‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Nepperhan said:
Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator to obstruction of justice. The point is that the gullible considered him not guilty
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So what?

I think he should have been indicted. I always thought that.

Likewise so should Obama, Hillary, Comey, etc.

But the gullible consider them not guilty.
Click to expand...
Nepperhan’s response?
Nepperhan said:
Nonsense
Click to expand...
.

Well that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Just like those “gullible” people that you were talking about have their opinion too.
 
LeafByNiggle on getting President Trump after he is out of office. . . .
LeafByNiggle said:
Or maybe they just want justice,
Click to expand...
“Justice” for WHAT?

The fact that you are calling for “justice”
with no “crimes” even laid out here yet
just proves my point.
 
Last edited:
RootKitWarrior said:
And William Barr concurs.
Click to expand...
Yes but so what?
Cathoholic said:
I have pointed out that is the way it is going to be months ago.

The fraud although easy to deduce, is almost impossible to prove once the votes are in.

You need to manage that BEFORE the election with voter ID, up to date voter registration lists, minimizing mail-in votes and tracking them BEFORE counting them, etc.

I agree with Barr. No “proof” at least court-room worthy. It was set up that way from the beginning.

They KNEW Trump would break vote-getting records for a presidential candidate. And with President Trump receiving the most Presidentual votes in the history of the USA (unless you want to count Biden’s fraudulent vote count - my opinion) Trump did break vote obtaining records.
Click to expand...
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle on getting President Trump after he is out of office. . . .
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
Or maybe they just want justice,
Click to expand...
“Justice” for WHAT?

The fact that you are calling for “justice”
with no “crimes” even laid out here yet
just proves my point.
Click to expand...
It is not my job to lay out crimes. If it happens, it will happen by the proper authorities.
 
And so the goalposts move yet again. Just yesterday we were going to be deluged with a tsunami of evidence. Now there appears to be an admission that there is no evidence at all, just an assertion that despite a complete lack of evidence everyone should believe there was a massive conspiracy to commit fraud involving virtually every elected official in the US (GOP and DEM) because… Well the because part is not clear. Because Trump, I guess.
 
TMC said:
just an assertion that despite a complete lack of evidence
Click to expand...
There isn’t a “complete lack of evidence”.

But the deductive evidence we have does not rise to what courts demand.

We all knew that was coming.

That set-up has been part of the multitude of leftist gimmicks we have all seen for months.
 
Cathoholic said:
There isn’t a “complete lack of evidence”.
Click to expand...
Just a complete lack of evidence that they are willing to show to people, apparently. What is the “deductive evidence” you think exists?
Cathoholic said:
We all knew that was coming.
Click to expand...
Then why was the party line as recently as yesterday that a “tsunami” of evidence was coming, apparently riding in the jaws of the “Kraken”?
 
TMC said:
What is the “deductive evidence” you think exists?
Click to expand...
I have been posting it since the “election”.
TMC said:
Then why was the party line as recently as yesterday that a “tsunami” of evidence was coming, apparently riding in the jaws of the “Kraken”?
Click to expand...
“The party” and me, are two different things.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
You have been positing supposition and innuendo. If you have posted evidence, I have missed it. Can you point it out?
Click to expand...
You are wrong. I’m not going to argue with you here.

Go ahead and think whatever you want.

I have too much to do, to get caught up with this.
 
Another update on the PA story . . .

Cruz Presses Supreme Court: Hear The Emergency Appeal On PA Election Results​

Hank Berrien

Dec 1, 2020 DailyWire.com

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) publicly called on the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal challenging the election results in Pennsylvania, arguing that the Democrat-led Pennsylvania legislature’s vote last year to allow universal mail-in voting flew in the face of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition of such a move.

Cruz wrote, “Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.”

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances,” Cruz explained. “Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.”

“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game,” he continued. “If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.”

Cruz noted that the Democrat legislature was backed by what he called “the partisan Democrat Supreme Court” in Pennsylvania, noting that three U.S. Supreme Court justices had stated that there was a strong possibility that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had violated the U.S. Constitution
The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that “there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”
Click to expand...
Cruz continued:
In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called “laches,” which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. . .

. . . the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top