Correction said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

RedHand said:

---

will25u said:

---

Don't know if all of this will go anywhere, but the news for this morning has been a whirlwind.

---

What are they going to do, visit every voter that claimed indefinitely confined?

---

No time for that. Toss them all

---

WI Supreme Court just dismissed this idea and Trump's lawsuit entirely.

Quote:

---

The Campaign does not challenge the ballots of individual voters. Rather, the Campaign argues that all voters claiming indefinitely confined status since the date of the erroneous advice should have their votes invalidated, whether they are actually indefinitely confined or not. Although the number of individuals claiming indefinitely confined status has increased throughout the state, the Campaign asks us to apply this blanket invalidation of indefinitely confined voters only to ballots cast in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, a total exceeding 28,000 votes.

The Campaign's request to strike indefinitely confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as a class without regard to whether any individual voter was in fact indefinitely confined has no basis in reason or law; it is wholly without merit.

We conclude the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots is without merit, and that laches bars relief on the remaining three categories of challenged ballots. The Campaign is not entitled to relief, and therefore does not succeed in its effort to strike votes and alter the certified winner of the 2020 presidential election.

---

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

---

Sounds like you and the Wisconsin supreme court are A-okay with a little bit of fraud as long as it's hard to identify.

will25u said:

---

---

This says otherwise

https://twitter.com/Catmo63/status/1338543414380523529/photo/1

That tweet was deleted.

So does anybody have any list of all the counties where they did forensic audits of the Dominion machines and found no evidence of fraud? Because I am sure the narrative is going to be that these couple of counties where these audits have shown glaringly obvious vote switching are just anomalies in small counties that wouldn't affect the margin of victory for Biden. If that narrative is actually true, there should be a big list of counties where audits have proven the machines functioned properly. So far, the audits I am aware of are 2 for 2 in showing vote switching that was not a "glitch". Until we see a big list of the audits that showed nothing, we need to push back extremely hard anybody tries to shift to that "isolated instances" narrative. Right now, the evidence I am aware of says 100% of counties audited had vote switching. Make them show you the ones that would suggest it is "isolated".

txags92 said:

---

So does anybody have any list of all the counties where they did forensic audits of the Dominion machines and found no evidence of fraud? Because I am sure the narrative is going to be that these couple of counties where these audits have shown glaringly obvious vote switching are just anomalies in small counties that wouldn't affect the margin of victory for Biden. If that narrative is actually true, there should be a big list of counties where audits have proven the machines functioned properly. So far, the audits I am aware of are 2 for 2 in showing vote switching that was not a "glitch". Until we see a big list of the audits that showed nothing, we need to push back extremely hard anybody tries to shift to that "isolated instances" narrative. Right now, the evidence I am aware of says 100% of counties audited had vote switching. Make them show you the ones that would suggest it is "isolated".

---

Then we'll just get audits by Democrat "experts" that conclude there was no fraud in those big counties.

You could have video evidence combined with key logs of Joe Biden himself changing votes from Trump to Biden using Dominion software and the Democrats, Media, and Liberals would come up with some sort of narrative to dismiss it and the dumber half of the country would believe them.

I think this is what it has come down to.

What exactly does this mean moving forward?

aggiehawg said:

---

---

Wow. Hopefully some other states do this as well!

aggiehawg said:

---

---

What happened?

Guessing the Dem electors vote Biden, so it's a split? What does that mean?

Supposedly it might allow Pence to contest the vote or something? Then pushing it to the House and Senate to vote?

I'm not putting too much investment into this meaning anything just yet. The media doesn't seem to be freaking out which means it's probably just theater unfortunately.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Supposedly it might allow Pence to contest the vote or something? Then pushing it to the House and Senate to vote?

---

This is the same thing they are doing in all the contested states. Seating two groups and having two separate elections recorded using the two different groups of electors. That way, if any subsequent legal wrangling determines that Biden didn't win the state, they have a recorded vote by the other group of properly seated electors that can be legally included in the tally of votes when the congress certifies in January.

In the presidential election of 1876, three states sent two sets of electors to Congress.

For some reason (can't figure out why, but I'm digging) the Republican-controlled Congress bypassed the Constitutional remedy of the 12th Amendment (which would have resulted in a R victory) and created a panel of 15 (7 Rs, 7 Ds, and one Independent who quit and was replaced by a Republican) to determine the outcome (which was Hayes, the Republican).

So the big question: are these states ACTUALLY sending two sets of electors, or is this all for show?

Anti-taxxer said:

---

In the presidential election of 1876, three states sent two sets of electors to Congress.

For some reason (can't figure out why, but I'm digging) the Republican-controlled Congress bypassed the Constitutional remedy of the 12th Amendment (which would have resulted in a R victory) and created a panel of 15 (7 Rs, 7 Ds, and one Independent who quit and was replaced by a Republican) to determine the outcome (which was Hayes, the Republican).

So the big question: are these states ACTUALLY sending two sets of electors, or is this all for show?

---

Nobody "sends electors" to Washington to vote anymore. The "select" them and then record their "votes" for whichever candidate and report those votes through their legislative delegation when the US Congress meets to certify the election in January. If a state put forth a slate for one candidate, and that candidate was later adjudicated to have committed fraud and the result of the election was thrown out, then those electoral votes get thrown out with them. Theoretically, the state just doesn't have their electors counted in January when the vote is certified. However, in this case, if the state selects both sets of electors and lets them both vote, then if the winning candidate is throw out, then they still have a valid count of an electoral vote to submit in January.

txags92 said:

---

Anti-taxxer said:

---

In the presidential election of 1876, three states sent two sets of electors to Congress.

For some reason (can't figure out why, but I'm digging) the Republican-controlled Congress bypassed the Constitutional remedy of the 12th Amendment (which would have resulted in a R victory) and created a panel of 15 (7 Rs, 7 Ds, and one Independent who quit and was replaced by a Republican) to determine the outcome (which was Hayes, the Republican).

So the big question: are these states ACTUALLY sending two sets of electors, or is this all for show?

---

Nobody "sends electors" to Washington to vote anymore. The "select" them and then record their "votes" for whichever candidate and report those votes through their legislative delegation when the US Congress meets to certify the election in January. If a state put forth a slate for one candidate, and that candidate was later adjudicated to have committed fraud and the result of the election was thrown out, then those electoral votes get thrown out with them. Theoretically, the state just doesn't have their electors counted in January when the vote is certified. However, in this case, if the state selects both sets of electors and lets them both vote, then if the winning candidate is throw out, then they still have a valid count of an electoral vote to submit in January.

---

So, are they "contested" electors, or "extra"?

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Anti-taxxer said:

---

In the presidential election of 1876, three states sent two sets of electors to Congress.

For some reason (can't figure out why, but I'm digging) the Republican-controlled Congress bypassed the Constitutional remedy of the 12th Amendment (which would have resulted in a R victory) and created a panel of 15 (7 Rs, 7 Ds, and one Independent who quit and was replaced by a Republican) to determine the outcome (which was Hayes, the Republican).

So the big question: are these states ACTUALLY sending two sets of electors, or is this all for show?

---

Nobody "sends electors" to Washington to vote anymore. The "select" them and then record their "votes" for whichever candidate and report those votes through their legislative delegation when the US Congress meets to certify the election in January. If a state put forth a slate for one candidate, and that candidate was later adjudicated to have committed fraud and the result of the election was thrown out, then those electoral votes get thrown out with them. Theoretically, the state just doesn't have their electors counted in January when the vote is certified. However, in this case, if the state selects both sets of electors and lets them both vote, then if the winning candidate is throw out, then they still have a valid count of an electoral vote to submit in January.

---

So, are they "contested" electors, or "extra"?

---

Provisional. Like when you hit your tee shot into the woods, you take another shot in case you can't find the first. Keeps you from having to go back to the tee box later.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Supposedly it might allow Pence to contest the vote or something? Then pushing it to the House and Senate to vote?

---

That's not really how it works.

People that keep saying once a valid objection has been raised (i.e. submitted in writing by both a member of the House and a member of the Senate) VP can reject disputed electors, resulting in a contested election that gets pushed to the House to vote on a 1 Vote per state basis are just plain wrong.

Here's what actually occurs on 1/6, straight from the Congressional Research Service:

Quote:

---

The Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results(3 U.S.C. 15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which "shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President."

While the tellers announce the results, Members may object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced. Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state's electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.

---