New report: 255,000 ‘excess votes’ for Biden in six key 2020 states

Washington Examiner ^ | March 28, 2022 | Paul Bedard

[Maris Crane]

How, in the name of Heaven, was asking you if you were in Vermont an attack.

One of my favorite songs Moonlight in Vermont.

Don’t be so sensitive

[StAnDeliver]

BTW, John Lott briefly Freep’d here in 2011. *waves*

[Political Junkie Too]

First of all, tell us WHO has standing to bring a suit on these facts?

The only thing I can think of is that an Attorney General of another state can bring a 14th amendment case citing section 2, claiming that the fraudulent votes are an abridgement of the legitimate voters of the swing state, and the resulting fraudulent outcome infringes on the equal protection of the voters in all of the other states.

To make it have standing, the Attorneys General should demand that 14A section 2 be used to strip the offending states of their representation in the House, proportional to the fraud, until such time as the voting irregularities are fixed to the Court's satisfaction.

-PJ

[Taxman]

Ping

[Vermont Lt]

Bullshit. You know thats not what you meant.

Dance around it all you want.

Stop saying stupid stuff. That’s all. Too many people are acting like Will Smith around here—going on attack. We need to get away from that on this forum or it will disappear because who needs it?

[StACase]

A Comparison of the US Population for 2012, 2016, 2020 and
total number of votes for Republican and Democrat Presidents:

From 2012 to 2016 The total U.S. Population increased by 3.2%
From 2012 to 2016 That total vote for president increased 2.2%

From 2016 to 2020 The total U.S. Population increased by 2.0%
From 2016 to 2020 That total vote for president increased 22.1%

By 2020 population went up   2%
But  the  vote  total  went up 22%

Let that sink in!

Source: Internet search on US population and
well known state by state election totals.

[Zathras]

Back in 2000, there were postings on Craigslist from CA voters willing to swap votes for NV.
No one ever called them on it so I suspect they created a system not quite so public.

[liberalh8ter]

“The point of this work isn't to contest the 2020 election, but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections,” he wrote.

And that's a problem. We're approaching the point where an admission will likely be made that “some voters” cheated but we'll make sure that doesn't happen in the future and then that will be the precedent for the next time the Democrats cheat but do it sloppily. In the meantime, every bill, every SCOTUS nominee and every executive order that was signed by the fraudulent President remains intact. SPIT

[StAnDeliver]

The problem is, SCOTUS is willfully blind to the Equal Protection problem, as so pitifully -- and only transactionally -- 'defended' by the originalists in Bush v Gore.

When Alito could not get a fourth vote, purposefully blocked by Roberts, to consider Republican Party PA v Boockvar, any hope that this Court in this current lineup has any interest in taking up the perfect case to reveal the well-organized putsch that stole the 2020 election from Trump? It's a certainty that Roberts was in on it, as Republican Party PA v Boockvar was one of the very few cases that existed prior to Election Day and not only that, had a Supreme Court Order [PDF] from Justice Alito that "all (PA) ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated" and kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots”.

Roberts stance is, 'Well, I defer to legislation' -- which, by the way, is not originalist, nor is it truly constitutional conservatism -- knowing full and goddamn well that Congress is reluctant to legislate Federal elections, as this year's S.2747 was correctly DOA; and by turn, any GOP Congressional bill to legislate Federal elections is DOA in the 118th.

Roberts would probably abort a heavily-supported, bipartisan-passed bill that simply mandated a Uniform Reporting Act for a post-Federal election database!

So if the Roberts Court won't mandate Equal Protection 'in the field', then they are waiting until 2 or 3 companies capture all of the election-day provisioning.

That's exactly why Dominion is suing everyone in sight -- because once we are close to a monopoly on election-day provisioning, the Democrats, in league with Roberts, will pick a winner (just as they incrementally accompished up to BammyCare. Anyone want an education? Research the history of ASC X12 and its 3-decade journey until its final destination -- purposeful insertion into the Affordable Care Act as the code repository for the successor "Medicare For All") and once that 'winner' is 'chosen', then the Roberts' Court will defer to the 'science' and the election-day provisioning provider's proprietary code in. any. future. Federal. election.

[vpintheak]

Yeah. We get to have that experience in August. 🤬

[BlackbirdSST]

He’s a lightning rod and therefore his info will instantly be suspect.

That only works with concern trolls. You seem mighty concerned.

[Political Junkie Too]

In my scenario, equal protection is just for standing; stripping the state of its representation is asking SCOTUS to enforce the amendment as written.

-PJ

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“That only works with concern trolls. You seem mighty concerned.”

I’ll put this as nicely as possible. Your comment is idiotic.
Can you guess the reason that you wrote an idiotic comment?

[libertylover]

I have some data based on the county voting numbers:

In 2020 Trump won 2,589 counties.
In 2020 Biden won 552 counties.

In 2020 Trump was credited with 74,223,251 votes.
In 2020 Biden was credited with 81,281,888 votes.

In 2008 McCain won 2,275 counties.
In 2008 Obama won 869 counties.

In 2008 McCain was credited with 59,934,814 votes.
In 2008 Obama was credited with 69,456,897 votes.

So, in 2008 Obama won 79,927 votes per counties won.
But, in 2020 Biden won 147,250 votes per counties won.

The growth of total votes casts in the two different election years is 20%.

Trump’s votes per counties won is 19% more than the 2008 votes, in line with the total growth of ballots cast.

But Biden’s votes per counties won is an astounding 184% more than Obama’s votes per counties won.

It’s not proof, but it smells fishy as hell.

[Chewbarkah]

Felons released on parole and/or probation have not completed their sentences. 2560 would be a small percentage of those. But I wouldn’t put it past the Georgia fraud factory to have mailed absentee ballots directly to inmates c/o state prisons and jails.

[StAnDeliver]

"In my scenario, equal protection is just for standing; stripping the state of its representation is asking SCOTUS to enforce the amendment as written."

Let's just say Texas v. Pennsylvania actually got cert in 2020. The Roberts Court would simply declare the The Electoral Count Act of 1887 explicitly constitutional (which has never been done), as the fulcrum for Equal Protection, with preference given to 12A's procedural precedence.

In other words, Roberts, writing for the majority: "You want equal protection? Win your electoral slate challenge on Jan6."

[Political Junkie Too]

I can't tell if we're talking past each other or not. Forgive me if I'm being redundant, but I want to make sure that my point is explicitly made clear.

When I say "equal protection," I'm saying that that vote results of states that did not have massive fraud (the non-swing states) are abridged by the states that did nothing to prevent (or participated in) counting fraudulent votes.

Just as how SCOTUS ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that a recount of just a few counties abridges the rights of the voters in the other counties to have their votes recounted, too, I'm saying that allowing the fraud to go unchallenged in the swing states abridges the votes in all the other states.

That said, I don't want the "equal protection" aspect to become the tail wagging the dog. The issue is triggering the punishment section of the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment section 2 states:

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 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.

I'm saying that the first issue is to force SCOTUS to deal with section 2 of the 14th amendment.

I'm saying that a planned systemic, massive, vote fraud by the people in charge of running the election is an "abridgment" of the votes of those who cast legitimate votes.

I'm saying that some body of harmed people must bring this issue to SCOTUS to resolve, essentially asking why this section is included in the Constitution if nobody can have standing to demand its execution?

I'm saying that a body of Attorneys General or Secretaries of State of the several states should be the parties to bring this issue of 14th amendment punishment to SCOTUS under Article III original jurisdiction, claiming "equal protection" under the law.

I'm saying that, since 14A section 2 contains punishment requirements, and since the states are demanding that other states take abridgment of the vote seriously or federalism will collapse, the states must force SCOTUS to become the trier of fact on this matter.

I'm saying that SCOTUS must be made to hear the case of whether massive fraud occurred in the accused states, whether this fraud was an intentional abridgment of the vote of the citizens who wished to vote against the interests of the bad state actors, and whether and what the proportion of reduction of representation in the House of Representatives is the appropriate punishment to deter states from doing this again.

-PJ

[StAnDeliver]

I should have linked Texas v. Pennsylvania, I assumed you had already read it. Read it. All of it.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Court was obviously corrupted over this issue, and just wanted it to go away.

From the linked article:

Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School described the 11th-hour case a "Hail Mary pass" that was "creative but unlikely to win", because alleging that Texas, instead of its voters, was injured (in order to bypass the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) is "far-fetched"; he also expressed concern that the case was filed too late.

Here is the "catch-22":

Declaring that the state (instead of the voters) is not harmed, is a dodge because a group voters would also be dismissed as not having standing to sue another state because their single votes would not sway an election.

Furthermore, Texas wasn't arguing that the voter outcome was the harm; they were arguing that executive usurpation of state plenary power was the harm, which gives them perfect standing to sue the other states that allowed executives to discard properly legislated election law in favor of ad hoc deviations.

Texas was arguing that the states that followed the Constitution were harmed by the states that did not, regardless of electoral outcome. They wanted SCOTUS to declare that those states that allowed executive discretion had illegally conducted their own elections, and SCOTUS refused to go there because they wanted the outcome that was the result. The 14th amendment section 2 has a punishment for such cases, but SCOTUS avoided the issue by declining to hear the case.

-PJ

[StAnDeliver]

"Texas was arguing that the states that followed the Constitution were harmed by the states that did not, regardless of electoral outcome."

Yes. Exactly. States that did not/do not follow the Constitution, are thus sending 'inferior' slates of electors.