKER'S SAFETY.
Bad person looking through window can target someone in there and find that person later. Someone on outside of window could aim for someone inside and fire a weapon through the window. No way would I be the Judge up and walking around the room while others outside window could see me. As perhaps you can imagine, Democrats in my county were not "fond" of me.
So how did you stay safe the other (roughly) 730 days between elections @Victoria33? I don't question that the rationale for excluding public observation is to protect the workers, and I certainly don't want election workers threatened or harmed. I do question whether or not that rationale makes sense. Unless your identity was a secret, you were only protected from the public while votes were being counted; frankly I find it hard to believe that Ds would limit their antagonism toward you to only those few hours.
In fact when the work of counting votes is conducted behind closed doors, even with representatives of both parties present, it damages public confidence. Transparency is not owed to political parties, it is owed to the people at large.
-
I don't think both Democrats and Republicans must observe the Audit in progress in AZ. I say this because if that were the case the Audit would not be going forward at all, because the Democrats have been boycotting every aspect of this count as a means of sabotaging it and saying "It's just more of them Republican lies we're always telling you about." They pulled this trick in November, which is why it took weeks instead of days to move through the corrupt Maricopa count. They boycotted the count then, and I'm sure they are now. It's how Democrats operate in the real world these days.
@Cyber Liberty
No, Cyber, I was talking about when the mail ballots are evaluated during the election - not at this examination going on right now. A member here said people should be allowed to look through windows, as some did when workers were evaluating mail ballots on election day. I do not know what the rules are during this present examination of the election.
-
So how did you stay safe the other (roughly) 730 days between elections @Victoria33? I don't question that the rationale for excluding public observation is to protect the workers, and I certainly don't want election workers threatened or harmed. I do question whether or not that rationale makes sense. Unless your identity was a secret, you were only protected from the public while votes were being counted; frankly I find it hard to believe that Ds would limit their antagonism toward you to only those few hours.
In fact when the work of counting votes is conducted behind closed doors, even with representatives of both parties present, it damages public confidence. Transparency is not owed to political parties, it is owed to the people at large.
@HoustonSam
There is a process to be in a room to view the work of election workers. A person can be made a poll watcher by getting a document as such from a candidate or the Democrat Chairman or the Republican Chairman, and other officials. A room with election workers is not open for the general public to walk in and out.
How did I stay safe? It was not easy. A certain Democrat convicted felon followed my car everywhere I went and posted it on the net where I went that day. I had a Constable friend who helped me with that problem. It actually was my high profile that helped protect me. My case was different than most Judges experience.
Election Judges are known to be a Republican or a Democrat and their safety lies in not allowing the general public to wander around where election work is being done. An election Judge at a voting precinct has the power of a District Judge on election day and they can have people arrested at their polling place if trouble starts. So, the general public is not allowed in a polling place but poll watchers are allowed to be there.
-
Beats me, why the County thinks it can pick and choose what parts to follow, and what they don't have to if they don't feel like it.
You clearly don't understand how fascism works.
-
@HoustonSam
There is a process to be in a room to view the work of election workers. A person can be made a poll watcher by getting a document as such from a candidate or the Democrat Chairman or the Republican Chairman, and other officials.
(https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/A4F1/production/_115252224_gettyimages-1229463565.jpg)
-
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.
That's like saying that because the Legislature did not order them NOT to do something, it's the same as ordering it.
Think, for just a second, where that could go in assigning culpability.
Dad didn't order me not to take the car through town at 100, so it's as if he ordered it.
(for a very mild example)
The Constitution had already set the rules, and it wasn't just Texas complaining that those rules had not been followed.
North Dakota was among over 20 other States (23?, may have been more) filing with Texas in the suit.
That's nearly half the States in the country.
-
That's like saying that because the Legislature did not order them NOT to do something, it's the same as ordering it.
Think, for just a second, where that could go in assigning culpability.
Dad didn't order me not to take the car through town at 100, so it's as if he ordered it.
(for a very mild example)
The Constitution had already set the rules, and it wasn't just Texas complaining that those rules had not been followed.
North Dakota was among over 20 other States (23?, may have been more) filing with Texas in the suit.
That's nearly half the States in the country.
That will be the argument, and it will win. If the legislature is the sole power (which they are), then that legislature is the only entity that can say what they approve or not. That is the root of passive acquiescence, and you will not beat it.
-
That's like saying that because the Legislature did not order them NOT to do something, it's the same as ordering it.
Think, for just a second, where that could go in assigning culpability.
Dad didn't order me not to take the car through town at 100, so it's as if he ordered it.
(for a very mild example)
The Constitution had already set the rules, and it wasn't just Texas complaining that those rules had not been followed.
North Dakota was among over 20 other States (23?, may have been more) filing with Texas in the suit.
That's nearly half the States in the country.
And it's not just the federal constitution either! The Pennsylvania constitution forbids the things that happened there last year as well. The legislature had already put the rules in place and they were grossly violated!
-
That's like saying that because the Legislature did not order them NOT to do something, it's the same as ordering it.
Sounds like the type of reasoning a six-year-old would employ.
-
That's like saying that because the Legislature did not order them NOT to do something, it's the same as ordering it.
Think, for just a second, where that could go in assigning culpability.
Dad didn't order me not to take the car through town at 100, so it's as if he ordered it.
(for a very mild example)
The Constitution had already set the rules, and it wasn't just Texas complaining that those rules had not been followed.
North Dakota was among over 20 other States (23?, may have been more) filing with Texas in the suit.
That's nearly half the States in the country.
And if Dad doesn't do anything about it when you do drive through town at 100? He might not have ordered it, but he's OK with it. That is what has happened here. While some legislators have asked for judicial intervention, legislatures have not, nor have legislatures used the independent power they do have to impeach wayward AGs or judges or to cut their budgets or to sever court jurisdiction.
We on this board are certainly not OK with what has happened in several states regarding voting and vote-counting laws and procedures. But those Constitutionally-empowered legislatures allowed it to happen. The remedy is for state legislatures to pass far more stringent laws with serious criminal penalties for local officials who flout those laws and then to de-fund and impeach other state authorities who act contrary to those laws. If a legislature will not guard its own power and authority then there's no reason for courts to do so.
And if the voters will not insist on having their own authority asserted by their directly-elected representatives - if the voters will not replace legislators who remain passive - then maybe the country at large is OK with corrupt elections as well.
-
And if Dad doesn't do anything about it when you do drive through town at 100? He might not have ordered it, but he's OK with it. That is what has happened here. While some legislators have asked for judicial intervention, legislatures have not, nor have legislatures used the independent power they do have to impeach wayward AGs or judges or to cut their budgets or to sever court jurisdiction.
We on this board are certainly not OK with what has happened in several states regarding voting and vote-counting laws and procedures. But those Constitutionally-empowered legislatures allowed it to happen. The remedy is for state legislatures to pass far more stringent laws with serious criminal penalties for local officials who flout those laws and then to de-fund and impeach other state authorities who act contrary to those laws. If a legislature will not guard its own power and authority then there's no reason for courts to do so.
And if the voters will not insist on having their own authority asserted by their directly-elected representatives - if the voters will not replace legislators who remain passive - then maybe the country at large is OK with corrupt elections as well.
The LAW is clear as crystal and it was grossly violated!
-
And if Dad doesn't do anything about it when you do drive through town at 100? He might not have ordered it, but he's OK with it. That is what has happened here. While some legislators have asked for judicial intervention, legislatures have not, nor have legislatures used the independent power they do have to impeach wayward AGs or judges or to cut their budgets or to sever court jurisdiction.
We on this board are certainly not OK with what has happened in several states regarding voting and vote-counting laws and procedures. But those Constitutionally-empowered legislatures allowed it to happen. The remedy is for state legislatures to pass far more stringent laws with serious criminal penalties for local officials who flout those laws and then to de-fund and impeach other state authorities who act contrary to those laws. If a legislature will not guard its own power and authority then there's no reason for courts to do so.
And if the voters will not insist on having their own authority asserted by their directly-elected representatives - if the voters will not replace legislators who remain passive - then maybe the country at large is OK with corrupt elections as well.
For the legislature to do something takes time, and either an overriding majority or the signature of the governor. The Rats know the rules, they broke them on purpose, but for the legislature to stop them in that time frame may not be any more possible than when junior passes dad going 100 MPH while he is coming out of the Walgreen's with his prescription. If Dad is aware that junior is going 100 and does nothing, it may be because he is not in a position to stop him. As for the courts, there is summary dismissal for cases suing to remediate damages not yet occurred, on the basis of standing. You cannot arrest before the crime.
In the end, we are left with trying to replace legislators who allow corruption when the corruption defeats the majority of such attempts.
I'm beginning to not particularly like the options left, here. Will the People have to go all Elliot Ness on this criminal empire?
-
@Sled Dog
@Cyber Liberty
IT IS FOR THE WORKER'S SAFETY.
Bad person looking through window can target someone in there and find that person later. Someone on outside of window could aim for someone inside and fire a weapon through the window. No way would I be the Judge up and walking around the room while others outside window could see me. As perhaps you can imagine, Democrats in my county were not "fond" of me.
There are half Democrats and half Republicans working in the room. It is not some secret meeting of Democrats cheating in an election. EVERY JUDGE OF THAT BOARD IN EVERY COUNTY IS A REPUBLICAN. Why? If the governor is a Republican, every precinct election Judge is a Republican in every county and that includes the Judge of that board. If we had a Democrat governor, all election judges in the state would be Democrats and a Democrat would have been the Judge of that Board.
If they are not going to record and publish the handling of every ballot, as part of the public record, to prove that each and every ballot was both lawful and counted or unlawful and relegated to a file for later investigation and prosecution, then the public has not only a right to watch through the windows but to know who the inspectors are.
The safety of the republic itself rests on the guarantee of honest elections.
The safety of the counters is less important.
Rather than hiding, and thus enabling Rodent vote fraud, how about if the those counters feeling a wee bit threatened demand the law enforcement people do something about the Rodent extortionists who are corrupting the elections?
Rodent election crime pays handsomely, to the Rodents.
Time for that to change, and that means true transparency and to hell with the other costs.
Six of the nine judges on the US Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.
The Supreme Court failed to find enough honest judges to get the court to accept necessary cases regarding the Rodents' theft of the last election.
Claiming a judge is a "Republican" doesn't mean squat. McStain was both a Republican and a true traitor to the nation. Romney wore the Republican badge and is a disgustingly spineless traitor as well. The (D) after someone's name is a guarantee of treason. The (R) after someone's name does not guarantee integrity.
-
And if Dad doesn't do anything about it when you do drive through town at 100? He might not have ordered it, but he's OK with it. That is what has happened here. While some legislators have asked for judicial intervention, legislatures have not, nor have legislatures used the independent power they do have to impeach wayward AGs or judges or to cut their budgets or to sever court jurisdiction.
We on this board are certainly not OK with what has happened in several states regarding voting and vote-counting laws and procedures. But those Constitutionally-empowered legislatures allowed it to happen. The remedy is for state legislatures to pass far more stringent laws with serious criminal penalties for local officials who flout those laws and then to de-fund and impeach other state authorities who act contrary to those laws. If a legislature will not guard its own power and authority then there's no reason for courts to do so.
And if the voters will not insist on having their own authority asserted by their directly-elected representatives - if the voters will not replace legislators who remain passive - then maybe the country at large is OK with corrupt elections as well.
Clinton raped women. Because the legislature did not pass a law making it specifically illegal for Clinton himself to rape women, the law thus allowed those women to be raped by Clinton.
Somehow, your argument fails to make any sense.
The Constitution states the LEGISLATURES will be the sole arbiter of what is used to select electors.
When other parties, non-legislative parties, act to impose rules different than those determined by the legislature, in what way is the legislature "allowing" those non-legislative parties to impose anti-Constitutional rules on the electors selection process?
Silence is not tacit consent. According to many states' rape laws, while "no" still means "no", not saying "yes" is no longer a silent assumption of consent. The non-legislative parties raping the states' election laws were required both to ask for permission to insert the organ into the delicate election orifice, but to withhold said insertion until a lawfully legislated "yes" came back from the legislature. The entire nation was raped by the Rodent's presumption that Epstein Island/Harvey Weinstein Rules worked in America.
They don't. That only gets swallowed by people in Hollywood who like that kind of thing.
In other words, why is it that Rodents feel it's okay to break a law if another law isn't passed saying it's not okay to break the first law? That's what you just said, that it was okay to break the law because people didn't bother to say the law shouldn't be broken.
It's like putting a lock on a barn door then having to explain to the judge that you didn't give your cow to that Democrat because you didn't also chain the cow inside the barn to the stanchions. And if the cow was chained, you also didn't hobble the cow and then bolt the hobbles to the barn floor and somehow anchor the barn to the ground.
The fact that you had title to the cow should have been enough indication that you didn't want the cow stolen.
Rodents are too evil to be allowed to remain in America.
-
For the legislature to do something takes time, and either an overriding majority or the signature of the governor. The Rats know the rules, they broke them on purpose, but for the legislature to stop them in that time frame may not be any more possible than when junior passes dad going 100 MPH while he is coming out of the Walgreen's with his prescription. If Dad is aware that junior is going 100 and does nothing, it may be because he is not in a position to stop him. As for the courts, there is summary dismissal for cases suing to remediate damages not yet occurred, on the basis of standing. You cannot arrest before the crime.
The "red mirage" was described by D-allied "journalists" and editorialists long before election night. State legislatures were asleep at the switch long before the Ds schemed to take advantage. That legislatures were then left with no time to respond simply means they were misfeasant in their duties.
We all know that D-majority urban precincts have for years held back their vote totals until R-majority precincts all reported in, then reported enough votes to win in the dead of night. No one can legitimately claim to have been caught off guard by D cheating. If R-majority state legislatures were truly caught by surprise then it's time the people in those states elected better legislators.
-
Clinton raped women. Because the legislature did not pass a law making it specifically illegal for Clinton himself to rape women, the law thus allowed those women to be raped by Clinton.
Somehow, your argument fails to make any sense.
The law was clear, and yet Clinton was not indicted for rape. The failure to prosecute allowed those women to be raped. Just as the failure of state legislatures to use their distinct powers has allowed the corruption of the 2020 election.
Perhaps you believe *the Judiciary* should have prosecuted Clinton, rather than the Executive? Or that private citizens should be able to indict on criminal charges?
"Somehow, your argument fails to make any sense."
The Constitution states the LEGISLATURES will be the sole arbiter of what is used to select electors.
That's right, the sole arbiter. That means the judiciary is not the arbiter.
When other parties, non-legislative parties, act to impose rules different than those determined by the legislature, in what way is the legislature "allowing" those non-legislative parties to impose anti-Constitutional rules on the electors selection process?
The legislature allows it by continuing to fund their offices and failing to impeach them.
Silence is not tacit consent. According to many states' rape laws, while "no" still means "no", not saying "yes" is no longer a silent assumption of consent. The non-legislative parties raping the states' election laws were required both to ask for permission to insert the organ into the delicate election orifice, but to withhold said insertion until a lawfully legislated "yes" came back from the legislature. The entire nation was raped by the Rodent's presumption that Epstein Island/Harvey Weinstein Rules worked in America.
They don't. That only gets swallowed by people in Hollywood who like that kind of thing.
Nice try, but not relevant. Legislatures do not need courts to look after them, legislatures are separate and co-equal branches of government. If they won't assert their own authorities and use their own powers then they are themselves to blame. I think SCOTUS was completely wrong to reject Texas vs. Pennsylvania, and that SCOTUS should have thrown out the PA popular vote and directed that electors selected by the PA state legislature would be fully Constitutional. But the very reason that case was filed was because the PA state legislature failed to stand up for itself.
In other words, why is it that Rodents feel it's okay to break a law if another law isn't passed saying it's not okay to break the first law? That's what you just said, that it was okay to break the law because people didn't bother to say the law shouldn't be broken.
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension if you actually believe I said that. Not a single word I have written even suggests that I think the 2020 election was in any sense "okay." And if you don't actually believe what you've just said then you're intellectually dishonest.
It's like putting a lock on a barn door then having to explain to the judge that you didn't give your cow to that Democrat because you didn't also chain the cow inside the barn to the stanchions. And if the cow was chained, you also didn't hobble the cow and then bolt the hobbles to the barn floor and somehow anchor the barn to the ground.
The fact that you had title to the cow should have been enough indication that you didn't want the cow stolen.
There was no lock on the door. That doesn't make it "okay", but it does mean the owner of the cow should have locked the door. Like I said above, SCOTUS should have heard TX vs PA, but if the PA Leg were awake then no case would ever have been filed.Rodents are too evil to be allowed to remain in America.
On this we agree. My politics are to support whatever will most quickly and completely destroy the D party for all time.
-
I come from the Pittsburgh metro, and I was a newspaper publisher in the Philly area, and both areas are WELL ENTRENCHED for the Dems to cheat in every election. That is a fact, and commonly known to folks living in those areas.
Take 5-6 coin toss states, and yes, you can fix an election in staunch Dem held cities, which is exactly what happened. To think it could not happen, you are an idiot. WIth computers, where there is a will, there is a way. Bank on it!!!