|
|
So. . . what illegal votes?Originally Posted by PawDawg
All the mail in votes are illegal? Is that what you're saying? Toss them all because you don't think the numbers match up?
If the left figured a way to rig an election, they sure had small goals. You'd think they'd have slipped through that big blue wave that they'd been predicting. Or at least flipped the Senate.
Womp womp
If you call a goose egg 0 for 0. The real evidence hasn't been presented yet.
True. What are they waiting for if they have something?
I thought the judge in PA put it pretty succinctly:
“The Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners — from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. … One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.“
That doesn't strike you as suspicious? I mean, they keep going into court rooms, wouldn't you present the evidence while you were in court?
Mail-in votes by the general public that weren't previously exceptions are all illegal in PA since the legislature never approved the new system as required. In fact I'm pretty sure a PA constitutional amendment must be passed in two legislative sessions plus then be approved in a public vote before mail-in voting by everyone could become legal.
If the mail votes can't be totally segregated out of the totals, the PA legislature will get to deal with it once Alito and the Supremes get the case.
The state and lower-level federal judges they are dealing with mostly are ignoring evidence anyway. They can't be bothered to go through hundreds of sworn affidavits made under penalty of perjury.
Doesn't bother me because it creates a quicker path to Circuit reviews and the Supremes.
They're ignoring the evidence that hasn't been presented, which hasn't been presented because they're ignoring it?
If you had clear evidence, wouldn't you present it at every level? So you're actually appealing the fact that this awesome evidence wasn't appropriately considered as you try to make your way up through the appeals system? I mean, I'm no lawyer, but for many reasons I don't understand why you would hold evidence back that makes your case.
Hundreds of affidavits aren't evidence? Seems like I've heard that somewhere before, and it was wrong then and is still wrong.
Other evidence is still being developed. Some of the statistical reviews returning "statistically impossible" and "extremely unlikely" labels on some of the inconsistencies can't be ignored.
Makes the framers look even smarter setting inauguration day in March and not January.
You are deeply confused. That case is not on appeal. The only case that the SC could take on appeal related to mail in ballots received after Election Day. Those approximately 10k ballots don’t change the outcome.
Doesn’t matter how many affidavits you submit. It is the lack of substance - actual evidence - in the affidavits that have been submitted that cause the cases to get kicked out.
Interesting.
Shame no one caught the rule-making error a year ago when it was signed into law (or not, I guess).
I think that's very different from fraud. It's not like those people who voted by mail (and whose votes it's being argued should be taken away) were acting dishonestly. Heck, they were following the election regulations in place at the time. I guess that's what the state will argue (probably successfully).
Then again, I'm certainly no expert on the rule-making procedures in PA. I'm dubious personally, but I guess they'll get their day in court.
I mean, if they presented the hundreds of affidavits and they weren't convincing evidence of sufficient voter fraud to change the final results then what's this?The real evidence hasn't been presented yet.
The federal judge in PA dismissed erroneously without allowing evidence to be presented. Like I said before, it just expedited the appeals process during which the unheard evidence will be brought forward.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote