BREAKING: GA JUDGE ALLOWS FURTHER SCAN OF MAIL-IN BALLOT INSPECTION IN FULTON COUNTY…GROUND ZERO OF ELECTION FRAUD…CASE COULD FLIP PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION

CD Media ^ | May 21, 20 | CD Media Staff

[Dr. Franklin]

UPDATE 1115 EST – Judge orders ballots unsealed. Parties to appear at ballot storage location 10am May 28th. Ballots will be scanned at 600 dpi or higher. Protocol to be determined.

—————————–

In an ongoing hearing, Henry County, GA judge, the Honorable Brian J. Amero may give access to the plaintiffs (VoterGA.org, Garland Favorito, and another plaintiff) to the physical mail-in ballots in Fulton County, which could show massive election fraud in GA during the 2020 presidential election cycle, and the follow-on runoff that decided control of the U.S. Senate for the Democrat Party, leading to full control of the American government.

In the hearing, lawyers for VoterGA.org described large discrepancies (21%) between the number of ballot batches reported by the GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who certified the election, and the number of ballot batches actually provided by court-ordered access in the previous April hearing in the case.

[grey_whiskers]

The Constitution does not address wholesale theft of the election by fraud.

Besides, the left has been telling us it's a living breathing document for decades.

[Yo-Yo]

If it is determined in a court of law that the certification was based on fraud, then the imposter president isn't president, and the Impeachment and Removal clause shouldn't apply.

But it doesn't say in the Constitution that a sitting President can be removed by a court if fraud is uncovered. If fraud is uncovered, then that is a "High Crime and Misdemeanor," and the President can only be removed by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Once removed from office, or after his term ends, he can then be tried in a court of law for election fraud, and punished if found guilty.

But nowhere, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that after the steps outlined in the Constitution are followed, that subsequent evidence of election fraud will nullify the process.

Just like the Liberal Left would like to believe that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that they can still ban guns, I would like to believe that proof of vote fraud would nullify a Presidential Election.

But the Left is wrong, and I would be wrong.

[Reily]

The state legislatures have sole power. They select the electors (even though they spinelessly handed it to the voters almost from the beginning!). If the state legislatures (and the state voters!) are fine with fraud then so are the courts.

[bagster]

As I've said to others, the Constitution is clear on who has the authority to remove a sitting President, and it isn't the Courts.

The courts don't have to 'remove' the President. They just have to rule that the election was fraudulent, illegal, and AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

After that, the military and the people can handle extermination proceedings.

Does this ring a bell?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

The declaration of Independence outlined our path. Our right to representation was stolen from us.

[HandyDandy]

“Just cross reference some of the names with the vaxxer jihadists.”

That hasn’t been lost on me. In particular the one fellow traveler who is apparently an expert witness on all things Covid, and now all things Constitutional election law.

[bagster]

who is apparently an expert witness on all things Covid, and now all things Constitutional election law.

Interesting coincidence, no?

[FreeReign]

But it doesn't say in the Constitution that a sitting President can be removed by a court if fraud is uncovered. If fraud is uncovered, then that is a "High Crime and Misdemeanor," and the President can only be removed by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

The Constitution doesn't use the term "sitting" President. Somebody is either a legitimate president or they aren't.

If it is determined in a court of law that the certification was based on fraud, then the imposter president isn't president, and the Impeachment and Removal clause shouldn't be required.

[heavy metal]

i’ve noticed 2aProtectsTheRest is posting almost 24 hours a day...

gotta wonder how many people are working behind that user name...

[FreeReign]

The state legislatures have sole power. They select the electors (even though they spinelessly handed it to the voters almost from the beginning!). If the state legislatures (and the state voters!) are fine with fraud then so are the courts.

But if the fraud isn't proven in court until after the state certifications, then the state legislatures certified based on fraudulent information.

Send it back to the state legislatures.

[SecAmndmt]

Job one is facing down deep state embeds like YOU (I know my role).

Nailed it

2a joined FR to defend the narrative. Cv19 was simply a means to an end: getting the President out of office, demonizing Christians and conservatives, normalizing buggery and trans, the fake "insurrection" run by antifa on Jan 6. And population control.

[reasonisfaith]

Have you considered the role of the military in a scenario in which the presidential election was conducted fraudulently with the help of foreign governments?

Make your thinking bigger.

[HandyDandy]

I’ve pictured that also. Different typists taking different shifts for that moniker.

[Leaning Right]

> Have you considered the role of the military in a scenario in which the presidential election was conducted fraudulently with the help of foreign governments? <

The military would do nothing, and instead defer to whatever the courts and Congress might or might not say. I say that for two reasons:

1. It’s drummed into every officer that civil authority is paramount. And, in general, that’s a good thing. We can’t be having military coups every time some colonel feels like it.
2. It’s not your great-grandfather’s military anymore. Patriots (and risk-takers) have been replaced by careerists.

[HandyDandy]

They are working to put blinders on us. Trying to control the narrative. Like 2a said, “control what we can”. Small minded.

[heavy metal]

i tested them a couple of times with questions and they responded differently...

[Yo-Yo]

The Constitution doesn't use the term "sitting" President. Somebody is either a legitimate president or they aren't.

The Constitution doesn't use the term "legitimate" either.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Again I ask, how do we “remove” a President who is by definition not the President? The fraud precedes and deligitimizes everything subsequent. We are currently operating without a President, because the office is preeminently defined by the authority invested by those who elect him, and that authority simply does not exist. It never has. He a pretender. No need to act or think otherwise.

[spacejunkie2001]

curious indeed

[HandyDandy]

Ha Ha! Right on brother! Good for you.

[heavy metal]

actually it’s good for us...

another red flag is this is the second time today i mentioned their posting for almost 24 hours a day on 2 different threads and they disappeared without any attempt to defend themselves...