quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
Cruz will stand up. I have no doubt.

So all they need are two in each chamber?

Then the House votes by state? We have it then.

The problem is Harris will be VP then though because the Senate trash like Romney will vote for her.

There are ways to deal with a VP... Permanent assignment as Ambassador to Antarctica!

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
Cruz will stand up. I have no doubt.

So all they need are two in each chamber?

Then the House votes by state? We have it then.

The problem is Harris will be VP then though because the Senate trash like Romney will vote for her.

That's not quite right. In that scenario, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 will come into play. It states that “Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”

The Republicans can do this for each contested state's electors. You can count on at least 4 Republican senators voting against us (you can guess who they are). With a tie, 48-48, the tie is broken by the state's governor who would certify the results.

Everything here is a huge longshot at this point. If nothing else, the ECA can be used as a delaying tactic. But can they delay it enough where it finally would go to the House delegates and the Senate? Not likely.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

That's not quite right. In that scenario, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 will come into play. It states that “Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”

The Republicans can do this for each contested state's electors. You can count on at least 4 Republican senators voting against us (you can guess who they are). With a tie, 48-48, the tie is broken by the state's governor who would certify the results.

Everything here is a huge longshot at this point. If nothing else, the ECA can be used as a delaying tactic. But can they delay it enough where it finally would go to the House delegates and the Senate? Not likely.

Thanks. So that putz in the video makes it sound like we have a chance that way, but we don't. There is no way Romney will ever help us along with the other two idiots. If just the House votes by state then that will help us.

Otherwise, the Insurrection Act is the only path. That's if the guy in the video was correct about that. If the military is sent into each state to do a full and forensic recount we probably pull that out.

Money From Facebook’s Zuckerberg Used to Undermine Election, Violate Law: Report
By Zachary Stieber
December 16, 2020 Updated: December 16, 2020

Hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was used to violate election laws, according to a new report.

The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a national constitutional litigation organization, released the 39-page report, alleging that Zuckerberg’s $500 million given to election officials was used to treat voters unequally and improperly influence the election for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The bulk of the funds went to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a nonprofit started by former managers and staff at the New Organizing Institute, a progressive nonprofit.

According to the report, the nonprofit earlier this year “began sending agents into states to recruit certain Democrat strongholds to prepare grants requesting monies from” it.

For example, the center gave $100,000 to Cory Mason, the mayor of Racine, Wisconsin, to recruit four other cities to develop a plan and request a larger grant from it. Those five cities submitted such a plan in June and received $6.3 million to implement it.

That kind of privatization of elections “undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters,” the report states.

“The provision of Zuckerberg-CTCL funds allowed these Democrat strongholds to spend roughly $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of the state. Moreover, this recruiting of targeted jurisdictions for specific government action and funding runs contrary to legislative election plans and invites government to play favorites in the election process.”


Mason’s spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment, nor did a Facebook spokesperson nor CTCL’s media office.

“This effectively is a shadow government running our elections,” Phill Kline, director of the Amistad Project, said at a press conference in Virginia.

“Government has the core responsibility of managing elections. We don’t put out elections for bid. We don’t have elections brought to you by Coca Cola. It is government’s job to manage elections, and it must do so without a thumb on the scale,” he added.

The project said the main foundations funding the efforts include The Democracy Fund, New Venture Fund, Skoll Foundation, and Knight Foundation

Other nonprofits deemed key to distributing the money besides CTCL were named as the Center for Electronic Innovation Research, the Center for Civic Design, the National Vote at Home Institute, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, and Rock the Vote.

None immediately responded to requests for comment.

LINK

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, thank God the "high court" has its priorities in order.

High court agrees to hear NCAA athlete compensation case

https://sports.yahoo.com/high-...-ncaa-145039314.html

Well they are a busy bunch!!

quote:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to salvage a Kansas law that required residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, despite pleas from Kansas lawyers and almost 20 red states.

Link

Trump Lawyer: Campaign Wasn’t ‘Allowed a Forensic Audit’ of Nevada Voting Machines
By Jack Phillips
December 16, 2020 Updated: December 16, 2020
biggersmaller Print

One of President Donald Trump’s election lawyers told Senators that their team’s efforts in Nevada to obtain evidence to file lawsuits were met with denials from relevant election officials.

“Paper [ballot] backups that were supposed to provide such transparency” were not given to the team, said lawyer Jesse Binnall on Wednesday in front of the Senate Homeland Security committee. Binnall said that across the “entire state of Nevada,” there was “zero transparency” from election officials.

What’s more, he said, Trump’s lawyers were “denied any meaningful discovery in the case to examine the full extent of the voter fraud” that allegedly occurred in the state, including their investigations into whether 4,000 non-U.S. citizens voted. The suit also alleged that more than 60,000 people voted twice or were not residents of Nevada.

On Dec. 4, Judge James Russell denied the campaign’s lawsuit.

Russell wrote in his order that the Trump campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.”

State election officials declared they saw no evidence of voter fraud or irregularities in Nevada that would overturn the result of the election in the state, which has six Electoral College votes.

But in the hearing, Binnall said that Trump’s campaign didn’t have enough time to obtain evidence, as per the judge’s ruling.

“We couldn’t put that into evidence because the court ruled that it was too late,” the lawyer noted on Wednesday, saying they only had about “three days” to procure evidence of irregularities or fraud.

As they probed the alleged irregularities, Binnall said they were also refused access by state election officials to the code of voting machines for a forensic review or whether “they were hooked up to the internet,” while accusing the state of “denying transparency.” He stated: “We weren’t allowed near them … we weren’t allowed a forensic audit.”

The state election officials, he argued, told Trump’s team that the voting machine software code “is proprietary,” meaning it’s not open source due to intellectual property rights. Binnall, however, flagged this explanation as problematic as these machines aided in vote-counting.

“We were denied [transparency] at every single turn” in Nevada, he said, adding that one Nevada official “locked himself in his office” and wouldn’t open the door when Trump’s lawyers tried to serve him a subpoena.

According to a sworn affidavit citing Nevada DMV records, some 3,987 non-American citizens voted in the state on Nov. 3. In Nevada, both illegal and legal non-citizens can obtain drivers’ licenses or ID cards. It’s illegal for non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections.

The Epoch Times has reached out for a comment from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office following Binnall’s remarks.

LINK

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Well they are a busy bunch!!

quote:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to salvage a Kansas law that required residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, despite pleas from Kansas lawyers and almost 20 red states.

Cowards!
If you don't have to prove citizenship when registering to vote, then what does voting mean?
Well, apparently not much if stealing an election in one State, which clearly affects and damages the rest of us, won't be taken up by this same Court because they say we don't have 'standing'. Cowards!

Lastmanstanding, that story about Kansas is unreal. The three new justices all seem to be disappointments. Too many globalists around him making recommendations. Not his fault because the Swamp has infiltrated everything.

This is an orchestrated reset like Trudeau said.

How can an illegal non citizen obtain a ID card or drivers license?

quote:

Originally posted by KLGUY:
How can an illegal non citizen obtain a ID card or drivers license?

In the god-forsaken state of California, they'll give him a DL regardless.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/1...courts-codify-chaos/

Reckless Courts Codify Chaos

Republican cowardice, a missing Justice Department, and feckless judges—not a few lawsuits—are the true dangers to our democracy.

Flagrant election cheating in several swing states, it seems, is of no interest to the self-appointed watchdogs of American democracy or even to those specifically tasked with investigating such unlawfulness.

The U.S. Department of Justice, despite its preachy corporate motto, is thus far blind to it. Journalists and professional pundits on both sides of the aisle downplay talk of what has happened as “baseless conspiracy theories” pushed by cult-like Trump loyalists. Most Senate Republicans are eager to move on while ignoring provable instances of voting fraud in their own states and urging the president to concede “for the good of the country.”

Even with a potentially power-shifting Senate election on January 5, no one seems particularly motivated to quickly remedy how absentee ballots have been mishandled, manipulated, and doctored in the 2020 presidential election.

And the entity usually considered the final and most impartial arbiter of injustice in the country—the court system—now, too, is in on the election fix.

Using COVID-19 panic as the pretext, election officials across the country turned a once-venerated quadrennial tradition into a rogue farce. Nearly 66 million mail-in votes were cast in the 2020 presidential election, double the number from 2016; the overwhelming majority were for Joe Biden.

Numerous lawsuits have detailed how state election laws, particularly those related to mail-in ballots, were broken. One would think that given Biden’s slim margin of victory in three states—only about 250,000 votes separate Biden from President Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—judges sworn to uphold the rule of law might exhibit at least a passing interest in exhausting all the evidence.

After all, if Americans can’t depend on the Justice Department or their state attorneys general, Democrats in those three states, or even local Republican leaders to come to the rescue, surely the black-robed referees perched on the bench will step up, right?

Wrong. Not only are the courts dismissing lawsuits, judges are setting dangerous precedents that will have more election-eroding consequences later.

Let’s start with the U.S. Supreme Court. In a terse, unsatisfying two-sentence statement on Friday, the court refused to consider the lawsuit filed December 7 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, subsequently joined by his colleagues in 19 states as well as 126 Republican congressmen and the Trump campaign.

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the court order read. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed, commenting the court “do[es] not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

Constitutional experts lauded the ruling as appropriate and described the Texas lawsuit as “dangerous” and “reckless.” Voters in Texas and other aggrieved states, the legal eagles warned, have no “standing” to challenge how other states administer their elections under the Elector’s Clause established in Article II of the Constitution.

But the notion that one state does not have an “interest” in how another state elects the president of the United States is absurd. Let’s take it a step further: What if Pennsylvania in the future allows noncitizens to vote legally in presidential elections? What if Michigan decides to give people of color two votes to compensate for past election “disenfranchisement?” What if Wisconsin allows people under the age of 18 to vote for president?

Those laws, which seem far-fetched but become closer to reality each election, clearly favor Democrats and would pose an insurmountable hurdle for Republican candidates in swing states. The rest of the country would be held hostage to the power-hungry whims of Democratic politicians and bureaucrats in decisive states. Americans are entitled to a better explanation from the court about how arbitrary election rules don’t in fact violate the 14th Amendment, as the Texas petitioners also charged.

(In another sign justices are reluctant to rile Democratic interest groups, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to review a lower-court decision that ruled Kansas’ voter registration requirement for proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, violates federal law. Ironically the plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed the Kansas law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, an argument the court just upheld.)

Administering fair elections with similar laws that honor the Constitution is part of the compact between states; once that deal is off, only the Supreme Court can calibrate the balance. The court in October also declined, without explanation, to reverse a lower court ruling that let Pennsylvania count mail-in ballots received three days after Election Day, including ballots in envelopes without postmarks.

Further, the Texas lawsuit didn’t challenge the right of states to write their own election laws. The petitioners argued, correctly, that government officials, both elected and unelected, broke the laws. As I summarized here, rules approved by state lawmakers, per the Constitution, were ignored or changed without permission. Elections workers in two states pre-canvased and “cured” ballots weeks before they were legally allowed. Michigan’s Secretary of State, without legal authority, sent 7.7 million mail-in ballot applications to registered voters.

Election workers in Wisconsin actually filled in missing addresses on certification envelopes . Without approval by Wisconsin’s legislature, appointed members of the Wisconsin Election Commission on October 19 instructed local election clerks to “resolve any missing witness address information prior to Election Day if possible, and this can be done through reliable information (personal knowledge, voter registration information, through a phone call with the voter or witness.)”

Although that guidance contradicted state law, Wisconsin’s highest court, channeling Bill Clinton, disputed the meaning of the word “address.”

“While a witness address must be provided on the certification for the corresponding ballot to be counted, the statute is silent as to what portion of an address the witness must provide.” Never mind that every person with a functioning brain understands an address to involve a street number, city, state, and ZIP code; since the Wisconsin legislature didn’t spell out what is generally accepted as common knowledge, election workers could enter the information themselves without anyone present to verify it was correct and without the voter’s knowledge.

Not to be outdone, the highly partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court quibbled about the term “observers.” Once again using COVID-19 as the excuse, the court accepted “social distancing” barriers set up in the Philadelphia Convention Center that confined poll watchers to at least 15 feet away from canvassing tables and behind a “waist-high security fence.” Trump campaign officials could not verify that the more than 370,000 mail-in ballots processed at the huge facility met all state requirements. (According to one election data portal, only 232 mail-in ballots were rejected in Philadelphia County in the 2020 general election.)

Even though Republican observers couldn’t see the information on the envelopes, the fact that they could see the entire canvassing operation, albeit from a distance, satisfied the 5-2 majority Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court. “Given that observers are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots, we conclude, based on the witness’s testimony, that the Board of Elections has complied with the observation requirements,” the court ruled November 17.

So, while most Republican leaders cower to the mob, the Justice Department remains (in President Trump’s words) “missing in action,” and Georgia election officials prepare to administer the same faithless election next month as they did last month, federal judges toy with words and pass the buck.

And that, not a few lawsuits, is both reckless and dangerous to democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
Lastmanstanding, that story about Kansas is unreal. The three new justices all seem to be disappointments. Too many globalists around him making recommendations. Not his fault because the Swamp has infiltrated everything.

Remember when we all thought Comey was the straight shooter? Yep he's going to get the right thing done. Then Sessions was going to put some teeth into the bark of the DOJ.
Then Wray was supposedly going to straighten out the FBI. Then Barr came along and yeah he's our man finally someone is going to get arrested! And then he appoints the special prosecutor Durham the no nonsense prosecutor to bring the coup plotters to justice. Comey and the rest are sweating bullets now!

Then it was Gorsuch, then Kavanaugh and finally the gifts of all gifts RBG tips over and we get ACB! I can't stand all this winning!! But yet here we are on the verge of our entire Republic collapsing. No this is not Trumps fault at all. I said in another post he had to rely on misleading information and obviously appointment recommendations that those who had his ear knowingly knew would not promote his agenda.

Now you have to wonder about all these judges McConnel was working so hard to approve. Whose agenda was he really serving? The real truth of what is and has been going on is probably much more frightening than what we do know.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, thank God the "high court" has its priorities in order.

High court agrees to hear NCAA athlete compensation case

Okay, that's nuts. To what address do we mail our "Hey, SCOTUS, what were you guys thinking?" letters?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

...

Flagrant election cheating in several swing states, it seems, is of no interest to the self-appointed watchdogs of American democracy or even to those specifically tasked with investigating such unlawfulness.

...

^^This is the crux of it.

There is WAY more than enough evidence to get the ball (official investigations) rolling.

But...all the evidence in the world doesn't mean anything if none of those in authority will not pursue truth and justice.

So here we are...

$.02 worth,
Boss

quote:

To what address do we mail our "Hey, SCOTUS, what were you guys thinking?" letters?

General Contact Information:

U.S. Mail:
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Telephone: 202-479-3000

Thank you, chellim1.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Well, thank God the "high court" has its priorities in order.

High court agrees to hear NCAA athlete compensation case

Okay, that's nuts. To what address do we mail our "Hey, SCOTUS, what were you guys thinking?" letters?

Save your postage. They don't give a crap.

That SCOTUS is deliberately avoiding anything to do with any election is bad enough.
But the obvious, willful stupidity of the various state 'supremes' in rendering 'judgements' regarding election disputes busts right on through bordering on and right into blatantly criminal behavior. For these oathtakers to be the end of the line, where the buck stops, regarding law in their respective states and have them behaving in this manner is utterly unacceptable. For some of them in one state to adjudge QED evident criminal behavior under their own state statutes to be not be. For these people to have abdicated their responsibility to uphold laws means only two things: They are mentally impaired and should be removed to a qualified care facility to see if they can be helped ~or~ they are in fact acting in a voluntary criminal mode and are abusing their position and should be removed, tried and incarcerated. Given the trust inherent to their position and the blatancy of their crimes, I currently feel a life sentence is not too much.

Hearing of abuses of power has always touched a nerve with me and I've not been thinking very Christian at the moment but I will not apologize for it.

quote:

That SCOTUS is deliberately avoiding anything to do with any election is bad enough.

This is not true. They were happy to consider and rule against a case brought by Kansas and twenty other red states requiring residents to show ID when registering to vote. See my link a page or two back. So they certainly are willing to hear some cases in regards to elections. But apparently only the ones that will damage voter integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

Save your postage. They don't give a crap.

You don't have "standing."