There are really now two possibilities for 2020 Fulton county.
1. There was no significant fraud, or attempts at significant fraud, there might have been some process problems, but nothing that changes the election.
2. There was not only fraud, but its process was organized, and probably duplicated nationwide. After the Fraud, there has been a deliberate cover up and attempt to change or delay the narrative from becoming public knowledge. This included elements of the intelligence community, state officials, FBI, and even potentially the speaker of the house. The American public has been completely gaslighted for years about elections.
One of these two is true, and the other is not.
Consider that the DOJ and the FBI have a credibility problem. Ask yourself why the would ‘raid’ Fulton County if they didn’t already know what they would find. Further, why raid at all when you could delay and let the public forget while legal systems drag on for years? The stakes are very very high here, they couldn’t afford to find ‘nothing’. The elimination of partisan ‘heads’ that would interfere with the process couldn’t be tolerated, if they knew what they would find. They know what it is going to mean. This was FBI and DOJ suicide if they got nothing, ground shaking and trust restoring if they find Fraud.
Which do people here think is likely truth?
It seems probable that elements of the FBI with boots on the ground have known and observed some evidence of the election fraud for years.
It seems extremely probable that FBI with tasseled loafers under desks prevented action by the agents with boots on the ground.
Death of all those of tearing the huge rent in the fabric of the Republic must be mandatory
I know there was organized fraud. All one has to do is the Math. More people voted than were registered. That’s enough probable cause to order discovery.
Tens of thousands of fake ballots were counted in Fulton county.
The toilets leaked. The counting was halted, and they ran suitcases of fake ballots through.
The 12+ Venezuelan whistleblowers - engineers who actually did the 2020 steal and can describe exactly HOW they did it - say it is #2. The 2 narco-terrorists sitting in US jails - who held important jobs in Maduro’s regime - say it is #2. Fulton County officials who have denied for years that the 500,000+ illegal ballots were counted have suddenly changed their tune. Eric Coomer, the Dominion administrator who allegedly told an Antifa Zoom conference that he made sure Trump wouldn’t win, has changed his tune and admitted in legal filings that Dominion functions were being run from Belgrade, Serbia, as the whistleblowers have said.
For my money, #2 is looking pretty darn likely. And Trump says there will be arrests soon. DNI Gabbard’s presence in Fulton County makes sense if/since 2020 was a coup run by Venezuela, China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Serbia - facilitated by the Maduro’s mafia Cartel del Sol bribing US officials and John Brennan installing the servers in Belgrade to allow the Dominion/Smartmatic source code to complete the coup. The truckloads of ballots pre-filled out for Biden alone that came from China, which Bill Barr refused to investigate, also probably helped - as did the China Virus that SOS’s used to justify illegal procedures not allowed by their own legislatures.
I believe #2 is the TRUTH.
However, I have very little faith in FBI & DOJ being able to do anything with the TRUTH that there was rampant and widespread fraud. There will way too much political pressure by Democrats to do nothing since the TRUTH may destroy the republic. DEMOCRATS need destroyed, and that’s my TRUTH!!
The TRUTH will be whitewashed (as with every contentious issue) in any “official” report.
However, I still hold on to the slim hope that the TRUTH will leak out.
Great difference between Obama justices and Reagan or Trump ones. Obama’s were nominated with the intent that they, like him, strive to fundamentally change (and destroy) the U.S. of A. While R & T justices were chosen with the intent that they were Originalists, as near, philosophically, to the Founders as possible. At least that is MY assumption.
I think that you are biased towards nothing happened based on the way you worded this post. That is not surprising because both sides are doing it. But then things like this what happened in Georgia are quite common. Both parties do it. One party is better at doing than the other. I will let you figure out which one.
I wouldn't consider it trust restoring. It will just move them from being the Democrat Party's permanent secret police to the tool of whichever party is in charge. Since we know the Dems play the political game far tougher and dirtier than the Republicans could ever dream, doubly so since almost any Republican in the future will be far weaker than Trump they will return to being the Dems' secret police at their first opportunity. Maybe the best option is to use evidence if their actions under Obama and Biden as a reason to eliminate the FBI entirely.
The non-judicial remedy is to repeal the Amendment forbidding more than one term for POTUS, and have DJT win on his own merits for a fourth time, which he could do, barring voting fraud.
I say this because the corrupt judges are in no way going to order a remedy that allows DJT to have a third term.
They would deny it even though it is the fairest remedy that also preserves the Amendment.
Pete Dovgan insightfully wrote Re 2020 Fulton county:
There was not only fraud there, but its process was
calculatedly organized, and probably duplicated nationwide.
<><>there has been a deliberate cover up
<><>and attempts to change or delay the narrative from becoming public knowledge.
<><>including attempts by elements of the intel community,
<><>states, the FBI, and even potentially the speaker of the house.
<><>The American public has been completely gas-lighted for years about elections.
The problem I see is not the facts at hand but the fallout therefrom. If #2 is true, and it is demonstrably true, then we have a TRUE constitutional crisis which will have ripple effects across our government. This would mean undoing 4 years of law and executive orders including judicial appointments and legal appointments that would undo vast numbers of court cases. It could take a decade or more to untangle the web of problems it would introduce, and I don’t think SCOTUS wants to be at the heart of that despite being one of their primary functions of sole arbitrators of legal Gordian knots.
There are really now two possibilities for 2020 Fulton county.
It is going to take a generation to change things and WE and by that ALL OF US have much work to do.
2. There was not only fraud, but its process was organized, and probably duplicated nationwide. After the Fraud, there has been a deliberate cover up and attempt to change or delay the narrative from becoming public knowledge. This included elements of the intelligence community, state officials, FBI, and even potentially the speaker of the house. The American public has been completely gaslighted for years about elections.
From a post way back...
Despite the fact that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is a penalty for states where vote-counting fraud has occurred, the compromised Supreme Court wrongly hid behind its constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse (imo) when Texas and other states tried to complain about alleged ballot box tampering in Pennsylvania and other renegade states.
Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" in that section that the Supremes, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo when lawmakers voted to accept Biden's electoral votes in 2020 despite allegations of vote-counting problems.
is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In fact, here's third-party opinion that Section 2 is being ignored.
No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section
Regarding the wrongly ignored Section 2, Thomas Jefferson had warned against ignoring parts of the Constitution.
The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445
The Supreme's also ignored their constitutionally enumerated obligations to resolve disputes between the states concerning 2020 elections imo, the Court having original jurisdiction for disputes between the states.
In fact, it so happens that Justice Joseph Story had noted the following about how the original colonies had handled disputes between themselves. The colonies had previously afforded themselves having disputes between themselves heard by the highest authority for any reason whatsoever as a last effort to try to preserve the confederacy. One of the reasons that the drafters of the constitution made 3.2.1 below was to preserve this same right for conflicted states.
Article III, Secion 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
The major constitutional problem with the Supreme Court's “no standing” excuse to Texas in the context of "to Controversies between two or more states" as it concerns allegations of wrongdoing in 2020 elections is this imo. Justice Joseph Story had indicated that the drafters of the Constitution had preserved the right of the original colonies to take other colonies to the highest authority in the land for any complaint whatsoever as a final hope to preserve the confederation.
or any other cause whatsoever
§ 1674. Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [emphasis added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
§ 1675. Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
Because the Supremes unconstitutionally looked the other way (imo) when some states cried fowl concerning alleged vote-counting problems in 2020 elections, the Court deserves at least a part of the blame (imo) for the social unrest that is now happening, evidenced for example by resistance to ICE in renegade states.