The Real Big Lie: You Can't Question Elections

Real Clear Politics ^ | 24 May, 2021 | Frank MieleMay 24, 2021

[MtnClimber]

Liz Cheney doesn’t get to decide what is true for the rest of us; neither, as hard as it is for some of them to believe, do the media pundits and philosopher-kings whom our society breeds like rats in a junkyard.

But they sure do try, and for the most part they have gotten away with it for decades.

Cheney has become the darling of the oligarchs the last several months because she first voted to impeach Donald Trump and because she then elected to condemn the Republican Party for disagreeing with her.

Cheney, the lone Wyoming representative in Congress, has deemed herself the conscience of the GOP. Of course, what is obvious is that she is the latest in a long line of self-appointed saviors of the party who believe the way to save the village is to first destroy it.

Her pretend friends in the media take offense when Cheney is described as a traitor, but anyone who still thinks the Republican Party stands for something fundamental and principled certainly is within their rights to question her loyalty, as her obsession with destroying Donald Trump and excising the 75 million Americans who voted for him has only one effect — to give aid and comfort to the Democrat Party and to its agenda of transforming America into a post-constitutional Marxist regime.

Listen to her preening speech the night before she was stripped of her title as chair of the House Republican caucus:

[DannyTN]

The clearer the law is and the clearer the violation and the penalty and the evidence of the violation, and the better the transparency the more likely the courts will act.

What’s your plan? You even have one?

[A strike]

Nothing is clearer than the US Constitution’s delegation to State Legislatures the ‘time, manner, place’ authority for Federal elections in each State, which even SCOTUS ignored.

My solution would be impeachment at a minimum, but more correctly the charge of treason with its’ penalty for traitor John Roberts et al.

More “clearer” laws won’t do jack shiite.

[DannyTN]

Again, you’ll need a supermajority to impeach. So let me know when you get that accomplished.

[A strike]

I’m not saying that it could happen but rather that it should happen.
In any case, more, “clearer,” laws won’t do jack shiite.

[DannyTN]

I think better laws can do a lot.

Things better laws can do:

• Laws puts election officials on notice of exactly what their responsibilities are and what penalties they can expect if they fail to follow to obey the law.
• They can assign responsibility and penalties for failing to let party observers observe. They can define the minimum distance required. They can require the ballots shown on big screens like the AZ audit is doing.
• Laws can set up checks and balances, such as having a government agency other than election officials responsible for filming the entire election and providing security for that footage in case it's needed for audits.
• They can separate the IT of election machines from election officials. And prescribe penalties if the machines are connected to the internet during an election.
• They can require ballots to be uniquely watermarked and all purchases of ballots to be tracked. They can require unique numbering of all ballots, so all ballots can be traced, both mail in and in person ballots.
• They can define what is required of election officials if an audit is called for. Along with penalties for failure to provide the required information. Including access to the machines, the files, the passwords, the physical ballots, etc. And under what circumstances and controls those must be provided.
• Laws can make the state police or state bureau of investigations responsible for maintaining a presence during the elections in highly contested areas, with the goal of oversight.
• Laws can make sure there is visibility and a record if someone breaks any of the related laws.
• Laws can even define who has standing to request court review and/or press charges.
• Laws can even make it clear that it is law officials and prosecutors role to prosecute cases where the evidence rises to a minimum level.

They need to go through Novarro's election fraud report and identify every scenario that happened, and define controls that will prevent that from occuring if possible, assign responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen and penalties if it does happen.

Laws can do a lot to make it much much harder for courts to deny review. And easier to identify and prosecute election manipulators.

[A strike]

That hasn’t (not at all) worked out so well so far has it?

[A strike]

Not that the laws shouldn't be stronger, they should, but as you acknowledge the courts are ignoring the laws.

[DannyTN]

"but as you acknowledge the courts are ignoring the laws."

I don't know that they are. The election officials are saying there is no problem. Nobody has much proof of wrong doing because you need an audit to gather the proof. And it's up to the court's discretion to order an audit. Which they really don't want to get involved.

So what specific law are they ignoring? And what solid evidence has been brought before them.

It's more likely that the prosecutors are ignoring the laws. Or that nobody has filed criminal charges to get them to prosecute. And that could be because the laws are weak, don't assign responsibilities, don't have checks and balances or transparency to catch wrong doers and don't have penalties.

[A strike]

” What is clear is that courts do not want to get involved in political elections. “

Cases brought by appellants do not require a ‘prosecutor’ per se in order for adjudication; but in any case it is beyond any doubt that SCOTUS ignored Federal US Constitution law.

You may want to parse that as not ignoring the laws but that’s all it is.

[A strike]

” And what solid evidence has been brought before them. “

How about hundreds of affidavits alleging election malfeasance/illegality which were summarily disregarded by the courts whom you acknowledge didn’t want to get involved.

” The election officials are saying there is no problem.”
Can you hear yourself?

[DannyTN]

So a law that specifies if affadavits are brought forward by more than two election workers or more than 4 election observers, there must be a forensic audit and that goes on to specify the scope of the forensic audit, would have been a great law to have in place.

[DannyTN]

I’m just acknowledging reality. Multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions over many elections have refused to get very involved in elections.

The clearer and more specific you make the laws and dictate in the laws what must be done and under what circumstances, the more likely the courts will follow the law. If you leave it gray, the courts are going to bail on you.

That’s reality. You can wish all day long that the judges don’t act like that. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.

Laws are passable in some of the battleground states. Good luck changing the judiciary in our lifetime.

[DannyTN]

” The election officials are saying there is no problem.” Can you hear yourself?

Yeah, I'm saying the law doesn't provide sufficient checks and balances. It's all left up to the election officials. And the courts are going to defer to the election officials, because they have the responsibility under the political process.

So split up the responsibility some. Pass laws that separate securing the ballots and election offices and surveilling the election offices from the election officials.

Don't leave things up to the election officials to decide. Have some penalties for not following the law. No penalties is how they got away with just doing what they wanted regardless of what the law said.

Have enough transparency so that you know when an election official is not following the law. And so that evidence gathered and criminal charges filed.

[A strike]

” And the courts are going to defer to the election officials ...”

Without investigation that certainly seems like ignoring election law.
(And dismissal with prejudice.)

[A strike]

I would agree with that.

[musicman]

"The Real Big Lie:
You Can't Question Elections..."



Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help To Keep FR In The Battle !!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Exit148]

Even the Electoral Court has to backtrack if there is election fraud. What is happening to this country?