Bullies kicked out witnesses!
Related:
So much for that then. Game over. US Presidential elections exist to be stolen and the Dems stole that one fair and square for reasons that Joe Biden acknowledged.
Station Gossip: Trump’s Massive Georgia Lawsuit, Highlights Include 66,247 Underage Voters and 2,560 Felons
IWB: The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election
Gateway Pundit: Trump’s Massive Georgia Lawsuit, Highlights Include 66,247 Underage Voters and 2,560 Felons
The recount presumably included the ballots that appeared in suitcases from under the table after the poll watchers had been expelled, so the recount only confirms that there were more ballots marked for Biden than for Trump. What the recount did not do is dispel the evidence of fake ballots being injected into the count. But this small but vital problem apparently does not concern America's corporate media.
Gateway Pundit: Major National Security Issue Identified Related to China’s Connection to Dominion Voting Machines
Hal Turner: Proof Dominion Vote Tabulating Machines ALTER Vote Totals - May VOID Election in 28 States!
Gateway Pundit: 3rd Suspect in GA “Suitcase Scandal” is Also the Same Man Who Spread Lies that Water Main Broke in State Farm Center
Wayne Roote: Of Course This Election Was Stolen
State of the Nation: Mainstream Media Censorship Proves Their Complicity in both the Criminal Conspiracy and the Ongoing Cover-up
Epoch Times: Trump Proposes ‘Landmark Election Reform’ and Overhaul of Election Security Systems
Congressman Mike Kelly's lawsuit is on the basis of the constitutionality of an existing state statute broadening restrictions on mail-in ballots. This does not impress me much. How about you, CS? If there is such blatant bullying and so on, this is the best they can legally do? I also did not agree with politician Sean Parnell, who is party to Kelly's lawsuit, statement the refusal of the Penn. Supreme Court to hear the case was a "blatantly political act." When I read the Zero Hedge article, I was impressed by the complexity of the US Constitutional and Penn. state laws involved. Not being a lawyer, I could never decide on something like that. Alito could have an interest in hearing the case because it will offer the US Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify this key relationship between the federal and state governments.
ReplyDeleteI also don't like the way Congressman Kelly is trying to use the ruling as a way to overturn 2020 election results. I don't see this succeeding, either. Alito can give a ruling on the constitutional issues without finding the election results to be thrown out, I would think. That seems like a separate step. The original statute broadened the uses of mail-in ballots. Maybe they needed to broadened. In Alaska, anyone may request a mail-in ballot, for any reason. (I just checked.) If you established the original statute was unconstitutional, that doesn't in itself legally prove mail-in ballots were fraudulent, if any at all. If broadening the restrictions is unconstitutional, that can't mean the state of Alaska is, with no restrictions, operating its elections unconstitutionally.
Maybe the idea is whether Kelly can point to fraud and get it prosecuted, that in itself wouldn't cause the election results to be nullified. Undoubtedly there has been some fraud in many elections going way back. The courts couldn't intervene on results for this reason without opening a bigger door to tyranny-- by the courts. Just declare elections fraudulent until the election result obtained is desired by the courts or those who own the courts. Kelly needs something more general, but he's reaching here. He'll look like a hero to some whether he succeeds or not. And watch: when he fails, he will blame the Supreme Court, not that he took a long shot.
You evidently know much more about the legal maneuvers than I. The postal ballot issue, or probably many issues, seems complicated and may not be easily settled. But What intrigues me are the overnight vote spikes, the ballots said to have been trucked across country by night, and the ballots emerging in suitcases from under tables after poll watchers had been sent home. There are also the claims of data being transmitted from voting machines to overseas servers and the potential for those overseas severs to somehow change the data on the voting machines. Are people just making these stories up? If so those stories will surely soon be debunked. But if there is substance to them, then future claims that the US is a democracy will be equated with such claims by Communists and Fascists.
DeleteAt the outset, I thought Sidney Powell had the goods on vote fraudsters, but if she does, she seems to be making a poor job of proving. it.
Believe me, I share your views, and also your feelings about what is intriguing, CS.
DeleteAin't no way Biden suddenly received huge amounts of votes suddenly, out of nowhere, except corruption. All of this crap you mention arouses my suspicion and skepticism. I think it happened. I feel certain these were horrible crimes which will snuff out everything I care most about.
Trouble is, our legal system isn't designed to cater to what I think is certain. I can give my two cents to the legal system-- huge numbers can agree and feed the same two cents. We've designed our legal system to not care whether all those two cents add up to a trillion dollars. We have entrusted our legal system not to care AT ALL about such things.
Why aren't district attorneys and state (or, improbably, federal, if in fact Trump has ever been chief executive officer and commander in chief) attorney generals assembling cases and prosecuting now? Criminal cases, with probable cause for arrest? They bring in cases with less evidence than this for life sentences, yet here they are motionless.
It isn't that they are all part of a conspiracy. Unless history is a conspiracy. "But if there is substance to them, then future claims that the US is a democracy will be equated with such claims by Communists and Fascists." Count on it. What I want to know is why the US didn't see it had flaws, consider them, and let its geniuses float solutions. Its geniuses did float solutions. I feel, for all my pessimism and cynicism, the demos triumphantly pick the right one.
America is a nation of laws, not of men. Unfortunately, the laws are administered and argued by men who are obsessed not by the scientist's ambition to discover the secret and to reveal the truth, but an overriding desire to win an argument in spite of the evidence in the interests of a paying client. Corruption is thus central to the American way of life and government. Unfortunately, there is no alternative other than dictatorship by a selfless tyrant committed to the truth, which is a contradiction in terms.
DeleteBut it should be added that reliance on a legal system presided over by judges whose judgments are subject to personal bias does not preclude the attainment of a fair outcome to a legal dispute. Judges must maintain their credibility. They cannot crassly flout the law, without risk of negative consequences. Decisions have to be justified by logical arguments and if the arguments are invalid the judgement may be overturned in another court. It is true that the rich are more likely to win in court than the poor since they can afford more able lawyers to argue their case. It would be a mistake, for example, to call Elon Musk a "pedo guy" unless you have an essentially unlimited budget for legal representation. But at least when all parties to a legal action are competently represented, the probability of an outcome consistent with the intent of the law is fairly good.
DeleteIn that connection, this article on the legal action on the Presidential election is interesting.
If commentators and lurkers find the election legal disputes, which are coming to a head today, too complex, I would recommend going to election lawyer Robert Barnes' twitter feed (google Barnes Law twitter). There are other places you can go, but this is a one shop stop.
ReplyDeleteElection officials in Pennsylvania and other states also did not follow Pennsylvania election law, but directions from the Governor and the Supreme Court that violated Pennsylvania election law. In fact the globalists don't dispute this, their argument is that this is of no concern to the federal Supreme Court. The legal stuff isn't even really that complicated.