‘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.
Cathoholic said:
Lawyers should be among the first to say . . .

“Let the process play out!”

(The fact that they are not, tells me much by their actions.)
Click to expand...
One has to play by the rules. Lawyers accept that.

Under the American system (where the loser doesn’t pay) one should not file frivolous lawsuits. Every lawyer has to sign off on every filing that it is legally apt. You think Jenna Ellis and Rudy have violated this responsibility? Powell and the kraken surely violated this requirement and she must know better.
 
Jenna Ellis tweeted that: “The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.”

In 2011 a Pennsylvania lawyer had his license suspended for five years:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ellis could be in trouble.
 
built-in (false) pre-supposition that this is frivolous.
Nepperhan said:
one should not file frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Do you admit to ANY voter fraud?

If you do, it is not frivolous.
If you don’t you are not being informed by whatever “news” source you are turning to.
 
Cathoholic said:
Do you admit to ANY voter fraud?
Click to expand...
Rudy said in PA that he was not alleging fraud. I don’t admit a thing.

I’d say there are mistakes and illegality in every election. In the 2020 presidential race I stand with Barr: Any fraud which occurred amounts to less than a hill of beans.
 
Last edited:
A total of seventeen states have joined the Texas suit.

🤔

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
HarryStotle said:
A total of seventeen states have joined the Texas suit.
Click to expand...
That’s an Amicus Brief (a “friend of the court” brief). Literally anyone can file one of those if they have the permission of one of the filing parties.

They almost never amount to anything. Justices read them in only the rarest cases.

Don’t get your hopes up. The petition for injunctive relief will be denied in a few days and cert will be denied in a few months (if TX even bothers to file for that).

SCOTUS will never hear this case.
 
Balto1 said:
There are no equal protection issues here. Texas voters were not prevented from selecting their candidate/electors. A state doesn’t get to throw a temper tantrum and eliminate another state’s electoral college votes just because it doesn’t like the candidate the other state voted for.
Click to expand...
Your post misconstrues the point.

What has to be proved is that the electors in those states accurately reflect the wishes of the voters in those states. If hundreds of thousands of votes were not lawfully cast then those votes should not count because of the rules set by the Constitutions in each of those states.

With hundreds of thousands of unlawful votes cast in each of those states then the current number of votes could very well not represent the wishes of lawful voters in those states.

Given that the Constitutionally set rules of election in those states were ignored or undermined by election officials, and potentially hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots have no authenticated status as determined by those Constitutional rules, the will of the people is minimally unknown, but if unlawful ballots can be identified and thrown out then a true depiction of the will of the people can be gleaned.

Hundreds of thousands of votes showing up in the middle of the night without any validation is not how proper election procedures accurately determine the true will of the people - unless you live in some authoritarian state where the party in power dictates what is the will of the people.

It appears YouTube has gone full authoritarian banning every video and channel that disputes the election results. So much for freedom of speech.

Perhaps YouTube has determined that its future in a fully authoritarian society is brighter than in a free society.
 
Last edited:
It is not only Texas, four more states are involved in the lawsuit. We will hear more about this I believe once it is finalized.
 
HarryStotle said:
Hundreds of thousands of votes showing up in the middle of the night without any validation is not how proper election procedures accurately determine the true will of the people
Click to expand...
After all of this, we are now back at being angry about the order in which votes were counted?!

Mail in votes - in many states - were counted after in person votes. That’s not fraud.
 
gam197 said:
We will hear more about this I believe once it is finalized.
Click to expand...
Yes we will. SCOTUS will receive briefs from the defendants tomorrow, and then deny injunctive relief by the end of the day on Friday.

Monday the Electoral College votes, and then we can move on to whatever the next strategy is to muddy the waters. I suspect Trump will try to lean on Congress to just reject the elector’s votes.
 
billsherman said:
SCOTUS will never hear this case.
Click to expand...
And you are controlling that, how?

By the power of positive thinking? Or some kind of telepathic mind control over the justices?

I thought your area of specialty was history, not Constitutional law? You have dabbled enough to become expert?
 
There are seventeen states filing for delay of electors until this is sorted out


Here Missouri led a group of 17 states that Wednesday afternoon filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at delaying the appointment of presidential electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. is the articl

This is separate from the 4 states and Texas case.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
And you are controlling that, how?
Click to expand...
I’m not controlling it, I just know it.

SCOTUS clearly is not interested in these cases. If it were, it would have done something by now. Not a single justice even bothered to provide a reason for the denial in the PA case. That’s not good for Trump.

Plus, they moved up the deadline in PA to before the “safe harbor” deadline. That is also bad for Trump, because it means that they respect that deadline. That deadline has now passed.

Additionally, if they were to grant cert in this case there would be nothing stopping a flood of similar lawsuits. Why couldn’t every state with a Democrat for an AG file similar suits against every state that voted for Trump?

California could sue Alabama for closing polling places in predominantly African American parts of Alabama.

That would be utter chaos. SCOTUS won’t open that can of worms. It doesn’t work for Trump. It works for the US people, and has a duty to maintain legal standards and at least a degree of non-partisanship.

Could I be wrong? Yes. But I will eat my sweater if I am. (I’ve been right about literally every other court case I’ve written about during this mess, I might add, so I clearly have something going.)
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
48.png
HarryStotle:
Hundreds of thousands of votes showing up in the middle of the night without any validation is not how proper election procedures accurately determine the true will of the people
Click to expand...
After all of this, we are now back at being angry about the order in which votes were counted?!

Mail in votes - in many states - were counted after in person votes. That’s not fraud.
Click to expand...
Not “back to.” That has remained an issue all along. Although there is no need to claim it was fraud, necessarily. And it doesn’t have to rise to the level of fraud.

Even spoiled ballots are unlawfully cast. All that needs to be proved is hundreds of thousands of ballots were unlawfully cast. That is, the manner in which they were cast does not meet the Constitutional requirements for being lawful in those states.

That does not require proving fraud, just spelling out what the legal requirements are and showing how questionable ballots do not meet those requirements. Those hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots that were counted absent any proper oversight are not lawful, regardless of whether they are fraudulent or not.
 
Last edited:
The first line of the article you posted says otherwise:

Missouri led a group of 17 states that Wednesday afternoon filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at delaying the appointment of presidential electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
 
billsherman said:
SCOTUS clearly is not interested in these cases. If it were, it would have done something by now.
Click to expand...
I thought they were waiting for a response to the lawsuit from the four states that are the subjects of the lawsuit. My understanding is that SCOTUS has given those states until Thursday to file a response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top