‘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.
LeafByNiggle said:
48.png
HarryStotle:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
The burden of proof is on those who believe the vote was fraudulent.
Click to expand...
Such a burden of proof is impossible given that the electoral officers and SsofS control all of what constitutes definitive proof.

So “burden of proof” isn’t a possibility. However, probable cause is a proper standard…
Click to expand...
It may be the proper standard from bringing a case and investigating, but to get to a ruling, the burden of proof is still on those who cry “fraud.”
Click to expand...
A judge must permit access to evidence in the control of the SofS and elections offices. Ergo, your demanding a case be proven before a case can be proved is unfair. There should be public access to assure transparency but that has not happened.

The SofS in Georgia promised that ballot images would be made available to public scrutiny before the election took place as part of the deal with Dominion. He hasn’t delivered on that promise.
 
HarryStotle said:
A judge must permit access to evidence in the control of the SofS and elections offices. Ergo, your demanding a case be proven before a case can be proved is unfair. There should be public access to assure transparency but that has not happened.
Click to expand...
Look, allegations are made when the case is filed. Then the plaintiff gets evidence in discovery. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to prove at trial that there is a more than 50% chance that what he or she alleges is accurate.

It was correctly stated that the burden of proof on proving fraud is on those whining about it.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
48.png
HarryStotle:
A judge must permit access to evidence in the control of the SofS and elections offices. Ergo, your demanding a case be proven before a case can be proved is unfair. There should be public access to assure transparency but that has not happened.
Click to expand...
Look, allegations are made when the case is filed. Then the plaintiff gets evidence in discovery. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to prove at trial that there is a more than 50% chance that what he or she alleges is accurate.

It was correctly stated that the burden of proof on proving fraud is on those whining about it.
Click to expand...
On a somewhat related topic…

Could you indicate which of these three news stories you are familiar with and which you believe are mere right wing propaganda?
  1. Democrat Congressman, Eric Swalwell is under investigation after a Chinese CCP agent named Fang Fang worked as a bundler for his campaign before and after his run as Dem presidential candidate. He may have had a “relationship” with her.
  2. Hunter Biden is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware for tax evasion, possible tax fraud and money laundering.
  3. Justin Trudeau, the PM of Canada, had invited, sometime after Oct 2019, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to send several thousand of its troops for cold weather training at CFB Petawawa in Ontario. This was canceled following some kind of intervention from the US Dept of State.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
It was correctly stated that the burden of proof on proving fraud is on those whining about it.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to feel compelled to carry that burden all by yourself. We can all pitch in.

😉

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Hat tip Marina Medvin at www.townhall.com
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to prove at trial that there is a more than 50% chance that what he or she alleges is accurate.
Click to expand...
In criminal investigation that would be called predicate. I.e., that the alleged culprit had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime and therefore an investigation is warranted.

Unfortunately, those doing the “investigating” of election fraud are those who controlled all aspects of the election and therefore have a vested interest in keeping the possibly fraudulent election from being investigated.

Things just get stickier from then on.

That is why SCOTUS will likely rule on the existing state Constitution rules for running an election and whether those were properly followed.

If not the judges have every reason to throw out that part of the results that were not lawful, or the entire state election if numbers cannot be ascertained.
 
Here we are, December 10th, I understand now, that January 6th, 2021 could possibly be the new deadline on this matter.
 
Balto1 said:
hose states have filed amicus briefs, not joined the case.
Click to expand...
hose states have filed amicus briefs, not joined the case.

A State has zero right to determine how another State votes
gam197 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Briefs are due by 3 PM EST today.
 
Medvin in wrong. Ballot integrity is a matter for state law. How does this get to the US Constitution if within the state the rules are the same for everyone?
HarryStotle said:
That is why SCOTUS will likely rule on the existing state Constitution rules for running an election and whether those were properly followed.

If not the judges have every reason to throw out that part of the results that were not lawful, or the entire state election if numbers cannot be ascertained.
Click to expand...
Sorry but there’s no federal issue there.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
The Texas lawsuit before #Scotus is based on the idea that the Constitution is a pact among the states, and no state the right to unlawfully change the rules of a national election
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem with this statement, is that the Constitution is not a pact among states.

The first three words are “We the PEOPLE” [emphasis added].

It is a pact among people. We fought a war over this. A settled matter.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
The fundamental problem with this statement, is that the Constitution is not a pact among states.

The first three words are “We the PEOPLE” [emphasis added].

It is a pact among people. We fought a war over this. A settled matter.
Click to expand...
Gee whiz, if it’s settled why do we still have a Supreme Court?
 
Let the process play out.

We’ll see if your application here is relevant or not.
 
605 Comments

December 10, 2020

A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit​

By Robert Madsen

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures. Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.

Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur. The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.

Pennsylvania

Facts:
  1. Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597.
  2. Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
  3. Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:
  1. The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
  2. PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
  3. Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
  4. The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
  5. Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.
Evidence of Fraud:
  1. Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)
  2. Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221
  3. Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)
  4. On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million – an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters. . . .
 
Cathoholic said:
Let the process play out.
Click to expand...
Oh, the process will continue to play out. Trump will continue to spin his wheels (because it his right) until he runs out of money. But in the meantime, the rest of the world have a process to play out too, and we are definitely going to let them do that too.
 
December 9, 2020

The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge UPDATED​

By Andrea Widburg

On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens, but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it’s no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation. . .

. . . As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call “garbage” decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump’s claims, they would run the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters.

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop. . . .

. . . Because this is a suit between two states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It’s also a factually pure case, which does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud. . . .

. . . (Here’s more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.) . . .

. . . UPDATE : As of Wednesday afternoon, the most current list of states that have signed on to the Texas litigation says that, in addition to Missouri (represented by state AG Eric Schmitt), 16 other states have joined the case:
Schmitt’s brief was joined by 16 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Click to expand...
 
These states intervening here may (or may not) be irrelevant.

FoxNews (Tyler Olson reporting) says they are worthless . . . .

Legal experts say Texas case fatally flawed, merely ‘political posturing’ nearly certain to fail​

Click to expand...

We will have to see how the process plays out.

At a time like this, with all the media errors, I have very little faith in much of what the media reports. Especially if there is a political slant.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
What has to be proved is that the electors in those states accurately reflect the wishes of the voters in those states.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Texas has standing to complain about that. It is a bit like Mike suing George because Mike thinks George didn’t fulfill an obligation with Susan. Since Mike wasn’t a part of the agreement, he doesn’t have standing to file such a complaint.
HarryStotle said:
It appears YouTube has gone full authoritarian banning every video and channel that disputes the election results. So much for freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
They can still make their videos and self host them. Their freedom of speech is untouched.
billsherman said:
Monday the Electoral College votes, and then we can move on to whatever the next strategy is to muddy the waters.
Click to expand...
I suspect that will include 4 years of Trump claiming he won, some wild things being posted to Twitter, and at least a few suspensions of his Twitter account for community guideline violations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top