TRADUCTOR said:

---

Right, and that is what is so ingenious about parsing this scumbag Democrat crime. Once a ballot is harvested it's a legal ballot to be counted even if the vote was illegally cast. Plus Democrat scumbags ignoring the checks in place to remove ballots representing fraudulent casted votes is done with impunity.

---

If you pick up your elderly grandmother's ballot and take it to a ballot dropoff point, that is ballot harvesting.

If you want to make absolutely positive that only legitimate voters can get ballots and vote with them, the way to go is to improve the methods by which ballots are issued and how they are counted. It is possible, but nobody seems to be doing anything about that. They seem to prefer to just whine about it or to make quick fixes that don't do much.

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Old RV Ag said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

I am glad Pence had enough wisdom to do what he did. If Trump had any actual evidence of fraud he should have released the kraken well before the certification of electors. If the conversation between Trump and Pence is accurate that doesn't make Trump look good. Bottom line is we have no proof that is sufficient to go all the way to the Supreme Court that there was fraud.

---

There was plenty evidence of fraud.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of voting laws broken by officials. Lots of voting internal controls that were ignored or purposely circumvented by voting officials. That is fraud. Many people have been fired over breaking those laws. They should have gone to jail.

In fact, if any public company were to treat internal accounting controls the way that voting officials treated internal controls, the CEO and the CFO of that company would be doing time in a federal prison for violating Sarbanes Oxley, for committing fraud.

Ignoring internal controls is fraud. Lots of voting officials ignored or circumvented internal controls. So there is plenty of evidence of fraud.

---

You mean lots and lots of made up **** by clickbait scammers on twitter looking to swindle republicans. Not a single election fraud conspiracy theory every came close to being proven, and was rejected from a hundred courts, by the Supreme Court, and by Trumps own cabinet members.

And of course, all the red governors and state officials in Georgia and Arizona all said no evidence of election fraud was found despite tens of millions in investigation, but hey clickbait scammers are still going strong! Even the follow up Georgia Senator election, the most watched in history showed zero election fraud. Hilarious.

---

Your post is 100% bull *****

---

Feel free to take all that twitter evidence to a judge. By the way, multiple Trump appointed judges also rejected those idiot lawsuits, just FYI.

Good luck!

---

Yea, there is plenty out there evidence of fraud. Proving it in court is a whole other issue.

However the biggest "fraud" is vote harvesting through mail in voting which's has been illegally deemed legal by laws changes last minute.

Good luck with your head up your ass in denial.

---

Doubling down on saying dumbass things.

---

These cases need more publicity.

Chatham Co, GA case - petition citing two R observers, who said they suspected a stack of 53 ballots received after the 7pm deadline on election day had been added to a different stack to be counted illegally.
Judge Bass: "The court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7pm on election day."

MI case - unnamed poll worker had told her the dates on some mail-in ballots were being changed, leading to invalid votes being counted.
Judge Stephens: "This evidence is inadmissible as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what 'other hired poll workers at her table' had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay."

Another MI case - D inspectors were improperly duplicating ballots.
Judge Kenny: "Plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or special eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their complaint, 'Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic Party inspectors and then counted.' Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. The motion is based upon speculation and conjecture. Absent any evidence of an improper practice, the court cannot identify if this alleged violation occurred and, if it did, the frequency of such violations. Plaintiffs have made only a claim but have offered no evidence to support their assertions."

Another MI case - plaintiffs filed seven sworn affidavits saying they witnessed misconduct at a vote counting centre in Detroit.
Judge Kenny (again, who went through each affidated with an example provided here): "Ms Carone, a Republican, indicated that she 'witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place' during her time at the TCF Centre. Offering generalized statements, Ms Carone described illegal activity that included counter tabulating machines that would get jammed four to five times per hour, as well as alleged cover-up of loss of vast amounts of data. Ms Carone indicated she reported her observations to the FBI. Ms Carone's description of the events at the TCF Centre does not square with any of the other affidavits. There are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count. Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events. The allegations simply are not credible."

PA case - R observers had been prevented from properly watching the vote count; voters in D-leaning counties had been given a chance to cure technical defects with their ballots while R-leaning counties were not.
Judge Bibas: "The campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so."

NV case - alleged that ballots were counted despite bearing mismatched signatures; voters were allowed to cast provisional ballots without ID; voting machines allowed illegal voting; some people voted more than once; nonresidents of Nevada voted; votes were cast using dead people's names.
Judge Russell: "Having reviewed the full evidentiary record submitted by Contestants and Defendants, and having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the Court as well as the parties' written and oral arguments, [...] Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted."

AZ case - alleged election workers had taken votes cast for Mr Trump and changed them to support Mr Biden instead while duplicating them.
Judge Brutinel: "The plaintiffs didn't present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes, or that the Biden electors did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office."

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/20201106_Opin_and_Ord_707156_7.pdf
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Stoddard_et_al_v_City_Election_Commission_et_al_-_11-06-2020_707182_7.pdf
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7739/file-10440.pdf
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/mich-election-ruling.pdf
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
https://www.8newsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2020/12/20-44711.pdf

---

You can hang your hat on these little cases which are almost impossible to prove without video or direct admission by the people. I am sure you are convinced the 81 million votes are all legitimate, and not a smidgeon of corruption right?

None of above changes the fact that "vote" harvesting occurred, specifically targeting the states that flipped and all the same states specifically have been challenged. I could go on about all the irregulars found in each of those states, as well as the antics leading up to the elections. Those have been well documented as fact, over and over again.

---

You are missing the point - the plaintiffs didn't have to prove their case at that point in time. The cases were in the 'is this case BS' phase of court proceedings and their cases were deemed improper because their so-called 'facts' and 'proof' could not meet the most basic standards of evidence to proceed to the next phase.

The proper pejorative term is 'ballot harvesting' and, in general, it is a practice of collecting ballots which is allowed in some form within 26 states and has a legislative history going back to at least the 1950s. Parties with a minority of the electorate will do what they can do to remain politically relevant by attacking such legislation.

Promoting unsubstantiated accusations and debunked narratives over and over again does not change the fact that the massive voter fraud claimed by Republicans has never been proven and has been identified by the courts as being mendacious propaganda in nature. SoSs have websites that meticulously disprove the allegations made about the 2020 Presidential Election and those argument are, and will continue to be, ignored by people truly faithful to their beliefs. Defamation cases will hopefully put the hurt on parties that continue to promote the Big Lie.

eric76 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

eric76 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Old RV Ag said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

I am glad Pence had enough wisdom to do what he did. If Trump had any actual evidence of fraud he should have released the kraken well before the certification of electors. If the conversation between Trump and Pence is accurate that doesn't make Trump look good. Bottom line is we have no proof that is sufficient to go all the way to the Supreme Court that there was fraud.

---

There was plenty evidence of fraud.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of voting laws broken by officials. Lots of voting internal controls that were ignored or purposely circumvented by voting officials. That is fraud. Many people have been fired over breaking those laws. They should have gone to jail.

In fact, if any public company were to treat internal accounting controls the way that voting officials treated internal controls, the CEO and the CFO of that company would be doing time in a federal prison for violating Sarbanes Oxley, for committing fraud.

Ignoring internal controls is fraud. Lots of voting officials ignored or circumvented internal controls. So there is plenty of evidence of fraud.

---

You mean lots and lots of made up **** by clickbait scammers on twitter looking to swindle republicans. Not a single election fraud conspiracy theory every came close to being proven, and was rejected from a hundred courts, by the Supreme Court, and by Trumps own cabinet members.

And of course, all the red governors and state officials in Georgia and Arizona all said no evidence of election fraud was found despite tens of millions in investigation, but hey clickbait scammers are still going strong! Even the follow up Georgia Senator election, the most watched in history showed zero election fraud. Hilarious.

---

Your post is 100% bull *****

---

Feel free to take all that twitter evidence to a judge. By the way, multiple Trump appointed judges also rejected those idiot lawsuits, just FYI.

Good luck!

---

Yea, there is plenty out there evidence of fraud. Proving it in court is a whole other issue.

However the biggest "fraud" is vote harvesting through mail in voting which's has been illegally deemed legal by laws changes last minute.

Good luck with your head up your ass in denial.

---

Doubling down on saying dumbass things.

---

You must be buddies with eric and not understand harvesting as well. What i stated is fact.

---

You haven't even displayed any sign that you even understand what ballot harvesting is. Calling it vote harvesting sure doesn't help your case.

---

Really, you think "vote" vs. "ballot" harvesting is a gotcha? Wow.

---

Learn to use the proper terms and what they actually mean.

---

I think you should take your own advice Mr "classical" liberal, Biden voter.

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

eric76 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

eric76 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Old RV Ag said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

I am glad Pence had enough wisdom to do what he did. If Trump had any actual evidence of fraud he should have released the kraken well before the certification of electors. If the conversation between Trump and Pence is accurate that doesn't make Trump look good. Bottom line is we have no proof that is sufficient to go all the way to the Supreme Court that there was fraud.

---

There was plenty evidence of fraud.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of voting laws broken by officials. Lots of voting internal controls that were ignored or purposely circumvented by voting officials. That is fraud. Many people have been fired over breaking those laws. They should have gone to jail.

In fact, if any public company were to treat internal accounting controls the way that voting officials treated internal controls, the CEO and the CFO of that company would be doing time in a federal prison for violating Sarbanes Oxley, for committing fraud.

Ignoring internal controls is fraud. Lots of voting officials ignored or circumvented internal controls. So there is plenty of evidence of fraud.

---

You mean lots and lots of made up **** by clickbait scammers on twitter looking to swindle republicans. Not a single election fraud conspiracy theory every came close to being proven, and was rejected from a hundred courts, by the Supreme Court, and by Trumps own cabinet members.

And of course, all the red governors and state officials in Georgia and Arizona all said no evidence of election fraud was found despite tens of millions in investigation, but hey clickbait scammers are still going strong! Even the follow up Georgia Senator election, the most watched in history showed zero election fraud. Hilarious.

---

Your post is 100% bull *****

---

Feel free to take all that twitter evidence to a judge. By the way, multiple Trump appointed judges also rejected those idiot lawsuits, just FYI.

Good luck!

---

Yea, there is plenty out there evidence of fraud. Proving it in court is a whole other issue.

However the biggest "fraud" is vote harvesting through mail in voting which's has been illegally deemed legal by laws changes last minute.

Good luck with your head up your ass in denial.

---

Doubling down on saying dumbass things.

---

You must be buddies with eric and not understand harvesting as well. What i stated is fact.

---

You haven't even displayed any sign that you even understand what ballot harvesting is. Calling it vote harvesting sure doesn't help your case.

---

Really, you think "vote" vs. "ballot" harvesting is a gotcha? Wow.

---

Learn to use the proper terms and what they actually mean.

---

I think you should take your own advice Mr "classical" liberal, Biden voter.

---

So now you are signing your posts at the end of the line? Very clever, but are you really so happy to vote for Biden that you are crowing about it?

I try to use the terms properly. Sometimes I misuse them, but at least I try to use them correctly.

eric76 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

She did both, watch, read, learn

Edit: or just continue to keep your head in the sand as you complain about the view. Keep voting for biden and his policies. Play word games with pursed language while you carry water for the democrats and progressive left.

---

I was talking about ballot harvesting and only ballot harvesting. There are no word games there.

yes they are, I showed you an example of a person doing both ballot harvesting and changing votes at the same time. Now you discount her because she wasnt doing just ballot harvesting???

The word games is trying to spin everything to be some kind of voter fraud in order to justify your complaints about Trump losing the election.

The word games are your continued labored attempts to try to nuance your way into some effed up scenario that never existed. You do it in every thread.

If every time anyone posts, they have to write an entire thesis covering every possible detail of anything being discussed, this would be a very dreary forum that would be pretty much impossible to read.

and yet, you almost insist everyone does

But in this case, go ahead and tell us how many votes were changed by her ballot harvesting. Then tell us how her activities had anything to do with Trump losing the election. Start your inane spin machine going.

How? How is it remotely possible? That is the problem, that is why I am for stricter voting controls. She claims to be able to deliver 10's of thousands of votes, you could hear her for yourself if you watched or read any of the news stories or videos, but you don't care to. Once they(the ballots) leave her possession how do you cull them back? I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about a deeply flawed system and process.

Sure, there is voter fraud every election and it needs to be prosecuted. And it happens with both Democrats and Republicans. The only sure way to end voter fraud is to do away with elections. But there is no indication whatsoever that voter fraud had anything to do with the results of this election.

That which is not counted cannot then be measured. When there are crappy controls in place you cannot make the claim that:

"there is no indication whatsoever that voter fraud had anything to do with the results of this election"

James O'Keefe sought this person out, that is the only reason we know about them.

What don't we know?

Who else is out there?

---

If Trump or anyone else doesn't understand why he didn't get a second term and why he should never run again, just watch the entire First Debate with Xiden. His crazy actions sum it all up in one debate. At the time he acted that way, he was the president and had been for over three years.

And I would have loved to see him win a second term. But completely understand why he did not.

Did you read your own link?

She was ballot harvesting and she was paying others to change their votes.

Those are two completely different things. Paying someone to vote the way you want them to vote is not ballot harvesting.

Sure, ballot harvesting is illegal in many cases because of the potential for people to alter a ballot or maybe not deliver them. There are usually exceptions to the laws. Presumably, she was ballot harvesting in ways that were illegal, but that doesn't necessarily change the vote. Of the two, her paying someone to vote how she wanted them to vote was, I think, the far more serious criminal act.

She changes the vote for Cornyn to someone else from a ballot she harvested

She did both at the same time

She narrates whats she is doing in the video

pacecar02 said:

---

She changes the vote for Cornyn to someone else from a ballot she harvested

She did both at the same time

---

Did it say that in the video? I'm going by the text which I interpret to be a transcript of the video. I'm on a laptop at the moment and the audio on this laptop is not very good.

Ballot harvesting. This time by Republicans.

I think that the issues here were:
1) Lack of control over the boxes. They might be reasonably secure against someone getting inside them, but that wouldn't stop someone from doing something to damage the ballots inside. I wonder how difficult it would have been for someone to drive up in a truck, load the box inside, and drive off.
2) They were marked as "OFFICIAL BALLOT DROP BOX" which was highly misleading, possibly fraudulent. It is legal in California for a voter to designate someone to deliver their ballot for them, but this does not appear to provide notification to a voter that it is a third party picking up the ballots. It is doubtful that the voters even knew who would pick up the ballots. Can voters just designate "whoever" to deliver their votes?

If the Republican workers went door to door offering to deliver ballots on behalf of voters, that would presumably be okay under California law. This approach was certainly misleading.

I was wondering what Lin Wood was up to these days! Looks like he's posting as damiond

Welcome to F16 Lucian!

The CA Republicans did this in 2020 after the CA Democrats dropped the nuke in 2018 with ballot harvesting which caused almost every contested house seat in CA to go Democrat. 250k ballots were dropped the day after the 2018 election resulting in scores of seats with Republicans in the lead to flip Democrat.

Fast forward to 2020 and the Republicans returned the favor and the Democrats flipped out. What did people expect to happen? This is why turning a blind eye to legalized ballot harvesting is so very very corrosive to our elections and their integrity. Both sides will escalate the arms race and push the ethical boundaries.

Most all drop boxes are ticking time bombs for fraud and they should be heavily regulated and significantly curtailed in usage if not out right banned.

aginresearch said:

---

The CA Republicans did this in 2020 after the CA Democrats dropped the nuke in 2018 with ballot harvesting which caused almost every contested house seat in CA to go Democrat. 250k ballots were dropped the day after the 2018 election resulting in scores of seats with Republicans in the lead to flip Democrat.

Fast forward to 2020 and the Republicans returned the favor and the Democrats flipped out. What did people expect to happen? This is why turning a blind eye to legalized ballot harvesting is so very very corrosive to our elections and their integrity. Both sides will escalate the arms race and push the ethical boundaries.

Most all drop boxes are ticking time bombs for fraud and they should be heavily regulated and significantly curtailed in usage if not out right banned.

---

Did the Democrats put up "official ballot drop boxes" around for people to put their ballots in?

If the Republicans had gone house to house, then presumably nobody would have an issue with it. Putting unattended boxes out on the street marked as "official ballot drop boxes" should raise objections regardless of which party does it.

Also, if they were to set up a box out of the weather in a setting for people to drop off ballots, such as dropping them off when arriving at church for a church service with someone there to make sure that the ballots were undisturbed and then taking the box to the election people, then there shouldn't be much of a problem.

As I remember from he news stories on this, they were allowed to continue with their ballot drop boxes under the conditions that there was someone in attendance to watch them and answer questions and they were not marked as official anything.

Just leaving a box there for ballots would make you wonder who is doing it and whether they ballots would be picked up in time to be delivered. Otherwise, if the Democrats wanted to suppress the Republican vote, one way to do it would be to put ballot boxes in places frequented by Republicans and then deliver the ballots too late to be counted or not deliver them at all.

Whether people went house to house or had drop boxes doesn't matter in my view as far as ballot harvesting is concerned. The drop boxes are bad because they are being abused by the ballot harvesters but the ballot harvesting is the real issue. It is ripe for fraud. It doesn't matter the actual mechanism.

You know nothing about the provenance of these ballots that's the problem.

aginresearch said:

---

Whether people went house to house or had drop boxes doesn't matter in my view as far as ballot harvesting is concerned. The drop boxes are bad because they are being abused by the ballot harvesters but the ballot harvesting is the real issue. It is ripe for fraud. It doesn't matter the actual mechanism.

You know nothing about the provenance of these ballots that's the problem.

---

The California, the ballot harvester is supposed to sign the envelope (or something like that) to establish a chain of custody. I don't know how well that works.

But, yeah. The issue with ballot harvesting is not the ballot harvesting itself, but the increased chance for someone to do something fraudulent with the ballots in some cases. It would be extremely unlikely for most ballot harvesting to involve fraud, but it is the minority of cases that most states are guarding against by outlawing it in most cases.

If there is sufficient evidence bring it before the courts and let it work up to the Supreme Court. You want to believe it. I did too. But the Kraken herself when under oath basically said she had nothing. Rudy Giuliani was providing affidavits that seemed ridiculous. There is nothing here. Pence did the right thing and the only thing he could have done. Do I think Biden got 81m votes? Yes I do. Look at the last 10 months or so we have an overwhelming part of the citizenry that is uninformed, not engaged, and don't believe in individual rights or responsibility. California voted to keep the lockdown king. Hell there are still a good portion of moms in conservative neighborhoods here in TX masking up and wanting schools to close. We are in a much worse spot than someone stealing an election. We the people are getting the government we deserve.

Easy to say there was no fraud when you ignore the changes to election law to facilitate mail in ballots, ballot harvesting, CTCL shenanigans, 4am ballot drops, broken water mains. That's not even getting in to the effectively billions in unreported campaign contributions made by news organizations acting as DNC propagandist while posing as objective journalists.

We just had a group of people indicted here in my little county for voter fraud and by the looks of them they were almost certainly Democrats. You won't hear about that on national news though because it goes against the Democrat narratives.

All you have to do is make the rules to where it's easy to cheat and organically the ethically devoid degenerates that support Democrats will find a way to cheat.

Repeating the "failed lawsuits" taking point is not helpful. Those lawsuits were haphazardly put together in a very short time line. Muller had two years to investigate with the full resources of the federal government. 2020 election investigations have had no such time or resources. Every day we find out more and more about the unethical practices of liberal electioneering.

Gaw617 said:

---

If there is sufficient evidence bring it before the courts and let it work up to the Supreme Court. You want to believe it. I did too. But the Kraken herself when under oath basically said she had nothing. Rudy Giuliani was providing affidavits that seemed ridiculous. There is nothing here. Pence did the right thing and the only thing he could have done. Do I think Biden got 81m votes? Yes I do. Look at the last 10 months or so we have an overwhelming part of the citizenry that is uninformed, not engaged, and don't believe in individual rights or responsibility. California voted to keep the lockdown king. Hell there are still a good portion of moms in conservative neighborhoods here in TX masking up and wanting schools to close. We are in a much worse spot than someone stealing an election. We the people are getting the government we deserve.

---

But the Kraken herself when under oath basically said she had nothing. The Kraken was a kook. No one serious took her seriously. She is a distraction from the real problems.

Rudy Giuliani was providing affidavits that seemed ridiculous. Rudy is kind of a nutbag. Some good people with good evidence got caught up in his whirlwind, but too much of the stuff he came forward with was difficult to impossible to substantiate.

There is nothing here. Complete straw man. There is a lot there, and it is ugly, and very damning. Just not under those two rocks.

Pence did the right thing and the only thing he could have done. I agree with you 100%. Read the thread. I probably have like 10 posts that make that exact argument.

Do I think Biden got 81m votes? Yes I do. Look at the last 10 months or so we have an overwhelming part of the citizenry that is uninformed, not engaged, and don't believe in individual rights or responsibility. Nope. Look at the enthusiasm for Biden going into the election. Do I think he got more votes than Obama? Probably. They were votes against Trump. But, pointing to the last few months doesn't make much sense. Biden's reputation is in the absolute toilet right now. In one of the most polarizing moments in the history of our nation, people in Biden's own party think he's a dick.

California voted to keep the lockdown king. No they didn't. They voted against CA's version of Rush Limbaugh. That isn't that surprising.

Hell there are still a good portion of moms in conservative neighborhoods here in TX masking up and wanting schools to close. I bet that most of them that are really conservative didn't vote for Biden.

We are in a much worse spot than someone stealing an election. We the people are getting the government we deserve. I agree with you here. But I never claimed that anyone stole the election. I claimed that there are examples of election officials flagrantly violating election law in those counties that had the most surprising 4am Biden swings. Some people foolishly challenged that as false. They are wrong.

Quote:

---

But the Kraken herself when under oath basically said she had nothing. The Kraken was a kook. No one serious took her seriously. She is a distraction from the real problems.

---

A lot of serious posters aren't going to like this one bit.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

But the Kraken herself when under oath basically said she had nothing. The Kraken was a kook. No one serious took her seriously. She is a distraction from the real problems.

---

A lot of serious posters aren't going to like this one bit.

---

I think you are wrong.

A lot of people had some hope she had something, but gave up on her very early. She was way too much theatre for the amount of evidence she had. She claimed to have a smoking gun, when she didn't.

If she had been more professional, she would have been taken a lot more seriously, and might have actually done some good.

What she did have is a whole lot of evidence that our voting systems suck. The evidence she was able to gather related to that was very good. But she mismanaged the presentation of that evidence spectacularly.

Quote:

---

No one serious took her seriously

---

This is what I am laughing at. There are a large number of posters here that took her seriously, and some still do.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

No one serious took her seriously

---

This is what I am laughing at. There are a large number of posters here that took her seriously, and some still do.

---

Count me out of that group.

She did a great job at discovery, I guess. Pretty much botched everything else. Spectacularly.

Mas89 said:

---

If Trump or anyone else doesn't understand why he didn't get a second term and why he should never run again, just watch the entire First Debate with Xiden. His crazy actions sum it all up in one debate. At the time he acted that way, he was the president and had been for over three years.

And I would have loved to see him win a second term. But completely understand why he did not.

---

Actually that first debate was a sandbagging that along with the suppression of any talk about Biden's dealings overseas and Hunter was proof of the Media collusion with the DNC. And that Sep 29th it was even FOX doing it with Chris Wallace.

The other factor is that Trump had covid -- had caught it Saturday Sep 26th, and it would be confirmed the night of Oct 1. So he was definitely off his game and as bad as demeanor was, it rates some mulligan between being sick and the moderator shilling for Biden (right up to the idea of Antifa being an `idea' while assuming white supremacy was a given--loathed since then).

Incidentally, as further proof of the DNC media bias, that same Saturday the 26th MSM and Big Tech basically suppressed any coverage of a pro-Life rally in the Mall that looked like a miniature Jan 6th.

All that should not be discounted.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its quite the long paragraph, but when broken down into "steps" nothing in it supports that Pence could "send it back to the state legislatures"

I agree arguing about what Pence could have done is no longer the point, but the OP started this thread so apparently people are still confused on what the constitution and law permitted.

---

Nor did I say he could on January 6th. The horse was out of the barn by that point.

---

John Eastman sent this letter to Pence showing how he could reject the fraudulent election. sorry for the cutpaste formatting

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. The 12th Amendment merely provides that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch. The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, "acting separately," to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the "executive" of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures. So here's the scenario we propose: 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe's prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . ." Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

Why is it always the people trump selected that get blamed, never the person doing the selecting? How many people that he appointed, or put on his ticket, has he called morons/cowards/traitors?


There was never a scenario in which trump would have remained president following the calling of georgia and arizona. I think the election was swung with mail in ballots and vote harvesting, but this narrative is nuts.

---

Do you not comprehend anything that has happened? Literally the entire federal government, most key fortune 500 board seats, and the entire media and entertainment complex are compromised. They never thought trump would actually win as an uncompromised non-clubmember' , but when he did, the pool of 'credible' appointees was almost entirely compromised already. And anyone who wasnt when he appointed them was turned. When you have china money, soros money, dnc money, you can bribe/intimidate/blackmail anyone. And that is what happened.

Is trump perfect? No. Did he make some stupid picks? Sure. Did he have any possible available great choices? No.

that eastman memo is a joke. there is nothing constitutional about that proposal.

I fully understand what Eastman was saying there and I agree with his analysis. But the competing slates of electors were not submitted to the President of the Senate. That was the required precipitating event for the subsequent invocation of the 12th, IMO.

Also, the Electoral Count Act is likely unconstitutional, besides just being a mess of a statute. It thwarts the mandated constitutional duty of state legislatures to determine the selection of electors within their state.

This is not said as a defense of Pence as I still believe he was not powerless as he claimed but the time for him to make the relevant inquiries that could have led to the submission of competing slates of electors in certain states was before January 6th.

As I have stated before even in this thread, I believe, Gore considered whether to invoke the 12th when he presided over the Joint Session in January 2001. He stated that he decided not to do that only because it would have been futile. The composition of the House was still in GOP control state wise. Meaning a contingent election under the 12th would not have put Gore into office instead of Bush.

Had the math been different for Gore in 2000, you can bet there would have challenges with competing slates of electors to throw it into a contingent election.

damiond said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its quite the long paragraph, but when broken down into "steps" nothing in it supports that Pence could "send it back to the state legislatures"

I agree arguing about what Pence could have done is no longer the point, but the OP started this thread so apparently people are still confused on what the constitution and law permitted.

---

Nor did I say he could on January 6th. The horse was out of the barn by that point.

---

John Eastman sent this letter to Pence showing how he could reject the fraudulent election. sorry for the cutpaste formatting

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. The 12th Amendment merely provides that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch. The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, "acting separately," to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the "executive" of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures. So here's the scenario we propose: 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe's prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . ." Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

---

The scenario begins with the states submitting dual slates of electors. That was not the case in 2020 election.

"We finished our work, and the president and I sat down a few days later and talked through all of it. I can tell you that we parted amicably at the end of the administration, and we've talked a number of times since we both left office."

Translation: Trump told him what a ***** he is and he took it like the ***** he is.

SW-14 said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump: No, no, no! You don't understand, Mike. You can do this. I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this."

---

We're supposed to be believe he said this? That's the kind of thing my 6 and 3 year olds say.

---

And Trump

Sorry your coup lost.

Democrats are going to use Eastman's strategy if Trump wins in 2024

EXCLUSIVE: Author of Jan 6 coup memo John Eastman told us Mike Pence didn't take his solid legal advice & overturn the election bc Pence is "an establishment guy"

(He previously told @NRO the memo was not “viable” and would have been “crazy” to pursue.)

Stay tuned for Part 2. pic.twitter.com/RQeUceH1bn

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) October 26, 2021

He's right on all of this

EXCLUSIVE, Jan 6 coup memo author John Eastman told us at a Claremont Institute gala that:

1. Trump planned to go to the Capitol
2. @CNN paid Antifa $60k to break in
3. FBI infiltrated and instigated the Oath Keepers + Proud Boys, whom he calls "our guys"

Stay tuned for Part 3 pic.twitter.com/Ol9JTOnMYL

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) October 27, 2021

Now is the time to say something.

Jmiller said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Old RV Ag said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

I am glad Pence had enough wisdom to do what he did. If Trump had any actual evidence of fraud he should have released the kraken well before the certification of electors. If the conversation between Trump and Pence is accurate that doesn't make Trump look good. Bottom line is we have no proof that is sufficient to go all the way to the Supreme Court that there was fraud.

---

There was plenty evidence of fraud.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of voting laws broken by officials. Lots of voting internal controls that were ignored or purposely circumvented by voting officials. That is fraud. Many people have been fired over breaking those laws. They should have gone to jail.

In fact, if any public company were to treat internal accounting controls the way that voting officials treated internal controls, the CEO and the CFO of that company would be doing time in a federal prison for violating Sarbanes Oxley, for committing fraud.

Ignoring internal controls is fraud. Lots of voting officials ignored or circumvented internal controls. So there is plenty of evidence of fraud.

---

You mean lots and lots of made up **** by clickbait scammers on twitter looking to swindle republicans. Not a single election fraud conspiracy theory every came close to being proven, and was rejected from a hundred courts, by the Supreme Court, and by Trumps own cabinet members.

And of course, all the red governors and state officials in Georgia and Arizona all said no evidence of election fraud was found despite tens of millions in investigation, but hey clickbait scammers are still going strong! Even the follow up Georgia Senator election, the most watched in history showed zero election fraud. Hilarious.

---

Your post is 100% bull *****

---

Feel free to take all that twitter evidence to a judge. By the way, multiple Trump appointed judges also rejected those idiot lawsuits, just FYI.

Good luck!

---

Yea, there is plenty out there evidence of fraud. Proving it in court is a whole other issue.

However the biggest "fraud" is vote harvesting through mail in voting which's has been illegally deemed legal by laws changes last minute.

Good luck with your head up your ass in denial.

---

Doubling down on saying dumbass things.

---

These cases need more publicity.

Chatham Co, GA case - petition citing two R observers, who said they suspected a stack of 53 ballots received after the 7pm deadline on election day had been added to a different stack to be counted illegally.
Judge Bass: "The court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7pm on election day."

MI case - unnamed poll worker had told her the dates on some mail-in ballots were being changed, leading to invalid votes being counted.
Judge Stephens: "This evidence is inadmissible as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what 'other hired poll workers at her table' had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay."

Another MI case - D inspectors were improperly duplicating ballots.
Judge Kenny: "Plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or special eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their complaint, 'Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic Party inspectors and then counted.' Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. The motion is based upon speculation and conjecture. Absent any evidence of an improper practice, the court cannot identify if this alleged violation occurred and, if it did, the frequency of such violations. Plaintiffs have made only a claim but have offered no evidence to support their assertions."

Another MI case - plaintiffs filed seven sworn affidavits saying they witnessed misconduct at a vote counting centre in Detroit.
Judge Kenny (again, who went through each affidated with an example provided here): "Ms Carone, a Republican, indicated that she 'witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place' during her time at the TCF Centre. Offering generalized statements, Ms Carone described illegal activity that included counter tabulating machines that would get jammed four to five times per hour, as well as alleged cover-up of loss of vast amounts of data. Ms Carone indicated she reported her observations to the FBI. Ms Carone's description of the events at the TCF Centre does not square with any of the other affidavits. There are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count. Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events. The allegations simply are not credible."

PA case - R observers had been prevented from properly watching the vote count; voters in D-leaning counties had been given a chance to cure technical defects with their ballots while R-leaning counties were not.
Judge Bibas: "The campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so."

NV case - alleged that ballots were counted despite bearing mismatched signatures; voters were allowed to cast provisional ballots without ID; voting machines allowed illegal voting; some people voted more than once; nonresidents of Nevada voted; votes were cast using dead people's names.
Judge Russell: "Having reviewed the full evidentiary record submitted by Contestants and Defendants, and having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the Court as well as the parties' written and oral arguments, [...] Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted."

AZ case - alleged election workers had taken votes cast for Mr Trump and changed them to support Mr Biden instead while duplicating them.
Judge Brutinel: "The plaintiffs didn't present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes, or that the Biden electors did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office."

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/20201106_Opin_and_Ord_707156_7.pdf
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Stoddard_et_al_v_City_Election_Commission_et_al_-_11-06-2020_707182_7.pdf
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7739/file-10440.pdf
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/mich-election-ruling.pdf
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
https://www.8newsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2020/12/20-44711.pdf

---

You can hang your hat on these little cases which are almost impossible to prove without video or direct admission by the people. I am sure you are convinced the 81 million votes are all legitimate, and not a smidgeon of corruption right?

None of above changes the fact that "vote" harvesting occurred, specifically targeting the states that flipped and all the same states specifically have been challenged. I could go on about all the irregulars found in each of those states, as well as the antics leading up to the elections. Those have been well documented as fact, over and over again.

---

You are missing the point - the plaintiffs didn't have to prove their case at that point in time. The cases were in the 'is this case BS' phase of court proceedings and their cases were deemed improper because their so-called 'facts' and 'proof' could not meet the most basic standards of evidence to proceed to the next phase.

The proper pejorative term is 'ballot harvesting' and, in general, it is a practice of collecting ballots which is allowed in some form within 26 states and has a legislative history going back to at least the 1950s. Parties with a minority of the electorate will do what they can do to remain politically relevant by attacking such legislation.

Promoting unsubstantiated accusations and debunked narratives over and over again does not change the fact that the massive voter fraud claimed by Republicans has never been proven and has been identified by the courts as being mendacious propaganda in nature. SoSs have websites that meticulously disprove the allegations made about the 2020 Presidential Election and those argument are, and will continue to be, ignored by people truly faithful to their beliefs. Defamation cases will hopefully put the hurt on parties that continue to promote the Big Lie.

---

That is nothing but pure gaslighting. States have allowed relatives, guardians, or a person living in the home to return the ballot.

That is NOT ballot harvesting as it's come to be! Now these states are allowing anyone to collect and deliver the ballot. That is a recipe for fraud and abuse. Anyone who disagrees with that is a blithering idiot.

BMX Bandit said:

---

that eastman memo is a joke. there is nothing constitutional about that proposal.

---

Thank you. Voice of reason among the imbeciles.