In reply to aggiejayrod

Quote:

---

If you make it so that someone so toxic in the legal community that they can't hire a lawyer you've really denied that person any form of justice.

---

Which is the endgame, and why they use the dehumanizing language they do.

In reply to richardag

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.

It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.

As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.

---

So you don't believe in the rule of law.

---

I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".

---

No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.

---

There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.

Is that what you are talking about?

Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it. Again, that is on whoever did that, but you can't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters for following the rules that were given to them.

In reply to Ellis Wyatt

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Their side won, therefore anyone who suggests shenanigans is a conspiracy theorist and a threat to democracy.

---

This is right.

The left knew this would likely only work once, but they took full advantage of it. Under the cover of COVID, they implemented a plan to change the rules, just long enough, to get Biden elected, and now the rules have reverted.

They knew what they did was likely wrong and unconstitutional, but the ends justified it.

If Biden loses (and hopefully he does), we should have clear stats to prove out that the claims were correct and when they can't change the rules, suddenly they aren't as successful as they were.

In reply to AgLiving06

AgLiving06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Their side won, therefore anyone who suggests shenanigans is a conspiracy theorist and a threat to democracy.

---

This is right.

The left knew this would likely only work once, but they took full advantage of it. Under the cover of COVID, they implemented a plan to change the rules, just long enough, to get Biden elected, and now the rules have reverted.

They knew what they did was likely wrong and unconstitutional, but the ends justified it.

If Biden loses (and hopefully he does), we should have clear stats to prove out that the claims were correct and when they can't change the rules, suddenly they aren't as successful as they were.

---

Have they, though?

In reply to eric76

eric76 said:

---

There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.

Is that what you are talking about?

---

In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.

In reply to Ellis Wyatt

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.

Is that what you are talking about?

---

In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.

---

I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.

However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.

The ones to go after are the officials who usurped the power to make the changes to the rules, not the voters relying on those rules to vote.

In reply to eric76

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.

---

I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.

However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.

---

Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.

Both happened in 2020.

In reply to Ellis Wyatt

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.

---

I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.

However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.

---

Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.

Both happened in 2020.

---

That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.

In reply to eric76

Quote:

---

That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.

---

Not necessarily. For the most part those judges and election officialsare themselves elected. Not allowing the public to know their malfeasance so they can be booted out of office is a disservice to those voters.

In reply to eric76

eric76 said:

---

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.

It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.

As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.

---

So you don't believe in the rule of law.

---

I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".

---

No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.

---

There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.

Is that what you are talking about?

Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it.
Again, that is on whoever did that, but you can't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters for following the rules that were given to them.

---

Eric said,"Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it."

• they broke the law because those votes were invalid and invalid votes are not to be counted.
• So you don't believe in the rule of law

There were mail in ballots that failed chain of custody

• Our review uncovered multiple violations of ballot transportation procedures," the attorney general wrote. "Specially, our investigation confirmed that out of 1,895 Early Voting Ballot Transportation Statements, 381 forms or 20 percent were missing required information

More abuse, these ballots should not have been counted.

edit corrected votes are invalid not illegal
edit for clarity

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is on the election officials and judges, not the voters. You aren't going to get voters disenfranchised because they followed the rules given to them.

---

Not necessarily. For the most part those judges and election officialsare themselves elected. Not allowing the public to know their malfeasance so they can be booted out of office is a disservice to those voters.

---

I'm not saying that those changing the rules should not be reprimanded or prosecuted for their actions. If they acted illegally, prosecute them for that.

I'm just saying that the voters who voted according to the rules in place at the time are very unlikely to be disenfranchised as a result. The alternate would be enhanced opportunities for election fraud on a grand scale.

If voters were so easily disenfranchised, what would keep election officials from devising rules contrary to the law and applying them in Republican districts and then throwing out the vote in those districts because the voters followed those rules?

Just recently, the Georgia State Board of Elections issued a written reprimand to the Fulton County Board of Elections for breaking the law in reporting the 2022 primary results. Then a warning to go forth and sin no more.

That was it. And what Fulton County did was certify partial election results. They didn't even count all of the votes before certifying the results, which had the effect of stopping the counting for a time. It took nearly two years to force the Georgia State Board of Elections to even set a hearing on the complaints against Fulton County.

In reply to richardag

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

richardag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I'm still waiting to see if anyone is actually serious about making elections more secure instead of just coming up with more security theater that doesn't fix anything.

It is true that what we have now is messy, but if we aren't willing to spend the time and effort to fix that mess, then we will have to live with it.

As for claims that "They shouldn't have done X so all the ballots are invalid" is nothing but horse crap as far as I'm concerned. Nobody is going to be inclined to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

If there's a problem, either fix it or live with it. F*** band-aids.

---

So you don't believe in the rule of law.

---

I believe in the rule of law. I don't believe in the concept making unsubstantiated allegations out of bias and calling it "truth".

---

No, you are wrong, mail in ballots were counted that did not meet the state statutes.

---

There have been claims that the entire mail in ballot was unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, but the state constitution was amended a few years ago to allow the legislature to set the rules about which methods of voting are permitted and the legislature did pass a law to allow mail in ballots as a valid method of voting.

Is that what you are talking about?

Some states did relax their rules somewhat because of the covid pandemic. They should not have done so where the laws did not permit it.

• they broke the law because those votes were illegal
• So you don't believe in the rule of law

Again, that is on whoever did that, but you can't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters for following the rules that were given to them.

---

---

I wish people would learn how to post.

It's easy to insert your comments between the previous poster's comments.

Insert a "[/quote]" before your comment and a "[quote]" afterwards to avoid anyone confusing your comments with the comments of the previosu person.

Interesting. Looking back on the 2020 election, I now believe a key point of the Mueller Investigation/Russian election tampering narrative was to burn the public out on hearing about election fraud.

FTR: The votes are not "illegal" they are invalid. There's a difference.

There very well could some illegal actions that lead to votes being invalid then again there may not have been. In either event, invalid votes are not to be counted.

And the inability to sequester questionable votes effectively is at the heart of the issue in going from precinct level counting to central counting centers. Those central counting seemed very counterintuitve during covid. Made zer sense to cram more people into the same place, unless the goal was to exclude the observers.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

FTR: The votes are not "illegal" they are invalid. There's a difference.

There very well could some illegal actions that lead to votes being invalid then again there may not have been. In either event, invalid votes are not to be counted.

And the inability to sequester questionable votes effectively is at the heart of the issue in going from precinct level counting to central counting centers. Those central counting seemed very counterintuitve during covid. Made zer sense to cram more people into the same place, unless the goal was to exclude the observers.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I edited my post.

About a 48 minute video from November 2023 on the long running Curling v. Raffensperger case in Georgia. That case long predated any of Eastman's involvement.

In reply to Ellis Wyatt

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

In 2020, judges changed the laws such that they did not align with the passed legislation. Judges are not legislators and have no right to create law. This is not hard to understand. For most people.

---

I agree that election officials do not have the right to change the rules unless the laws gave them that right.

However, the voters are stuck with the rules set for the election and you can't disenfranchise them for following the rules that were set by those with the "apparent authority" to do so.

---

Maybe I am typing too fast. "Election officials" cannot change laws. Judges cannot create laws.

Both happened in 2020.

---

The votes should have been thrown out as per the law. We are supposed a country that believes in the rule of law.

Another disturbing occurrence.
Quote from the article

• She made a mirror-image copy of all the data so that when they did the upgrade, she could say, "I haven't violated federal law. I've got it." She had the mirror image, and she hired forensic analysts to look at.
  
  They are now charging her with nine felonies for illegally accessing the information, but what they discovered in that audit, they actually identified computer code that was changing votes. Now, Jeff O'Donnell was the guy that did it. He published three reports, the three Mesa County reports. I called Jeff O'Donnell as one of the witnesses of my California bar trial. The judge has barred him from testimony. We had not identified him up-front because this was going to be rebuttal to their claims that everything was fine. The third audit has occurred down in Georgia. There's one case still pending from all of these things from three years ago. The case is called Favorito vs. Raffensperger

She broke the law and should be penalized, however She made a mirror image that the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.

In reply to richardag

Quote:

---

She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.

---

She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.

In reply to richardag That's how Marxist regimes work.


Don't worry everyone. Just say it was the most secure election evaarrr and anyone opposed to rigged elections is a threat to democracy(tm) and maybe you'll be ok.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.

---

She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.

---

Thanks for correcting me. I will edit my post. I was thinking she accessed the data improperly alone and was required to has other people present.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

I just want to say that those of you who have taken the time to read that very long piece, THANK YOU!

---

All thanks is owed to you for your diligence, expertise, and tenacity in keeping us informed. You're the best.

In reply to richardag

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg
Quote from the article;

• To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that: 120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania was 80,000.

Where are the journalists @ABC, CBS, NBC?

---

I remember when the polls closed, Trump had a commanding lead in Penn, over 400K.

Took them a week to steal it.

Where was the Republican leadership outcry....they were like the folks watching the sheriff get horse whipped in the movie High Plain Drifter.

Solution, put Grok (X AI) in charge of vote challenge data analysis. Judges & politicians are corrupt & power hungry by nature.

Elon can prove its authenticity, the left will hate it.

In reply to PA24

PA24 said:

---

"The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That means no signature was ever going to get disqualified and in Fulton County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature verification".

In full view For all to see and no laws were broken as Sec of State approved the deal months before the election.

---

So those deciding whether or not they match are going to base their decisions on nothing but bias?

Are the signatures on the ballot or on the envelope that the ballot is mailed in? If they are on the envelope, then how would the three even know who the voter voted for other than guessing?

One of the worst things for this country is letting things getting so political. If they cannot set their biases aside, no matter which way that bias goes, and do their job, then they shouldn't have that job at all.

In reply to PA24

PA24 said:

---

"The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. Secretary Raffensperger's settlement agreement required three people to unanimously agree that the signature did not match, and it had to be a Democrat, a Republican and somebody else, so you were never going to get the unanimous agreement. That means no signature was ever going to get disqualified and in Fulton County, election officials did not even bother conducting signature verification".

In full view For all to see and no laws were broken as Sec of State approved the deal months before the election.

---

The Secretary of State is not the legislature. Unless he was specifically granted the authority to make decisions like that, he doesn't have that power.

In reply to richardag

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She broke the law and should be penalized, however the audit discovered computer code changed votes. She put it all on the line and the Democratic Party leadership will make sure she is crucified with catastrophic penalties as a message to others.

---

She followed federal and state law in preserving them. It was Jenna Griswold the CO Sec of State that was ordering these clerks to allow Dominion to to show up to delete the evidence from the 2020 election. They were the ones violating the law.

---

Thanks for correcting me. I will edit my post. I was thinking she accessed the data improperly alone and was required to has other people present.

---

No, you had it correct the first time. Tina Peters thought, among other things, that it was a good idea to turn off security cameras and give an ex-pro surfer unauthorized, illegal access to election equipment and data ... that oddly then appeared on the web shortly after.

But her latest idea is that the Hawaii fires were caused by a secret laser weapon. Sadly there are gullible people who believe she is telling the truth.

Not confined to election denial at #CSPOAVegas, Tina Peters goes full conspiracist, telling the crowd that the Lahaina Hawaii fire was intentionally caused by a "microwave weapon that's in a tube of a laser." pic.twitter.com/2jOJpfCXAa

— Devin Burghart (@dburghart) April 17, 2024

In reply to Retired FBI Agent Any lib who calls someone else "an election denier" immediately loses all credibility. The left are the queens of denying elections.

Has eric76 EVER, in the history of forever, admitted being wrong? I've never seen him ever concede on this forum, despite countless opportunities to do so.

Not unlike what Robert Gates said about FJB, ""I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades," former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden in his new book coming out later this month." That's a quote from 2014.

Identify law, abuse and disrespect the law. People follow suit. Lemmings... look at the border patrol employees ignoring and abusing law as ordered to do by really smart evil people. Evil that can chart a path and skate to their goal assisted by lemmings. Integrity should not go out the window doing as told. History shows otherwise.

Weak people comprise the massive foundation of #FJB

In reply to TRADUCTOR

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Identify law, abuse and disrespect the law. People follow suit. Lemmings... look at the border patrol employees ignoring and abusing law as ordered to do by really smart evil people. Evil that can chart a path and skate to their goal assisted by lemmings. Integrity should not go out the window doing as told. History shows otherwise.

Weak people comprise the massive foundation of #FJB

---

Both Biden and Trump.

Better very very late than never, I guess. Back to Georgia.

Also related to this is the current action to take away Ken Paxton's law license. The latest on that case is at the US 5th Circuit of Appeals in NOLA I believe. There, the court ruled against Paxton in Apr 19, declaring the state bar of Texas can discipline Paxton as an individual attorney and that discipline does not mean it is disciplining him for acting as attorney general (huh?).

Quote:

---

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) A Texas appeals court has ruled that Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton can face discipline from the state bar association over his failed effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

A disciplinary committee of the State Bar of Texas accused Paxton in 2022 of making false claims of fraud in a lawsuit that questioned President Joe Biden's victory. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeals said Paxton can be sanctioned by the committee because the lawsuit seeks to punish him in his personal capacity as an attorney and not as a public official.

"The focus of the Commission's allegations is squarely on Paxton's alleged misconduct not that of the State," Judge Erin Nowell, an elected Democrat, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.

The lone Republican on the panel, Judge Emily Miskel, was in dissent.

A similar lawsuit was also brought against one of Paxton's top deputies. Earlier this week, a coalition of state Republican attorneys general urged the Texas Supreme Court to reject efforts by the bar to impose discipline. All nine members of the state's highest civil court are Republicans.

"As in that case, we will appeal this ruling and we have full confidence the Supreme Court of Texas will not allow false claims by the State Bar and partisan political revenge to affect professional licensure of the state's lawyers," Paxton spokeswoman Paige Willey said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas and the committee accusing Paxton declined to comment on the ruling.

Paxton is among the highest-profile attorneys to face a threat of sanctions for aiding in efforts led by former President Donald Trump to throw into question Trump's defeat.

Free link via Yahoo.

---

The reporting on this complicated, layered court ruling was terrible. They made it appear that Paxton lost everything.

None of the reporting delved into WHY the state bar is trying to take away Paxton's license. But the reasons are very similar to Eastman's case. Paxton filed a lawsuit alleging the election in Pennsylvania was fraud and listed reasons. For that, he is being disbarred?

I will add that I am not a Paxton fanboy either. However, this supports Eastman's argument, that if the Left continues to do this to Republican attorneys we will have no more Republican attorneys left nor will be have an adversarial legal system in regards to ballot integrity (not that we have seen any of that yet so far for the Nov 2020 election anyway).