Actual Evidence for Claims of Election Issues (fraud, vote switching, etc.)

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Gryphon66

The envelopes are separated from their ballots to insure a private vote. It's Georgia regulation.

I should have been clearer on this. The accusation is that ballots were separated from the envelopes before signatures were verified, and no audit has been done on them. How true that is I do not know, and probably never will. What's done is done in this instance.

That's the Catch-22 and classic "rigging an election 101" 😃

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ras321

U.S. Code says this:

3 U.S. Code § 1 - Time of appointing electors

The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Sounds like the electors are to be appointed on election day. Unless:

3 U.S. Code § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

The election was held on the proper day, but since all the votes were not counted a choice was not made on that day. Quite reasonable. The question would seem to be, are there state laws on the books which cover this? Laws, which say in effect "count all the votes."

I'm pretty sure it's been quite a while since all of the votes had been counted by midnight in many states. Why is it suddenly an issue?


www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...

For clarity...

State elections that fail to choose winners by the Midnight deadline enacted in 3 U.S.C. § 1, immediately trigger the authority of 3 U.S.C. § 2, giving the Legislatures alone a Congressional extension to choose electors thereafter. As such, the failed elections are void, and all State statutes drafted to discern a winner after Election Day are preempted by 3 U.S.C § 1, and § 2.

Link

a reply to: Gryphon66


twitter.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Gryphon66

The envelopes are separated from their ballots to insure a private vote. It's Georgia regulation.

I should have been clearer on this. The accusation is that ballots were separated from the envelopes before signatures were verified, and no audit has been done on them. How true that is I do not know, and probably never will. What's done is done in this instance.

That's the Catch-22 and classic "rigging an election 101" 😃

Indeed.

a reply to: Klassified
Yes. I read that. Interesting interpretation.

But doesn't the legislature make laws? If there is such a law, isn't that something which the legislature has determined? Say, for example, a law that says the popular vote is used to appoint electors. Like I said, I don't think this is the first time votes were being counted after midnight.

In any case, as far as Pennsylvania goes, here's what another legal mind had to say about it.

"But once a state legislature proceeds to have an election, they have chosen to appoint their electors that way and now that legislature can’t just arbitrarily declare that they’ve decided to scrap those electors and choose new ones – just because there are some problems figuring out the results."

"Once votes are cast, electors are chosen – we don’t know who they are if the results are still being counted, and/or legally contested, but they have been chosen," Allen said. "The state legislature is not empowered to choose an alternate set.”

www.ydr.com...

Perhaps Pennsylvania will change their law. In any case, I'm not sure this fits in with the OP's intent for the topic.

a reply to: Phage

In any case, I'm not sure this fits in with the OP's intent for the topic.

Probably not, so I'll just say in cases such as you mention in the quote above, the U.S. constitution would supersede PA's state constitution. So the state legislature is given that authority by the U.S. Constitution. At least, that is my understanding. I'm not qualified to argue with a JD, so I'll let them debate it.

a reply to: Klassified

I will be the first to admit, when I initially read the article you linked from Ms. Jander (Klassified's link ) my first thought was "My God, how has the whole country missed this for my whole life???" On first glance, the wording of the decision does indeed seem to suggest that every part of a Federal Election in a State (Represenatives, Senators and the President) must be held and conducted on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October.

How have we always held "early voting" then? was the first question that sprang into my mind. How has every other State that I know anything about? What about Georgia?

I mean, it's very plain from the georgia.gov :

VOTE EARLY IN PERSON
Registered voters in Georgia can vote in person before Election Day.

Early voting (sometimes referred to as advanced voting) can help Georgia voters avoid crowds or find a time to vote that’s better for their schedules in the weeks prior to Election Day.

And then the site goes on to discuss the procedure and the resources involved to wit: you have to be registered to vote, you have to provide a Real ID, lists out the "Early Voting" locations in each county, etc. etc.

Furthermore, wasn't that question the same one that had been brought before the Supreme Court in the suit brought by the Pennsylvania GOP and Representatives, right? Not to mention the suit brought by Texas, et. al. against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Texas v. Pennsylvania et. al.

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution

There's the question clearly stated. Did PA, GA, et. al. ignore the Constitution? Did they allow "non-legislative actions" to change the election rules?

This argument was roundly rejected by SCOTUS on December 11, 2020 in Texas v. Pennsylvania, and on December 8th in Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

Order in Pending case Texas v. Pennsylvania, et. al.

Order in Pending case Scarnati et. al.

So, finally, all respect to Ms. Jander, but given that every State has early voting, and the matter was brought on two occasions and answered on two occasions (December 8 and December 11) but the SCOTUS disagrees with her position in Love etc.

a reply to: Phage

Your posts are spot on for the intention of the thread. Klassified brought a reasonable argument from Ms. Jander based in case law. Both of your additions to the thread are greatly appreciated.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Gryphon66

The envelopes are separated from their ballots to insure a private vote. It's Georgia regulation.

I should have been clearer on this. The accusation is that ballots were separated from the envelopes before signatures were verified, and no audit has been done on them. How true that is I do not know, and probably never will. What's done is done in this instance.

That's the Catch-22 and classic "rigging an election 101" 😃

Okay, that's an opinion but it is not borne out by the facts. Your claim is that the State of Georgia's procedures for certifying absentee votes are not only illegal but also intended to steal votes?

Again, from the Secretary of State Raffensperger:

Processing Your Voted Absentee Ballot

Once the information on the oath envelope is verified, the registrar will compare your absentee ballot oath envelope to your voter registration card to verify your signature, as well as compare your signature on the ballot envelope with your signature on the absentee application. On Election Day, the ballot and the envelope are separated to ensure confidentiality of the ballot. This process, and the processing and counting of absentee ballots shall be open to the public.
If the absentee ballot is challenged, and that challenge is upheld, the ballot remains in the envelope, is not counted, and the reason is indicated on the envelop

Lawsuits addressing this issue have been dismissed repeatedly by the 11th Circuit (Federal) Court. Wood v. Raffensperger etl. al.

Just to further sustain what we found about "early voting" this is accomplished by completing an absentee ballot in person (referred to as Advance Voting) which is subject to all normal requirements for ID etc.

ABSENTEE VOTING IN PERSON (ADVANCE VOTING)
Applying For Your Absentee Ballot and Voting
Voting any time prior to Election Day, even at a precinct, is absentee voting. You will complete an absentee ballot application in person at the early voting location immediately prior to casting your vote.

Voting Your Ballot
After casting your ballot, you will be entered into the voter registration system as "voted" and your vote will be tabulated on Election Day.

Citation, ibid

The claims that States (Georgia, PA, et. al.) have acted against the US Constitution and their own laws in at least two cases brought all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (Scarnati and Texas) have been answered and seem to me at least to clear up the "election irregularities" question.

However, anyone who wishes to bring an argument based on fact with backup, please do so.

What's next?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Why did the Russian collusion investigation take three years?
But this one took three weeks over a holiday season.

Who you trying to convince?

I was tempted to make a joke about how much evidence there was in each case but the truth makes your post even funnier.

Burden of proof.

The burden of proof falls on different sides.

Surely you can grasp that.

Surely you can grasp the difference between three weeks and three years.
Will you be on board with a three year investigation this time?

I spent longer than usual on that post, reducing the difference between the two cases into a short, simple explanation and it still went over your head.

Let's try another way. It took years to build the case re Russia and, what, three hours, three days, not long to build the case for election interference, complete with drunken witnesses and special ops raids on servers in Frankfurt.

A carefully, painfully constructed case takes a long time to pick apart. A carelessly constructed case takes no time at all to dismiss.

Maybe if Trump spent his Stop the Steal money on building a solid case, instead of skimming the funds, the cult would have a case that wasn't so easy to dismiss.

I'll give exactly as many ficks as I did last time. It's all spectacle, not power.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

I have mentioned elsewhere my conclusion that the Trump, et. al. efforts are so poorly constructed and presented so as to make it clear to me that they aren't seriously trying to prove their claims. The failure rate seems to confirm that.

I mean if we back away from the entire process since Election Day, to me it seems obvious. From misfilings, mispellings, repetition of failed arguments, special pleadings, etc.

At any rate, I think it's valuable to continue to look at the evidence of all claims seriously ... and I thank you and everyone else for your posts. Let's keep going!

m.facebook.com...

I'm in Pa. More votes than registered voters.
Plus no postmark, drop boxes not secured, more in link.
Plus the State Supreme Court, Governor, SoS illegally changing voting laws bypassing the legislators.

originally posted by: mugger
m.facebook.com...

I'm in Pa. More votes than registered voters.
Plus no postmark, drop boxes not secured, more in link.
Plus the State Supreme Court, Governor, SoS illegally changing voting laws bypassing the legislators.

Your link goes to another version of the material a few Republican Representatives in PA (Russ Diamond and others) that are claiming that the certified vote totals for your state are off by more than 200K. Rep. Diamond's Webpage

Here's the problem. Your states electronic elections system SURE (Statewide Uniform Registry of Voters) notes completely different totals than Rep Diamond is claiming to wit, total votes 6,853,095 which agrees with neither of the totals on Diamond's graphic which claims the SURE system as its source.

These are some of the same legislators that took the matter to the Supreme Court about the several claims. The matter failed.

We've already addressed the claims that voting laws were illegally changed in two specific cases, finding that there's no basis for the claim legally.

Which laws and other evidence for the claims did you want to discuss specifically?

a reply to: Gryphon66
You missed an integral part of Ms. Jander's legal opinion and a quote from the court itself about early voting...

This case thus does not present the question whether a State must always employ the conventional mechanics of an election. We hold today only that if an election does take place, it may not be consummated prior to federal election day.

That aside, we could debate this ad infinitum with source after source and quote after quote, but I'm just going to concede that legally I'm in over my head. Agree or disagree, I appreciate the civil discourse. It is proof that it can still be achieved even in times of great division.

Our law is often ambiguous and open to interpretation similar to religious texts to be honest. A win or loss in court is not about right or wrong, but rests on the situational interpretation of law. When we don't like the results we get from one court, we appeal to the next highest and the highest after that. I'm not saying that's good or bad in this context, just that it is the way things are in our system.

a reply to: Klassified

I didn't miss anything I don't think. I brought up early voting, neither you nor your article had mentioned that, right?

The absentee ballots are collected during early voting and held until Election Day when they are processed (counted.)

I copied the portion of the Georgia information that stated that.

Ms. Jander's argument that you brought up doesn't touch on "early voting" does it? Her claim was that the decision in Love v. Foster means that all votes have to be counted by midnight on Election Day? Or did I misunderstand?

Do you agree that the PA lawsuit and the Texas lawsuit made those claims as well to the Supreme Court? It seems clear to me that the matter is clear ... Federal statute prevents the election from being cured (completed or resolved) prior to Election day, and the voting cannot extend beyond Election day, and hasn't in any cases we've brought up. The extension of three days in receipt of ballots mailed in PA postmarked by Election day is not illegal, or against the Constitution, etc. according to the SCOTUS. The votes were "delivered" by the voter when they put them in the mail before Election day (i.e. they were given into the custody of the US) and the limitation of 3 days was sufficient for those votes to arrive. (Also of note, those votes were sequestered by Alito's order, and counted separately, and didn't make a change in the outcome.)

We could debate it surely, but I'll be the first to admit that I am not an attorney, but also, I will observe that this is not a courtroom, right? I mean as far as what has been decided legally, it's pretty clear that the claims of exception about changing laws, judicial "legislation" and so forth are moot. Every case that has been brought forward, as you noted yourself, has been unsuccessful.

The votes have been certified, the EC has voted, Congress will affirm the votes and Biden will be inaugurated.

My intention here is not to pound on that fact. What I hope for here is that the "massive fraud and election exceptions" can be brought out, the evidence looked at as you and I have done, and we can come to some sort of agreement if not consensus that both sides have looked at the evidence, presented arguments, and are dealing honestly?

As you have, as I think I have. Thanks again.

So ... what's left

Election "irregularities"
Dominion software glitches and vote switching
Organized election fraud from officials
Conspiracy invovlving DOJ, FBI, DHS, State and Federal Courts, Supreme Court of the US.

Anyone want to bring us an argument??

The guy that cast a vote for Trump under his dead mother's name. That one is verified and he has plead guilty.

Update (Arizona)

The small-scale Dominion voting system forensic audits have turned up so much vote-switching in Michigan and Georgia, the Arizona Attorney General has determined that Maricopa (Phoenix) county Dominion machines need an immediate forensic examination too.

Source: twitter.com...