Stylin19
Are they Kiddin me?
OPINION FILED: December 14, 2020
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT: September 29, 2020
A Pox on all their houses...
Posted on 12/14/2020 8:57:48 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
For sure. There was a reason the local Dems wanted to make sure there was no verification of who the person submitting the ballot was, and why they were willing even to violate state law to stop this verification.
There were NOT two separate cases.
If I'm wrong, please post a link to the decision with no dissents (hint: there isn't one).
I’m sorry but you are pushing “fake news” again, as you yourself put it. Here by the way is the link to the decision this thread is actually about:
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283
If you had bothered reading even the very first line of this article you would have noticed this is the case brought by Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, not the one brought by President Trump. And why did you claim people who were quoting from the opinion were actually quoting the dissents when you obviously hadn’t checked on that with either opinion the court issued?
Just to add: Of course one thing that your false fake news claims (made with such conviction too!) here show is how well the media has hidden that we even had a significant victory today in the WI Supreme Court. Not even those on our side know about important news when it’s good for our side! The media is truly the enemy of the people.
I stand corrected. There were two decisions (both with dissents). But the decision about absentee ballots is only a declaration for future elections; it does not affect the 2020 election.
In my earlier post (#79) I wrote that there were no “full dissents” in this case. The only other opinions released in this particular case were “concurring in part, dissenting in part” opinions, in which three justices agreed with the main findings of the Court while disagreeing about all the specifics. These were not general dissents from the majority opinion, which is good because it strengthens its use as precedent. The main findings that the (Dem) officials didn’t have a right to change the rules against state law just because of COVID is an important precedent for the future. If they had taken the anything goes attitude of judges in NV and PA, it would have been much harder for us to fight voter fraud in the future in WI.
Of course, I agree that taken with their second (more important) opinion today (which was mostly decided on technicalities), this isn’t relevant for this election, but really in a cascade of bad news I’m happy we at least got something positive in our favor. And who knows, this decision could be the difference over whether we stand a chance winning WI again in the future or not. At least we now have legal precedent to fight this sort of fraud there.
It is a meaningless victory. It says the state made an error.
But it says that they must individually investigate EACH voter, and show the voter was wrong.
Clearly, the voters were wrong in many cases, but how are you going to do this? Remember, you have no idea who they voted for, and their ballots are separated from the names.
So, at best, you might be able to track down all of these voters, and get some of them to sign an affidavit that they did NOT meet the qualification for absentee ballot use.
I can assure you people who voted Democrat are not going to do that, and if they do, they are not going to say they voted for Biden.
If you get enough to be larger than the difference in the final vote, you can then argue that the entire vote is tainted, and the results cannot be determined accurately. If you had twice as many, the argument would be sounder.
And now it is March, Biden has been president for 2 months, and you are going to try to convince a court to reverse the electoral votes of Michigan, which won’t change the results.
This is a good lawsuit, and should have been filed the day after the state issued the guidance.
There was a 20,000 vote difference. SO at the very least, you have to find 20,000 absentee voters who you can PROVE did not meet the criteria for being confined, or reasonably expecting to be confined, on the day of the election.
The easiest would be to track down every absentee voter, and ask them to sign an affidavit indicating they only did absentee because the state said they could because of COVID, and they had no other reason to vote absentee.
Unlikely you have enough people to run around and collect 20,000 of those, although I imagine with enough time, you could get 20,000 people to agree to that. Maybe you get republicans to do it, because they might be more willing to help.
There is no way you are going to investigate 20,000 people, and go to court, and prove they didn’t meet the criteria. And if you DID, it might not be enough, as the law essentially says the VOTER decides if they are confined, so you’d have to prove they were NOT confined, and that they did not consider themselves confined.
And if you managed to find 20,000, or even 40,000, you then have to convince a judge that the number of invalid votes is so much bigger than the resulting difference in votes, that you can no longer be sure which candidate really won.
And then convince them to invalidate the certification. At which point you have to get the legislature to appoint electors, except the electors already voted. So now you have competing slates.
Since there is no way the house is going to accept republican electors, you’d have to hope the senate would (meaning you have to win Georgia first), and then wait for a court to rule on an age-old question, which slate is accepted if the house and senate disagree; or are the electors discarded.
Discarding the electors does almost no good. You’d have to discard electors from 7 states to get Trump ahead. swapping electors in Wisconsin also doesn’t get you the election, you need 3 other states to tie it.
And this all has to happen within 3 weeks. Over christmass.
The time for this court case was the day after the state issued the guidance. My guess is any court will look at this and say “you waited until after the election to see if you got advantage from it, we aren’t throwing out already determined results based on real votes from people who THOUGHT they were voting, just because the state screwed up”.
No, those are differing issues; There is no doubt that a human error caused the incorrect numbers to be published, before they found and corrected the error, which of course was before the official numbers were formally submitted.
This “programmed to cheat” story is about some forensic analysis that uses a lot of math stories to suggest that the normal process of handling ballots that cannot for some reason be counted was actually a widespread nefarious plot to mis-count thousands of votes. Which you’d have to prove somehow, by actually getting the original ballots, and I’m not sure Michigan has a paper trail like Georgia does.
Frankly, that is how absentee ballot rules work in most states. In Virginia, before they changed the rules this year and allowed no-fault absentee ballots, you would just say that you expected to be out of town on election day, and you could vote absentee. If you later were NOT out of town, it didn’t matter. All that mattered is that you were willing to claim that you thought you would be.
At least once I had a business trip that was happening sometime in early November, so I voted absentee (early voting in person) just in case.
We generally do not care so much if valid voters go through the trouble of getting and casting an absentee ballot. The bigger issues have been sending ballots to everybody, not tracking them, not verifying they were filled out by the person. These are the real areas for fraud.
What was Domino #1?
Sorry for tardy response. See my Post #15. Not sure how much the forensic report will matter now, in light of the Electoral College vote. We’ll see.
no, its not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.