Posted on 04/19/2022 7:20:51 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The problem is proving it now.
.............................................
The stealing of the election has already been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The question is how, in light of that fact, the fraudulent inauguration of a defeated candidate can be nullified.
Yes it can. Illegitimate certifications cannot stand, or else the Republic is gone.
.............................................
Have you taken note lately of the composition of the USSC?
Just to be clear - I believe restoration is impossible within the Constitutional system, and I therefore am always calling on restorationists to understand that they are calling for revolution - whether they intend to or not.
…”And didn’t Biden have a team of 6000 lawyers in place to challenge the election?” …
He had over 600 lawyers months before the election helping swing state democrats change voting laws to make it easier to cheat. Claiming the Wuhan Flu made it too risky to follow existing State laws.
Yep, that’s a great point that too many are ignoring. Even if you could “overturn” the election, by the time you could, how long would Trump have left in his term? 1 year? 6 months? And then he could never run again.
Well, there is an argument to made that open source software would let all the hackers easily determine where the vulnerabilities in the software are. However, the flip side of that is that there would be 10 times as many people who are not hackers looking for those same vulnerabilities in order to secure them.
But either way, whether the code itself is open is less important than how the code works. There are standards for accounting software that have been in place for decades which make it nearly impossible to hide fraud without leaving evidence behind for the auditors to find. And counting votes is basically a very simple accounting functionality. So why are not we not just using the template of an accounting system which has a verifiable audit trail for every transaction to tabulate votes? The only reason I can think of is that nobody wants there to be an audit trail.
This hilarious article is funny because Old Haggly Haberman had to rehabilitate it and sign the byline after 2 noodniks did the beat work and came up with the same old slander.
The courts have already shown a distinct lack of interest, probably because it’s a no-win situation for them. Rule against the facts and face the scorn of Trump conservatives, rule with the facts and face widespread condemnation from the establishment - people that can get them fired. One group is feared far more than the other.
The most important story out of 2020 was the steal from Trump. The second-most important story out of 2020, was the incredible machinations that Nanzi went to, to simultaneously attempt to overturn Iowa (IA-2), where after Rep. Miller-Meeks claimed a 6-vote victory, Democrat Rita Hart would not accept any booby prize (like Max Rose did in his NY-11 ultra-close loss, being appointed ,Special Advisor to the UnderSecretary for Defense for COVID-19", I kid you not).
While at the same time Nanzi ordered no MSM coverage, other than being the sole point person on this story, that would point out her hypocrisy allowing Rita Hart to complain about election fraud in Iowa, while her MSM was busy libeling Trump for making identical accusations in (ahem) less-GOP ghettos than Iowa.
‘It’s Only Six Votes’: Pelosi Excuses Democrats From Launching Probe to Possibly Unseat GOP MemberNobody made hay of this. NOBODY. As all this was going down in 2021, Rudy missed an oppo on Steponallofus -- whose mantra "only a little fraud" consistently went unanswered -- to ram Rita Hart's assertion of electoral fraud in, of all places, IOWA, right down George's goddamn gullet. Trump mentioned it once, so at least Stephen Miller put it on the teleprompter. Proof of how much Rush is missed, he died almost exactly a month before this story came together, and he would have crushed the Democrats with their game-playing in IA-2.
Epoch Times | March 15, 2021 | JACK PHILLIPS"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Sunday excused Democrats who launched an investigation into possibly unseating an elected GOP House representative, explaining that the margin of victory was extremely slim.
“It was six votes,” Pelosi told ABC News on Sunday, noting the number of votes by which Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart.
Miller-Meeks was ultimately seated in Congress after votes were counted, recounted, and certified by the state. Several days ago, the House Administration Committee started a process that could lead to Miller-Meeks being unseated.
“It was six votes, and our candidate Rita Hart, the Democratic candidate asked for this process to begin,” Pelosi told ABC. “What the committee did, the House Administration Committee, was very narrow to take the process to the next step and see where it goes from there. An election of six votes out of 400,000 votes cast. This is not unique. This has happened, maybe even when you were in the Capitol before when races had been close one side or the others saying, let’s take it to the House.”
She said that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “agreed that the House has the authority to seat members,” meaning that “we can count the votes.”
Several days prior to her interview, Pelosi told reporters in a press conference that overturning the election in favor of Hart is a “hypothetical” situation but later said it’s possible.
“Well, I respect the work of the committee,” the California Democrat said on March 12. “I did see, as you saw in the press, what they decided to—and they were following my, as I read it, the requirements of the law as to how you go forward. And how you go forward is the path you’re on and we’ll see where that takes us. But there could be a scenario to that extent. Yes.”
Pelosi, with her Sunday comment, appeared to be echoing a statement sent out by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Administration Committee, to her members saying that “the margin separating the two candidates was only six votes out of almost 400,000 cast: less than 1/6 of 1 percent. That’s six votes—not 6,000; not 600; not 60 or even 16—just six fewer votes than we have members of this committee.”
“...that threatens to undermine faith in democracy by nurturing the lie that the election was corrupt...”
Right there is the Big Lie the DNC machine just can’t spew enough. Does the NYT pay royalties to Joseph Goebbels’ estate for copying his methods? They should.
NYT fears that the methods of election theft will be exposed to the extent they cannot be used in the future. The only thing that will restore faith in democracy is honest elections. Yet the NYT can’t bear for others to have due process of law. If they are so confident the election was squeaky clean, they should welcome the chance to refute the evidence in court.
excellent commentary.
81 million people voted for the Easter Bunny to run the show. It can’t be undone.
Hells bells, Republican Party PA anticipated the stolen election in PA, to the point where SCOTUS ordered post-election mail-in ballots to be segregated! And they weren't!
And after the election, Roberts refused Alito's request for the 4th vote to docket the case!
The day Alito is allowed to speak in public about the disposition of Republican Party PA will be the day the dam breaks about the 2020 election theft.
Republican Party PA v Boockvar, is the case filed long before the election, wherein Justice Alito Ordered [PDF] 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”.
So you’re saying it’ll take stronger measures to restore the Republic? Certainly don’t disagree.
I honestly don't care what the courts are interested in. If you have evidence of a crime then it's the responsibility of the judiciary to deal with it. But nobody is taking all this alleged evidence to trial. Nobody is filing changes. Nobody is doing anything except whine about it.
Why haven't charges been filed in state court? It would seem to me this would be a state issue as well.
You mean the same judiciary that goes along with pre-trial solitary confinement for the Jan 6 protestors? The same judiciary that went along with the political prosecution of General Flynn? The same judiciary that went along with not prosecuting BLM rioters?
I don't share your faith in the judicial system. It's become just as political, if not more so, than the other branches.
Most of the January 6 defendants were released on bail.
I don't share your faith in the judicial system. It's become just as political, if not more so, than the other branches.
Then what's your solution?
The PA state supreme court was instrumental in rigging the mail-in voting fraud, and Roberts and SCOTUS let them get away with it despite the clear violations of republican government such represented.
Once again, you act like the judiciary is some kind of neutral arbiter here. It is 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.