Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 482056 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
WSJ: Voting Rights at the SCOTUS
« Reply #1652 on: March 01, 2021, 01:01:14 PM »
Voting Rights at the Supreme Court
The Justices have a rare chance to clarify federal election law.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 28, 2021 6:00 pm ET



Election laws have become a dangerous political flashpoint, as Americans recently learned the hard way. On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear a potentially landmark case (Brnovich v. DNC) that offers an opportunity to restore the Voting Rights Act to its original purpose.


At issue is Arizona’s requirement that voters cast ballots on election day in their assigned precinct and its ban on ballot harvesting by outside groups. A majority of states require in-precinct voting, and 20 or so limit ballot harvesting, which allows third parties to collect ballots in bunches. Both rules are intended to bolster ballot integrity.

Democrats say this violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from adopting voting qualifications, standards, or practices that result in “denial or abridgement” of the right to vote “on account of race or color.” But they provide no evidence that Arizona’s rules limit minorities’ ballot access.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to stop states from disenfranchising blacks with underhanded methods like poll taxes and literacy tests. But Democrats now argue that any state regulation that makes it a little harder for anyone to vote violates the law—even if it applies equally to minorities and whites.


Importantly, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) puts the burden on plaintiffs to show that minorities, based on the “totality of circumstances,” have “less opportunity” than others “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”

The High Court hasn’t provided a clear standard for lower courts to interpret Section 2. And many lower court judges have blocked voter ID requirements, early-voting curbs and same-day registration restrictions, among other rules, based on statistics that purportedly show that minorities are disparately impacted.


The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014 enjoined Ohio’s reduction of early voting from five weeks to four. Ohio settled the case with the NAACP by agreeing to start early voting 29 days before Election Day. But the Ohio Democratic Party sued and said 29 days wasn’t enough.

In the current Arizona case, a federal judge ruled there is no evidence that the state’s in-precinct voting rule and ballot harvesting ban disproportionately burdens or discriminates against minorities. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the ruling but was overruled en banc. Backers of Arizona’s ballot harvesting ban “had a sincere, though mistaken, non-race-based belief that there had been fraud in third-party ballot collection, and that the problem needed to be addressed,” the Ninth Circuit’s liberal judges held.

There’s no guiding legal principle to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and any law that bolsters election integrity may violate the VRA if judges say so. Even the Biden Justice Department told the High Court last month that it doesn’t “disagree” with Arizona’s argument that its law is legal under Section 2’s “results test.”

The Court is highly likely to agree, and the shrewd liberal Justice Elena Kagan will no doubt tell Chief Justice John Roberts he can get a 9-0 ruling by holding that the Ninth Circuit committed a clear error in overturning the lower court findings of fact. But that would be a lost opportunity.

Arizona’s election laws are clearly not a violation of Section 2 as a matter of law, and the Court needs to protect state procedures that protect ballot integrity from electioneering lawsuits. But it would be even better if the Court goes further and clearly defines what the language of Section 2 means.

Courts have defined this so broadly that it has invited political mischief and judicial activism on an ad hoc basis. As the Chief Justice wrote in a memo when he served in the Reagan Justice Department, “Violations of Section 2 should not be made too easy to prove, since they provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.”

That’s exactly what Americans saw in 2020, with enormous damage to public confidence in the election results. With so much political contention over voting access and election laws at the current moment, the Court needs to set proper parameters around Section 2 to distinguish between real and invented legal violations.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1654 on: March 03, 2021, 11:05:23 AM »
GA election reform bills

good start

now we need to block the dirty democrats
goal of nationalizing elections in a way it makes cheating even more of
the norm

which CNN makes a f'n point of every time anyone brings it up they label it the : "THE BIG LIE"

as though nothing happened though it was in plain sight fro 330 million to see
though many want to ignore it
for reparations free schooling
guaranteed income
and the rest

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
2nd post.
« Reply #1655 on: March 03, 2021, 11:25:07 AM »
capital stormers
repent!

you must admit you were duped by orange man for believing the "big lie"
admit what you say for 2 weeks around election day
was imaginary
and maybe just maybe after you get on your knees and apologize on and for CNN
your sentence just might be commuted

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bruno-cua-trump-capitol-attack-184019458.html
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 05:39:51 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1656 on: March 03, 2021, 05:31:29 PM »
Agree.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
aberdeen Miss demographics
« Reply #1660 on: March 05, 2021, 05:52:32 AM »
Demographics
Historical population
Census   Pop.      %±
1870   2,022      —
1880   2,339      15.7%
1890   3,449      47.5%
1900   3,434      −0.4%
1910   3,708      8.0%
1920   4,071      9.8%
1930   3,925      −3.6%
1940   4,746      20.9%
1950   5,290      11.5%
1960   6,450      21.9%
1970   6,507      0.9%
1980   7,184      10.4%
1990   6,837      −4.8%
2000   6,415      −6.2%
2010   5,612      −12.5%
2019 (est.)   5,205   [3]   −7.3%
U.S. Decennial Census[16]
As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 5,612 people living in the city. 69.2% were African American, 28.8% White, 0.1% Native American, 0.2% Asian, 0.0% Pacific Islander, 0.6% from some other race and 1.0% of two or more races. 1.0% were Hispanic or Latino of any race.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1662 on: March 06, 2021, 10:54:24 AM »
"Haven't watched this yet"

The Texas AG explains that they do have a voter fraud unit that it tiny but still more than other states that have NONE

He states voter fraud is rampant basically
from fraudsters bribing seniors to vote Democrat
illegals voting in droves

The BIG LIE  (up yours CNN and Zucker lying bastards) is really that there is no fraud which is easy to say
when law enforcement is not looking for it or simply looking the other way - or even in on it
Like in the "urban areas"


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1663 on: March 06, 2021, 05:12:46 PM »
Thank you.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Lots of details on HR-1
« Reply #1665 on: March 07, 2021, 12:39:24 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1666 on: March 07, 2021, 04:29:17 PM »
If I understand correctly the argument is that Congress can set rules for Federal elections and that State elections still can set whatever rules they want.  As a practical matter this means the States will fold.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
connections between Clinton , Podesta, Brad Raffensperger, China
« Reply #1668 on: March 08, 2021, 09:10:07 AM »
brad raffnsperger is a never trumper who posted on lincoln project often
it appears
he with Abrams did everything he could to hurt Trump in Nov election :

https://ellacruz.org/2021/03/07/shocking-a-call-for-attorney-lin-wood-very-dangerous-people-are-behind-georgias-corruption/

he needs to be ousted ASAP

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
James Earl Carter
« Reply #1669 on: March 09, 2021, 02:02:33 PM »
saddened by partisanship

( that would stop cheating , fraudulent ballot harvesting , phone ballots, likely voting machine fraud)

because of "SUPRESSION of the vote!)

no matter how hard he tries he was always the Democrat partisan loser and still is:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jimmy-carter-says-hes-sad-184240501.html

He only gets press when he bashes Conservatives
never for anything else





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
.Tom Gallatin article
« Reply #1673 on: March 15, 2021, 10:49:58 AM »
" Illegal aliens obviously do not have the right to vote, yet they still afford Democrats a sizable opportunity for greater political power if they count toward a district’s population."

Let us not forget that all their children (millions of anchor babies) thanks to the 14 th amendment are automatic citizens is one reason why Dems want to lower voting age to 16

anyone thinks the majority will vote Republican on the basis of "conservative values "
    (the GWB theory)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: .Tom Gallatin article
« Reply #1674 on: March 15, 2021, 12:28:44 PM »
quote author=ccp
" Illegal aliens obviously do not have the right to vote, yet they still afford Democrats a sizable opportunity for greater political power if they count toward a district’s population."

   - Right.  They are counted in the Census, use the schools and healthcare, receive payments, and some do vote.


"Let us not forget that all their children (millions of anchor babies) thanks to the 14th amendment one reason why Dems want to lower voting age to 16"

   - Dems say follow the science.  The latest science says the human brain is fully developed by age 26.  Let's change the voting age accordingly.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: .Tom Gallatin article
« Reply #1675 on: March 15, 2021, 12:31:37 PM »
Funny how many stacks of Spanish language voter registration forms i've seen in public buildings. Surely that hasn't been abused!

Illegal aliens are known to be very law abiding!



quote author=ccp
" Illegal aliens obviously do not have the right to vote, yet they still afford Democrats a sizable opportunity for greater political power if they count toward a district’s population."

   - Right.  They are counted in the Census, use the schools and healthcare, receive payments, and some do vote.


"Let us not forget that all their children (millions of anchor babies) thanks to the 14th amendment one reason why Dems want to lower voting age to 16"

   - Dems say follow the science.  The latest science says the human brain is fully developed by age 26.  Let's change the voting age accordingly.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
rest assured while Russia Iran and China tried to influence are election
« Reply #1676 on: March 16, 2021, 03:35:38 PM »
they DID NOT

of course Biden won fair and square.  :wink:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/election/2021/03/16/id/1014055/





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1681 on: March 18, 2021, 02:04:24 PM »
Of course
he takes back what he said

look what happens
no democrat lawyers are gong to rush forward praise him for being a whistle blower and sell the con he is a saint and courageous to the left wing media

telling a story about something that supports anything on the right is met with threats

a mail man has no say
could be fired
lose benefits etc.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1682 on: March 18, 2021, 07:49:18 PM »
He was not believable when he accused but he is fully believable when he retracts.  No bias in that.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18349
    • View Profile
This keep getting into yahoo headlines
« Reply #1684 on: March 21, 2021, 04:40:13 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sham-candidate-helped-flip-florida-141301334.html

only Republicans cheat

suddenly harvesting votes is "unlawful"

paid someone to run as 3rd party candidate - threat to election integrity - threat to democracy.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: More on HR-1
« Reply #1687 on: March 23, 2021, 08:31:52 AM »
Could someone post the actual content of the article please?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/22/people-act-democrats-election-overhaul-extends-far/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=TMRqlDT6iGu9TI03CYlc5yWFi6tvuD%2Fbcu7TPaTM9sm%2BJJ%2F35rfExdDFI3eY1TwT&bt_ts=1616454424159

'Absolute power grab': Dems' election overhaul extends far beyond ballot box
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., meet with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 12, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., meet with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 12, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Monday, March 22, 2021


Democrats are championing their massive election overhaul as a voting rights bill, but their proposal reaches far beyond the ballot box, with dictates on how candidates may run for office and restrictions on how states can challenge the sweeping regulations in court.

At least six sections in the more than 800-page bill potentially run afoul of the Constitution, legal scholars say, including requirements that states offer automatic and same-day voter registration, rules on the expansion of mail-in voting and provisions for creating commissions charged with redrawing congressional districts. The bill also calls for an ethics code for the Supreme Court and mandates that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns.

The bill, which is titled the For the People Act, takes the unusual step of mandating a singular process for challenging the proposed laws.

The bill would require that legal challenges be filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, preventing states such as Texas, Georgia and North Carolina from contesting various aspects of the legislation at home, where the judges tend to be more conservative.

The bill requires all of the cases to be consolidated in the District to expedite judicial review, forcing every state that wants to challenge the law to do so in a single lawsuit.

“That sounds more like they are just trying to get, in a sense, rid of any challenges as quickly as possible,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative activist group. “Ultimately, this is going to go to the Supreme Court anyway.”

Liberals said dictating where lawsuits must be filed is not new and that the For the People Act doesn’t mandate that all challenges be filed in one lawsuit — only that they should all be considered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which has the most experience handling campaign finance litigation.

“Existing law already mandates that challenges to campaign finance law be filed in D.C.,” said Adav Noti, chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center and a former attorney at the Federal Election Commission. “There is certainly no constitutional issue.”

The conflict over how and where litigation can be filed, and the constitutionality of the overall bill, will be examined when the Senate Rules Committee takes up the legislation at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Democrats defend the bill by pointing to the elections clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress authority over the time, place and manner of congressional elections.

“Congress finds that the Constitution of the United States grants explicit and broad authority to protect the right to vote, to regulate elections for Federal office, to prevent and remedy discrimination in voting, and to defend the Nation’s democratic process,” the legislation reads.

The Democrats’ legislation also mandates that every state allow mail-in ballots to arrive and be counted up to 10 days after Election Day, tempting the type of chaos from the 2020 presidential election when a few states made allowances that delayed results in several states for nearly a week.

“The proposal would not only rig the elections; it would rig the litigation,” said J. Christian Adams, founder of the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s Election Law Center. “It just shows you the whole thing is about rigging a system.”

The Democrats’ overhaul also takes authority away from state legislatures on redistricting and requires every state to create an independent commission to draw congressional district lines.

The law does not specify who in the state will create the commission. However, in states that already use redistricting commissions rather than legislatures to draw district maps, the secretary of state’s office has the responsibility.

Conservatives say the Constitution explicitly bestows the power of drawing congressional districts on states and Congress can’t mandate how a state redraws congressional district lines.

“The Constitution gives the authority to do that to state legislatures,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “It is problematic for Congress to suddenly say state legislatures don’t get to do this.”

Liberals disagree. Mr. Noti said Congress has mandated the drawing of districts for congressional elections for generations.

“It’s a law of Congress that requires congressional districts to be single-member districts. That’s a federal law, not a state law,” he said. “Sticking just to the constitutional criticism, they strike me as pretty uniformly weak.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democrat, said the legislation is legal and lawmakers have a duty to pass it and help Americans overcome barriers to voting.

“Every member of the Senate took an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and that means all 100 of us should be working to defend access to the ballot box,” he said. “It is our responsibility to ensure the ability of every American citizen to participate in the elections.”

After passing the House earlier this month, the legislation is moving through the Senate, where a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans presents a perilous path for most legislation.

House Democrats, particularly liberals, are increasing pressure on Senate Democrats to rewrite rules to force the legislation through the chamber on a party-line vote.

“This is really going to be Armageddon in the Senate,” said Michael E. Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “This is a Democratic wish list to stay in office.”

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, introduced the bill in the upper chamber last week. He said it is needed to counter “racist” Republican-backed legislation in swing states that would suppress voter turnout. He pointed to a proposal in Georgia that would eliminate early voting on Sundays.

“It is to prevent African Americans from voting,” Mr. Schumer said. “It is not democracy when you disenfranchise people by passing Jim Crow laws. That’s not democracy; that’s dictatorship, and that’s where our Republican friends seem to be going.”

The Democrats’ legislation sets the stage for more revisions to election laws.

It orders a study of voter turnout in localities that allow residents younger than 18 to participate in some elections, suggesting Democrats are gearing up to lower the federal voting age.

The bill would require states to accept voter registration requests from anyone 16 and older.

Conservatives warn that allowing voters younger than 18 to participate in federal elections would tempt fraud. Registration rolls at polling places do not specify which voters are younger than 18, and some jurisdictions prohibit the request of photo IDs to review ages and other information.

The elections package also calls for overturning the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which eliminated part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required Southern states to get federal permission when implementing election laws, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ended limits on political spending by corporations.

Though the act doesn’t specifically overturn the Supreme Court’s rulings, it lays out the reasons why they are problematic.

In the section targeting Citizens United, the bill blasts big money in politics and urges Congress to amend the Constitution to allow states to set limits on money used to influence elections.

To address the high court’s ruling in Shelby County, the bill says at least 10 federal courts have found intentional discrimination in elections since the decision was handed down, suggesting the problem persists.

The legislation references the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act enacted in 2019, which “would restore and modernize the Voting Rights Act, in accordance with language from the Shelby County decision.”

The John Lewis Act, championed as part of this major legislation, would renew a federal review process for election law and voting requirement changes nationwide.

Democrats also included a provision to require presidential and vice presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. If the candidates don’t comply, then the Treasury secretary would be required to make the information public.

In a measure far removed from election law, the bill imposes a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Currently, only lower federal courts operate with codes of ethics.

Conservatives said policing the Supreme Court would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers and aims to challenge Republican appointees over their speaking engagements at events hosted by conservative and libertarian groups.

Mr. Levey said left-wing activists file complaints claiming conservative justices violate ethics by speaking at events hosted by the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian group that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

“Given that the left uses that tool much more than the right, I’m sure putting some backbone behind it … will work to the left’s favor,” Mr. Levey said.

Democratic appointees would not be immune. Complaints could be filed against them too for speaking at events hosted by liberal organizations.

Fix the Court, a group that has long championed a code of ethics for the high court and increased transparency, conducted a poll in 2018 that found 86% of Americans support the idea.

“Even as some detractors have noted that a conduct code would not be fully enforceable at the Supreme Court, given there’s no real recourse for noncompliance, I still believe there’s inherent value in what it symbolizes,” said Gabe Roth, Fix the Court’s executive director.

Two provisions of the sprawling bill do not run into much pushback from conservatives. One makes Election Day a legal public holiday, and the other requires that all voting machines be made in America.

Still, a group of Republican senators introduced legislation, the Protect Electoral College Act, which would guarantee authority to state legislatures on setting election laws.

“The Constitution is very clear in Article II Section 1, that state legislatures have the sole responsibility for setting the election laws. They are directly responsible to their state’s voters,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty, Tennessee Republican.

He said the Democrats’ For the People Act is a “power grab.”

“They want to take all of that away through an absolute power grab by incentivizing dangerous behavior: internet registration, no photo ID requirement, automatic felon voting. One of the things that concern me the most is the ability for people to ballot-harvest. It’s going to create a lot more concern about the election at a time when we need to be creating more confidence in our elections,” Mr. Hagerty said.


Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 09:01:30 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1688 on: March 23, 2021, 09:11:56 AM »
Some actual proper journalism in that article.

Thanks for pasting it here for us.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1689 on: March 23, 2021, 09:46:00 AM »
Some actual proper journalism in that article.

Thanks for pasting it here for us.

Really scary legislation. Wonder when, where, by whom it was written. Anyone who underestimates the enemy within now should read this. I'm surprised it doesn't say, when the power grab is complete the new permanent order shall be called the third (fourth?) reich.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1692 on: March 24, 2021, 04:53:03 AM »
Amen!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Epoch Times: Montana
« Reply #1696 on: March 28, 2021, 09:23:51 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-river-of-doubt-runs-through-mail-voting-in-big-sky-country_3747377.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-03-28

"Its conclusions were troubling: 4,592 out of the 72,491 mail-in ballots lacked envelopes—6.33% of all votes. Without an officially printed envelope with registration information, a voter’s signature, and a postmark indicating whether it was cast on time, election officials cannot verify that a ballot is legitimate. It is against the law to count such votes."
...
"One auditor asserted that of 28 envelopes reviewed from the same address, a nursing home, all 28 signatures looked “exactly the same” stylistically."

   - I would like to see the story interrupted there with a story about the resulting prosecutions and prison time.  Vote fraud like bank fraud and armed robbery etc. are things that otherwise law abiding citizens shouldn't be dabbling in.

"Extrapolating from the sub-sample, that would make more than 5,000 of Missoula County’s votes—roughly 7%—with unexplained irregularities."

   - To my Dem friends and family, what is the right amount of vote and irregularities?  How much is acceptable?  The right answer is zero, none, nada.

"The county elections office did not provide access to video footage it claimed to have recorded of vote-counting activities."

   - Did these people lose their job and public retirement benefits?  Getting this stopped is not rocket science.  It simply requires the desire to get this stopped.

"This article was written by John R. Lott Jr. for RealClearInvestigations."

   - Thank God someone is looking into this.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Epoch Times: Montana
« Reply #1697 on: March 28, 2021, 12:46:34 PM »
Don't hold your breath.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-river-of-doubt-runs-through-mail-voting-in-big-sky-country_3747377.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-03-28

"Its conclusions were troubling: 4,592 out of the 72,491 mail-in ballots lacked envelopes—6.33% of all votes. Without an officially printed envelope with registration information, a voter’s signature, and a postmark indicating whether it was cast on time, election officials cannot verify that a ballot is legitimate. It is against the law to count such votes."
...
"One auditor asserted that of 28 envelopes reviewed from the same address, a nursing home, all 28 signatures looked “exactly the same” stylistically."

   - I would like to see the story interrupted there with a story about the resulting prosecutions and prison time.  Vote fraud like bank fraud and armed robbery etc. are things that otherwise law abiding citizens shouldn't be dabbling in.

"Extrapolating from the sub-sample, that would make more than 5,000 of Missoula County’s votes—roughly 7%—with unexplained irregularities."

   - To my Dem friends and family, what is the right amount of vote and irregularities?  How much is acceptable?  The right answer is zero, none, nada.

"The county elections office did not provide access to video footage it claimed to have recorded of vote-counting activities."

   - Did these people lose their job and public retirement benefits?  Getting this stopped is not rocket science.  It simply requires the desire to get this stopped.

"This article was written by John R. Lott Jr. for RealClearInvestigations."

   - Thank God someone is looking into this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69114
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1698 on: March 28, 2021, 05:26:45 PM »
In this moment I think it important that we do not leave the field of the battle of ideas with the giant fart left by the interface of Pravda lies and thought police and Trump's (and Sydney Powell and Rudy G et al) final moves.  If we do not, the conclusion drawn by the general populace will be that it was all bombastic lying puffery by Trump.

To do this I think would be grave error.

An article like this I think has clear value in communicating the legitimacy of our case-- precisely because it has nothing to do with Trump-- and because the mechanics of the fraud are readily understood.