The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

a reply to: IndieA

Thank God they can't cover-up the whole truth.

Amen.

I'm keeping an eye on Wisconsin right now... lots of folks making moves and bold statements to decertify 2020 after the unconstitutional and unsecured use of dropboxes. No new evidence or real action though.

Something seems to be building. Or maybe not. We'll see.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply to: tanstaafl
You don't want to set that precedent.

Irrelevant to the point. She can most definitely be impeached, for any reason whatsoever.

The Supreme court would overturn it if there is no cause.

Biden is a temporary problem, lasting 8 years at the longest, 4 years more likely, and we're already through the first one and a half of them.

As I said, there are fully adequate reasons to impeach O'Biden, we were talking about Harris.

Ironic that you disagree so whole heartedly with the reasoning of the founders.

By all means, provide me with a link to any Founding Father who thought it would be a good idea to do anything even remotely like what you described.

Their reasoning with regard to separation of powers was via the three separate branches - not creating multiple Executive Departments purporting to serve the same purpose and create utter chaos an confusion.

Technically, the founders didn't provide for a police force of any sort. Small towns just did it all with volunteers at first, and after that the states handled it internally.

It was left up to the states entirely until the mid 20th century, when automobiles came about, and bank robbers started robbing banks and then driving over the state line to the next state.

This was only possible to get past the supreme court by calling it "interstate commerce". (Ever wonder why in Federal Court you are tried as a "commericial entity"?)

So probably the FBI shouldn't exist. But if it were going to exist, wouldn't you want it to be policed by someone?

But.... who will police the entity that polices them? Perhaps the two entities could police each other? Or do you have a better idea? (Please don't tell me your plan is to just trust the FBI to do its job with no supervision.)

Again, your ideas was the dumbest one I've ever heard, and I've heard some doosies.

Own it.

I will if you propose a better one.



But just to stay on topic, I'm only thinking about this stuff because the FBI seems to be standing down right now....

What is with all of the spaces in your text??? It looks normal in your post, but when quoted, there are 9+ spaces between most sentectes, and at the end of paragraphs... ???

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply to: tanstaafl

The Supreme court would overturn it if there is no cause.

I guess you missed the fact that impeachments are beyond judicial review?

Cone on, man!

Technically, the founders didn't provide for a police force of any sort. Small towns just did it all with volunteers at first, and after that the states handled it internally.

It was left up to the states entirely until the mid 20th century, when automobiles came about, and bank robbers started robbing banks and then driving over the state line to the next state.

A fairly reasonable outline of what happened, so two lollipops for that - although that was just the excuse used. You don't think some criminal had ever crossed State Lines before?

This was only possible to get past the supreme court by calling it "interstate commerce".

Yes, the commerce clause is one of the main things in the Constitution that needs to be amended per my personal pet project called 'The Perfect Constitution', which is simply a fairly small list of changes needed to 'perfect' it.

(Ever wonder why in Federal Court you are tried as a "commericial entity"?)

Please don't tell me you're one of those UCC nut-jobs. Of course, as with most things, there is just enough truth to the notion to ensnare people.

So probably the FBI shouldn't exist.

In its current form? BINGO.

But if it were going to exist, wouldn't you want it to be policed by someone?

But.... who will police the entity that polices them? Perhaps the two entities could police each other? Or do you have a better idea? (Please don't tell me your plan is to just trust the FBI to do its job with no supervision.)

No, I'm not silly like some people here...

Of course I have a better idea, but the answer is certainly not some equally-powerful-but-competing agency that will only quickly be taken over by the same people running things now, and we'd simply have double the problem we have now.

No, for problems like this, we should resort to the ultimate power from where all political power flows: The People. We are the ultimate Authority after all, as the Supreme Court has said multiple times. I forget the case, but we are known as 'Sovereigns without Subjects'', and incidentally this was the case that the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement was based on, but was quickly converted/perverted (probably by Fed infiltrators) into the silly group of today.

The People. As they say, the buck stops here..

It should be some kind of Citizen constituted Review Board with similar powers to Grand Juries, but operated the way Grand Juries used to (and still could be if they would only take back their power) operate: fully outside the purview of any government actor or agency. Yes, Grand Juries, even today, could evict the Prosecutor and work on their own authority, and that is exactly how they operated up until the early 1900's, when the government was able to successfully subvert/usurp the process.

Anyway, these Boards should be mostly decentralized - one in each State, fully controlled by the People in said State via a separate process similar to the jury selection process now, but with safety features built in to prevent any possible fraud or take-over of any government actor or agency, and with an emergency mechanism in place whereby Citizens can call for a new Board to be constituted in the event one is ever compromised. Then each State Board would appoint one Member to sit on the Federal Oversight Board - each of whom is immediately replaceable by said Board at any time and for any reason or no reason at all.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and some of the items in my list are very detailed.

"Again, your ideas was the dumbest one I've ever heard, and I've heard some doosies.

Own it."

I will if you propose a better one.

Ask, and ye shall receive (see above).

But just to stay on topic, I'm only thinking about this stuff because the FBI seems to be standing down right now....

Rotflmao!!!!!!! If that is what you are seeing, you are watching a totally different program that is completely divorced from reality.

Courts Squash Democrats’ ‘Most Secure Election’ Lie: Swing States Didn’t Follow Their Own Laws In 2020

originally posted by: xuenchen
Courts Squash Democrats’ ‘Most Secure Election’ Lie: Swing States Didn’t Follow Their Own Laws In 2020

The traitor who was fired from CISA.gov was the 1st to state that lie, a mere 5 days after the election had concluded.

BREAKING: Georgia Judge Grants David Perdue, Petitioners's Request To Preserve 2020 Ballots

www.georgiarecord.com... yAr02k8M2zCKM0v3uPhTEJbeDwzEL0bR_BQEqcML3D4

Georgia Superior Court Judge Robert C.I. Mcburney has granted GA gubernatorial candidate David Perdue and other petittioners' request to preserve ballots from the November 2020 election in Fulton County that was rife with election fraud. The 22 month limit for preserving the ballots was approaching and the petitioners did not want them destroyed, which would prevent discovering the truth of the massive fraud that was perpetrated in Georgia during the 2020 election cycle.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
What is with all of the spaces in your text??? It looks normal in your post, but when quoted, there are 9+ spaces between most sentectes, and at the end of paragraphs... ???

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply to: tanstaafl

The Supreme court would overturn it if there is no cause.

I guess you missed the fact that impeachments are beyond judicial review?

Cone on, man!

Only if they act within their powers.

The text "Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So they have to at least *claim* that the president has committed Treason, Bribery, or "other high crimes and misdemeanors".

They only have the authority that the words on the page say they have. They don't have the authority to impeach for incompetence, unless they define it as a crime of some sort to be stupid (which would alienate half the electorate...)

Technically, the founders didn't provide for a police force of any sort. Small towns just did it all with volunteers at first, and after that the states handled it internally.

It was left up to the states entirely until the mid 20th century, when automobiles came about, and bank robbers started robbing banks and then driving over the state line to the next state.

A fairly reasonable outline of what happened, so two lollipops for that - although that was just the excuse used. You don't think some criminal had ever crossed State Lines before?

They had, and it had always been a big hassle negotiating extradition. Remember the "underground railroad"? Where slaves would escape to Northern free states, and those states would refuse to extradite them back to their home state?

States only extradited if they wanted to.

The difference in the 20th century is that it became more common, and much easier to do. In the 19th century, a person who is lazy enough to want to make their living robbing banks instead of working, would probably also be too lazy to travel to another state after the crime. Not unless they got to be a millionaire on their first heist.

"Again, your ideas was the dumbest one I've ever heard, and I've heard some doosies.

Own it."

I will if you propose a better one.

Ask, and ye shall receive (see above).

Your plan sounds pretty naive. But I like the part about it being separate from the government itself.

It's true that someone could, conceivably coopt both organizations. Three competing entities seems to work better than two, as with states having City, County, and State level police forces, with county and local being within easy reach of the people to take direct action.

Maybe the best watchdog would be for some states' police forces to form coalitions to monitor FBI activity along their states' mutual boundaries?

But just to stay on topic, I'm only thinking about this stuff because the FBI seems to be standing down right now....

Rotflmao!!!!!!! If that is what you are seeing, you are watching a totally different program that is completely divorced from reality.

They don't seem to be looking into election fraud. Except perhaps trying to find some way to prosecute the people who go against the official narrative.

They've certainly spared no effort trying to find the "perpetrators" of the January 6th sit in (err I mean "massacre", since that's how they tell it ).

Yesterday my ex informed me that the TV show Big Brother had been moved from this Thursday to Friday due to some Jan 6th BS.

She asked, if this means that there will be charges against Trump announced.

I haven't been paying any attention to those clowns on the J6 committee, so I wouldn't know, but it sure did remind me of what Care said about charges leading to discovery in court.

It's absolutely disgusting what I'm seeing from the federal government. The cesspool has grown and spread over the years, and is showing next to no signs of positive change. We are probably in for some rough years ahead.

a reply to: IndieA

BREAKING: Georgia Judge Grants David Perdue, Petitioners's Request To Preserve 2020 Ballots

Thank you -- There's a little good news anyway!

Here's a little more:

BREAKING: PA Outlaws “Zuckbucks” Before Midterm Elections
Pennsylvania is in good company. Other states that have already banned private money are:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas (despite an attempted veto by Democrat governor Laura Kelly)
Kentucky
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (despite the first attempt being vetoed)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

Baby steps... but it all adds up, so I'll be thankful for that much.

a reply to: IndieA

Republicans need to continually say the fraud was not "massive".

Enough NON-LEGAL ballots were brought out and fed into the system to ensure Biden won, late at night (WI-MI-GA), and in some cases over the next 2 days(PA-AZ), when it was clear that Trump was the winner.

The fraud was strategic and surgical. Not "massive". Force the "It was a good election" crowd to stop using the word massive, by countering them every time they speak or write that word.

At: www.ncsl.org...

Click on "Enactments by State" to see efforts being taken to make the election process in a given state, more in line with what that state legislature desires.

Liberal states are making it EASIER to cheat. But there are only a few of those.

AGAIN... what is with all of the spaces in your text??? It looks normal in your post, but when quoted, there are 9+ spaces between most sentectes, and at the end of paragraphs... ???

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply toy: tanstaafl

Only if they act within their powers.

Nope. No judicial review means no judicial review. The courts have ZERO power to make any determination about an impeachment. NONE.

Read the Constitution. It is called 'the sole power of impeachment.'

The text "Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So they have to at least *claim* that the president has committed Treason, Bribery, or "other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Yep, that's all they have to do, and nowhere is that term defined in the Constitution, and again, no court has the authority to intervene.

a reply to: carewemust

The fraud was strategic and surgical. Not "massive". Force the "It was a good election" crowd to stop using the word massive, by countering them every time they speak or write that word.

Excellent observation and suggestion.

It doesn't have to be massive or widespread... just targeted to where minimum efforts have maximum overall impact.

Federal Judge Will Hear Evidence Against Use of Electronic Voting Machines in Arizona

The hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, July 21.

"As there is substantial overlap in the motions, the Court will entertain consolidated presentations from the parties,” the judge ordered. “Plaintiffs will have no more than two hours to present all argument and, as pertains to their application for injunctive relief, evidence. Defendants shall have no more than three hours collectively to present their argument and evidence.”

This is the lawsuit filed last month by Kari Lake (Pub candidate for Guv) and Mark Finchem (Pub candidate for SofS) --

Arizona GOP candidates sue to block use of voting machines in upcoming midterms

So another baby step... hopefully. I don't want to be Negative Nancy but I've seen too many craptastic lawsuits filed that even I knew were doomed to failure, perhaps by design. Keeps the masses mollified until it's too late...

The evidence presented will tell us how serious Kari Lake really is. I don't want to say it will make or break her, but the Old Boys GOP is attacking her conservative creds big time right now. If her "evidence" in court doesn't match her campaign talk, it will hurt her. If it does, she'll be golden.

a reply to: IndieA

The schedule change was planned ahead to get as many "drop in" viewers as possible. Most fans of that show won't even know about the schedule change and will automatically tune in for the "Hearings" not to mention all the automatic recordings will show the Hearings. Clever as Hell ain't it 😎

Another baby step:

GOP Groups Organize Ballot Box Surveillance Efforts

A group calling itself “WA Citizens United to Secure Ballot Boxes” is promoting drop-box surveillance, encouraging people to sign up to watch ballot boxes and record video of people “dumping an in ordinate (sic) amount of ballots” and “taking pictures of themselves doing it,” according to the organization’s “Drop Box Watch” website.

Dropbox Watch

a reply to: Boadicea

Only makes the cheaters have to purchase stamps and use mailboxes.

Florida got rid of the drop boxes, first by renaming them "secure ballot intake stations", then by making them only available inside of polling locations, and only during early voting times.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: Boadicea

Only makes the cheaters have to purchase stamps and use mailboxes.

Touche -- but this comes with its own risks, and inefficiency, such as last minute efforts when more manufactured votes are needed... so it's not ideal, but every little bit helps!

Baby steps.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: Boadicea

Only makes the cheaters have to purchase stamps and use mailboxes.

Florida got rid of the drop boxes, first by renaming them "secure ballot intake stations", then by making them only available inside of polling locations, and only during early voting times.

Actually, if someone can't travel it makes it impossible to vote.

This would include people in nursing homes, military personnel and their families abroad, missionaries and their families and so forth - as well as anyone with an unpredictable work schedule (doctors and nurses who can't count on an emergency-free shift) or those who work 8-5 at some distance from their polling place (say...working in north Dallas or Plano but living in Mesquite (a 45 minute to 1 hour drive IF you have a car. In rush hour traffic it could be a 2 hour commute depending on other factors. And 3 hours if you have to take bus/train.))

So... there's many many people who have the right to vote and who were able to vote beforehand by dropping off a ballot at a box at any time, night or day.


NOW.... generally it's the poor and minorities and the elderly (who may have trouble driving because of cataracts); the very groups where Republicans are gaining ground (according to some of the stuff we see posted here.)

Republicans will be making it harder for their own voters to reach the polls.

That'll make a good talking point for the Democrats, don't you think? "Fellow Republicans, if you couldn't make it to the polls to vote because we've eliminated drop off boxes and other mail in voting, send thanks and a campaign contribution to the Republican party for their protecting you from actually voting."

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: Boadicea

Only makes the cheaters have to purchase stamps and use mailboxes.

Touche -- but this comes with its own risks, and inefficiency, such as last minute efforts when more manufactured votes are needed... so it's not ideal, but every little bit helps!

Baby steps.

And we'll return to the days when it took more than a month to count the election results...and if there was a need for a recount it could take many many months.

I remember those days.