‘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.
vz71 said:
Which of you do I believe?
The one telling me there is no fraud or the one telling me there is?
Click to expand...
I hope you’re doing this on purpose and it isn’t that you haven’t been able to keep up with the threads of the conversation.

Point one - the are many lawsuits alleging fraudulent activities on the part of state officials during the counting of ballots. These have all been debunked. I said widespread fraud because I’m sure a person or two might have fraudulently voted.

Point two - the lawsuit(s) saying that states enacted laws or regulations that unconstitutionally changed verification rules or whatever. People flogging this horse want the mail in votes to be thrown out, disenfranchising millions of people.

Two separate issues.
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court denies bid by Trump allies to overturn Pennsylvania election results - The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a last-minute attempt by President Trump’s allies to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania.
The court’s brief order provided no reasoning, nor did it note any dissenting votes. It was the first request to delay or overturn the results of the presidential election to reach the court.
The lawsuit was part of a blizzard of litigation and personal interventions Trump and his lawyers have waged to overturn victories by Democrat Joe Biden in a handful of key states.
Trump called the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives twice during the past week to make an extraordinary request for help reversing his loss in the state. But Speaker Bryan Cutler told the president he had no authority to step in, or to order the legislature into special session, a Cutler spokesman told The Washington Post.
Republican members of the legislature and Congress supported the Supreme Court challenge to the changes they had made to Pennsylvania’s voting system in 2019.
A group of Republican candidates led by Rep. Mike Kelly (R) challenged Act 77, a change made by the Republican-controlled legislature to allow universal mail-in ballots. Their charge was that the state constitution’s requirements on absentee ballots meant the legislature didn’t have the authority to open mail-in balloting for others.
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the challenge was filed too late — only after the votes were cast and the results known. Democrat Joe Biden won the state by a more than 80,000-vote margin.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
Two separate issues.
Click to expand...
Two different answers as well.
Who do I believe.
You have me confused. On the one hand, you say there is fraud. And I have pointed out that counting fraudulent votes disenfranchises people.
On the other hand, you claim there is no fraud.
 
In the waning days of the Trump Presidency and CAF, I’m not going to waste time going round and round with people.

I’ve said the same thing numerous times. I suggest you go back and reread posts instead of asking the same thing over and over.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a last-minute attempt by President Trump’s allies to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...
And that, folks, is that.

Time to bury this, and time for Trump to be magnanimous in defeat. If such is possible for him.
 
PaulinVA said:
I suggest you go back and reread posts instead of asking the same thing over and over.
Click to expand...
I think you may have a point there.
Every time I ask, and make a point based on it, the answer changes.

Looks like people are willing to believe the reasonable, that there is and has been fraud.
But only until they have to look at the consequences of that as well as what it does to the argument.
Then they believe there is no fraud at all.
 
vz71 said:
Looks like people are willing to believe the reasonable, that there is and has been fraud.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between fraud, and fraud that changes the result.

There is no evidence of fraud that changed the outcome. I’m not aware of there being any evidence of fraud on a smaller scale either - but with something like 180,000,000 votes cast it’s almost certain one or two are problematic.
 
Isn’t the next step now for the House to vote to not seat Pennsylvania Rep Mike Kelly since he argued in court filings his election was fraudulent?
 
billsherman said:
There is a big difference between fraud, and fraud that changes the result.

There is no evidence of fraud that changed the outcome. I’m not aware of there being any evidence of fraud on a smaller scale either
Click to expand...
You are willing to believe smaller fraud, that there is no evidence for.
But unwilling to believe larger fraud, that there is evidence for?

How odd.

My take…if there is fraud at all, it needs to be investigated thoroughly and corrected and we need the responsible parties put in prison.
BEFORE the outcome is decided upon.
 
Being on the docket just means they are considering granting it cert.

They won’t decide for a couple of days, and they will reject it.

The PA case was much stronger.
 
billsherman said:
Being on the docket just means they are considering granting it cert.

They won’t decide for a couple of days, and they will reject it.

The PA case was much stronger.
Click to expand...
It was put on the docket around 4 o’clock. according to my radio stations.
Zero Hedge confirms this, noting that once a case is put on the docket, that means it will be heard. So Texas is off to a great start!
Click to expand...
Louisianna has joined the suit.
 
Last edited:
You do realize the injunction for “emergency relief” was denied by Alito and it doesn’t mean the SCTOUS won’t take the case KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL, NOT a Trump one BTW, on the due merits of the case. There are still other cases pending in PA court.
 
Of course, but Biden will be sworn in before they hear oral arguments.

They’ll just deny cert because the issue will be moot on Monday.
 
gam197 said:
Zero Hedge confirms this, noting that once a case is put on the docket, that means it will be heard. So Texas is off to a great start!
Click to expand...
Zerohedge is incorrect. SCOTUS has not granted cert.

It is also a case in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. That means they would refer it to a District Judge to hear the merits, and they would only consider it as an appeal.

For that reason (it would be moot as of Monday), among many others, this case will never be heard by SCOTUS.

Minor Update: SCOTUS has given PA until Thursday at 3pm to respond:

“Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.”

Cert won’t be granted (or denied) until sometime after that time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top