J said:

---

Of course it is disputed. And it is a moot point because the ballots in dispute wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

---

basically proving Martin Cash's point.....

quit being obtuse and read aggiehawg's OP

If it is up to a state legislature to determine the rules for voting and those rules are not followed, you run afoul of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. Similarly, if you selectively choose what you follow and what you ignore, as in the PA example provided, you violate equal protection (14th amendment) regardless if there is ANY fraud.

Obtuse is not realizing the point is not only fallacious but moot.

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Would be nice if next election staff prevents socks or dormant accounts from posting.

---

Why are are your feelings so afraid of someone with a different opinion?

aggiehawg said:

---

The hyper focus on "election fraud" is misguided since fraud is a particular legal construct that is hard to prove without discovery. Fraud requires a who, what, when, where, why type of pleading.

Bit of what we do have an abundance is criminal activity in violation of state election law. We have that without any dispute. Why isn't that criminal activity enough for the courts to act? And if not now, will it ever be?

---

Hawg, I agree with you that there should be no dispute; but, jmiller will would dispute that water is wet if Trump made the statement.

Quote:

---

When are repeated and flagrant violations of election laws enough?

---

When it costs the Democrats an election.

We fixed the keg said:

---

fallacious? Oh boy....

PA election law prohibits inspecting ballots before election day. What else do you call it when workers inspected ballots prior to election day, found errors, and sent them to the democratic party to have the voters correct the issues? (another thing prohibited by PA election law)

---

It wasn't only Democratic counties that "cured" ballots, as opposed to Republican ones that didn't. All counties got the same guidance the night before the election instructing them to notify political parties and update the ballot-tracking online system about ballot errors, thus allowing voters to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day.

Some counties notified voters, and some didn't.

Republicans have lodged several challenges about the so-called "cured" ballots in court, arguing that counties that refused to "cure" ballots were simply following state law and a state Supreme Court ruling that prohibited it, but the guidance was clear, and perfectly legal.

But the whole argument is MOOT, because even if the courts were to reject cured ballots, there were too few of them to change the out come of PA, much less get Trump to 270.

1) Example given was pointing to the affidavits stating ballots were inspected and given to the democratic party. It doesn't matter if everyone was doing it, the law as passed by the legislature prohibits the action.

2) The "Guidance" was given by SoS, not as a matter of enacted law. That is not how it works. Legislature chooses the 'how' not SoS. US Constitution is clear and aggiehawg's OP sites precedent

3) Still getting wrapped around axle on fraud, vote totals, etc. The whole point of the OP, and the argument, is that there is merit to argue that if the US constitution says state legislatures determine the rules and those rules aren't followed. The entire results are in question (equal protection)

This is what OP is discussing....not fraud.....not vote counts.....not Dominion....not a million other things being discussed in detail on countless other threads.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

So is/was the play to address each infraction individually instead of trying to prove fraud?

---

That is also fraught with danger because of the catch-22. Amistad Project filed multiple suits about these violations of state election laws before the election but their cases were dismissed because the harm had not yet occurred.

Then after the election when they raise the same issues, they are dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches because they waited too long. It is utter BS and just example number 1,675, 896 of why our judiciary is FUBARed.

---

Has any media explained it in that manner? That's ridiculous.

---

Cruz was tweeting about it the other day when he urged SCOTUS to accept one of the Pennsylvania cases. he used the "catch-22" phrase as well.

Which is precisely one of the reasons I started this thread. A case is filed stating unequivocably that state election officials are not following state election law, a crime. Yet the court refuses to issue an injunction against a crime being committed because plaintiffs can't directly show they will suffer direct harm, yet. That's just so whacked out to me. The last thing the court seems concerned with is violation of election laws as if they just don't mean a g-damn thing in the overall scheme of things.

Thus my question, when will the election crimes become so egregious that they become unacceptable to the courts?

---

It will become unacceptable when sufficient evidence is actually presented to a court. The trump campaign has yet to allege voter fraud in a lawsuit.

As a former lawyer, why do you think that is?

---

As a current lawyer that practices in federal court, she explained why. It echoes what I said earlier today.

Jmiller said:

---

1) It was not against the law. Say it was all you want, but it wasn't.

2) It did not affect the results/final outcome

---

You're out of your depth.

Jmiller said:

---

1) It was not against the law. Say it was all you want, but it wasn't.

2) It did not affect the results/final outcome

---

I did not realize you are a federal judge.

Which district?

Jmiller said:

---

Are you going to turn me in?

---

God I hope not. You are great for the right. Keep posting we need you buddy.

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

---

---

---

You have no grasp of what we're talking about. It's the SOSs who broke the law and ordered election officials to violate state law. That' is undisputed.

---

Of course it is disputed. And it is a moot point because the ballots in dispute wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

---

It is only disputed by people with the same grasp of reality as flat earthers.

The whole problem here is that the elections are so insecure that we don't know whether or not illegal ballots were counted or legal ballots were discarded. That's why "oh, there aren't that many fraudulent ballots" isn't a useful thing to say.

Put another way, there might be very few ballots that are identifiably illegal because there just aren't many, or there might be a lot but the lack of documentation and poor chain of custody makes it impossible to find.

The left wants to generally claim that there are robust safeguards in place, but dismisses them as technicalities when several are removed, broken, or disregarded in each of the high-risk locations identified going into the election.

In their haste to make it easy to vote, several states stopped protecting their voters. Those voters may have already been disenfranchised, now we're just trying to figure out how much damage was done, undo as much as we can, and re-establish secure elections.

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bit of what we do have an abundance is criminal activity in violation of state election law. We have that without any dispute. Why isn't that criminal activity enough for the courts to act? And if not now, will it ever be?

---

What!?

---

Have you been hiding under a rock with Dementia Joe and Commiela?

---

Yeah, with Barr, the State SoSs, FBI and the majority of Americans. Reality is under that rock.

---

You have no grasp of what we're talking about. It's the SOSs who broke the law and ordered election officials to violate state law. That' is undisputed.

---

Of course it is disputed. And it is a moot point because the ballots in dispute wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

---

Laches, too.

However, let's not be unappreciative. These threads by f16's own Elite Strike Force Team Jenna Rudy Wood & Kraken are hilarious and provide many lurkers with free entertainment.

To elaborate on something I alluded to in my previous post:

Some on the left want to paint this as republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters. That is not an accurate take though, that's assigning a motive that is convenient for you rather than trying to understand the real motive. Many or most republicans believe that the voters have already been disenfranchised and are trying to restore valid elections.

They may turn out to be wrong or unprovable, and a few theories obviously carry no merit; journalism in the age of Twitter is a bunch of people with no expertise flinging crap at the wall. However, the existence of random idiots trying to interpret numbers they don't understand doesn't mean that everything is kosher.

Quote:

---

Some on the left want to paint this as republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters. That is not an accurate take though, that's assigning a motive that is convenient for you rather than trying to understand the real motive. Many or most republicans believe that the voters have already been disenfranchised and are trying to restore valid elections.

---

That's the thrust of the PA suit over Act 77. Act 77 was passed in contravention of the state constitution because it was never submitted to the voters of PA to ratify the change to the state constitution as required. The disenfranchisement happened when Act 77 was implemented without voter approval.

Last:

I think there is fraud. I predicted before the election that it would occur in Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and Detroit. I can't remember if I called out Milwaukee and Atlanta, probably not. I'm also very much not a Trump fan.

Giuliani is a punchline with no idea what he's doing. Powell and Wood don't appear to be worth paying attention to, they have been all talk and no substance. As is fairly typical for the Trump admin, 80% of the people he hires/associates with are terrible. If he ever gets a decent team together that might be capable of resolving this, Harris will have already been president for 6 months.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Some on the left want to paint this as republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters. That is not an accurate take though, that's assigning a motive that is convenient for you rather than trying to understand the real motive. Many or most republicans believe that the voters have already been disenfranchised and are trying to restore valid elections.

---

That's the thrust of the PA suit over Act 77. Act 77 was passed in contravention of the state constitution because it was never submitted to the voters of PA to ratify the change to the state constitution as required. The disenfranchisement happened when Act 77 was implemented without voter approval.

---

....and can you correct me if I am wrong here.....even if you assume Act 77 is the law, it still prohibits tabulating / canvasing ballots before election day including providing info to any party or individual for remedy. I even remember seeing a thread where the PA supreme court ruled against the SoS providing guidance is it is the sole job of the legislature.

I believe something like section 1308

We fixed the keg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Some on the left want to paint this as republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters. That is not an accurate take though, that's assigning a motive that is convenient for you rather than trying to understand the real motive. Many or most republicans believe that the voters have already been disenfranchised and are trying to restore valid elections.

---

That's the thrust of the PA suit over Act 77. Act 77 was passed in contravention of the state constitution because it was never submitted to the voters of PA to ratify the change to the state constitution as required. The disenfranchisement happened when Act 77 was implemented without voter approval.

---

....and can you correct me if I am wrong here.....even if you assume Act 77 is the law, it still prohibits tabulating / canvasing ballots before election day including providing info to any party or individual for remedy. I even remember seeing a thread where the PA supreme court ruled against the SoS providing guidance is it is the sole job of the legislature.

I believe something like section 1308

---

Plus if memory serves, it has a poison pill non-severability clause. If one part fails, the whole statute does, even if it didn't violate the state constitution.

Alito moving up the date is significant. Just can't tell which way, though.

Why am I here? said:

---

Enough? When will it be enough????

Once they taken over as complete DICTATORS and destroy our lives.

That is when they will have had enough.

OR


After we put a bullet in their heads or put them in prison!!!


It can only end in one of those three ways.

---

That's 4 ways...Or are the first 2 the same ?

Well, technically if they become true Dictators (it will destroy our lives). The latter is an outcome of the first.

Then you have bullet heads or prisons.

So, a total of three different events and solely a description of the outcome on the first event.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Some on the left want to paint this as republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters. That is not an accurate take though, that's assigning a motive that is convenient for you rather than trying to understand the real motive. Many or most republicans believe that the voters have already been disenfranchised and are trying to restore valid elections.

---

That's the thrust of the PA suit over Act 77. Act 77 was passed in contravention of the state constitution because it was never submitted to the voters of PA to ratify the change to the state constitution as required. The disenfranchisement happened when Act 77 was implemented without voter approval.

---

How does it require a change to the Pennsylvania Constitution?

The Pennsylvania Constitution clearly allows voting methods that are set forth in Pennsylvania Law. The mail in balloting would clearly fall within this.

There is a part of the Pennsylvania Constitution that guarantees the availability of absentee voting to the citizens of Pennsylvania for those who will not be able to make it to the polls for a number of reasons. However, the mail in voting of Act 77 is not absentee voting.

If Act 77 extended absentee voting to cover all reasons to vote, then you might have a point, but probably not since the part on absentee voting is a guarantee to the citizens that they will be able to vote absentee for specific reasons, not a ruling that they may vote absentee for only those reasons. In any event, it seems to keep mail in voting and absentee voting separate.

Also, Act 77 does not contain, as far as I can find, any amendment to the Constitution.

Can you be more clear on what you mean?

Quote:

---

Can you be more clear on what you mean?

---

A) read the complaint

B) consider that Justice Alito is quite receptive to the arguments of plaintiffs

C) do the math.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you be more clear on what you mean?

---

A) read the complaint

B) consider that Justice Alito is quite receptive to the arguments of plaintiffs

C) do the math.

---

In other words, you are ducking the question.

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bit of what we do have an abundance is criminal activity in violation of state election law. We have that without any dispute. Why isn't that criminal activity enough for the courts to act? And if not now, will it ever be?

---

What!?

---

Have you been hiding under a rock with Dementia Joe and Commiela?

---

Yeah, with Barr, the State SoSs, FBI and the majority of Americans. Reality is under that rock.

---

You have no grasp of what we're talking about. It's the SOSs who broke the law and ordered election officials to violate state law. That' is undisputed.

---

Of course it is disputed. And it is a moot point because the ballots in dispute wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

---

So it is okay if it is just a 'little' election fraud that doesn't change an election? Gutfeld summed up this mindset perfectly in his show yesterday starting at the 3:45 mark. Actually from 3:45 to the 7:30 mark he was dead on accurate. As he stated, the term 'widespread fraud is as stupid a phrase as the term mostly peaceful'. Nobody should be fine with any level of fraud, but then we all know that was the whole point of allowing mass mail in ballots and only one party roots for that. All because they are fine with any level of fraud they can get, because they know who benefits from it the most.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you be more clear on what you mean?

---

A) read the complaint

B) consider that Justice Alito is quite receptive to the arguments of plaintiffs

C) do the math.

---

In other words, you are ducking the question.

---

NO. I have repeatedly posted the same things over and over again. You just want me to run the hamster wheel again for your enjoyment. Read the Zuckerberg illegal voting scam. I posted that. He bought the election. Plan and simple.

Because everyone here knows you have fully endorsed and condoned the stealing of the election. You are on board with that.

And if you don't understand all of the repeated posts, please stop voting. You have zero idea of what or who you are voting for.

I am not your personal research assistant. I have posted plenty with actual links. You do not.

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you be more clear on what you mean?

---

A) read the complaint

B) consider that Justice Alito is quite receptive to the arguments of plaintiffs

C) do the math.

---

In other words, you are ducking the question.

---

NO. I have repeatedly posted the same things over and over again. You just want me to run the hamster wheel again for your enjoyment. Read the Zuckerberg illegal voting scam. I posted that. He bought the election. Plan and simple.

Because everyone here knows you have fully endorsed and condoned the stealing of the election. You are on board with that.

And if you don't understand all of the repeated posts, please stop voting. You have zero idea of what or who you are voting for.

I am not your personal research assistant. I have posted plenty with actual links. You do not.

---

Where have you answered the questions I posed?

Why do you refuse to answer honest questions and just smear the person asking them instead? Most lawyers I have ever met seemed fairly happy to provide a limited answer to legal questions. Sure, they don't want to write out a full article on it, but they do try to provide at least a minimal answer without being snotty about it.

Not only laziness but cowardice as well. I tend to think judges are fine letting injustices happen if they may have to take some flack for following the law.