The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: tanstaafl

Unfortunately, no.. sorry.

The individual States united by and under the Constitution for these united States of America are ... imaginary?

Fortunately, your ignorance doesn't matter, and has no bearing on what State Legislators can choose to do, and they most certainly can, if they so choose, decertify. It would take a majority, not an easy task, but it could be done.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
not an easy task, but it could be done.

It would violate federal law after:

“Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President”

Federal law says that all states "must appoint their electors on election day". Attempting to subvert the will of the people after election day would:

deprive the state of protections in federal law that require Congress to honor the
state’s chosen electors. The Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) includes a “safe harbor” provision that treats as
“conclusive” a state’s chosen slate of electors if two criteria are satisfied: (1) the electors must be chosen under
laws enacted prior to Election Day, and (2) the selection process, including final resolution of any disputes, must
be completed at least six days prior to the meetings of the electors. 3 U.S.C. § 5

That safe harbor expiration would have been Dec 8, 2020.

So, it's mostly a fantasy that a Presidential election can be "decertified", and pushing that agenda upon the ignorant seems like a real crappy thing to do.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Kaiju666

originally posted by: Boadicea
YOU are stuck on Trump. YOU can't get beyond Trump. YOU are the one who can't think outside of your ill-informed self-righteous bubble of contempt for all things Trump.

This truth can't be stated enough. It's pathetically hilarious how many smurfs have this syndrome. In the words of Buzz, "To election reform and beyond!" ...or something like that.

Any time one of us replies to something they say, we're playing into their hands. I simply ignore them. It dilutes the thread (and disrespects the thread's owner) to conduct interpersonal communications. Communications which should be conducted via the forum's private-messaging function.

Fair enough. I do plenty of ignoring, 'tis why my posts are so low since joining + the years before of just lurking.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Kaiju666


What exactly is a 'smurf'.

Is this the latest derogatory term being thrown about by the party of inclusiveness?

'Deplorables' wasn't good enough?

'Tea Bagger' didn't get enough giggles?

Didn't like how 'Fake News' and 'Fascist' backfired?


Maybe I missed something while traveling.

Well, if you must know... It be a term I use for people with TDS. Predominantly certain peoples, I just lump them all together as smurfs. Smurfs are blue (hint hint). I'm surrounded by them. And no, I'm not red either. I claim no color. Election fraud has been committed (not the first time nor last) and needs to be taken care of and the people and powers responsible need to be... Do the crime, do the time.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: tanstaafl
not an easy task, but it could be done.

It would violate federal law after:

“Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President”

Federal law says that all states "must appoint their electors on election day". Attempting to subvert the will of the people after election day would:

deprive the state of protections in federal law that require Congress to honor the
state’s chosen electors. The Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) includes a “safe harbor” provision that treats as
“conclusive” a state’s chosen slate of electors if two criteria are satisfied: (1) the electors must be chosen under
laws enacted prior to Election Day, and (2) the selection process, including final resolution of any disputes, must
be completed at least six days prior to the meetings of the electors. 3 U.S.C. § 5

That safe harbor expiration would have been Dec 8, 2020.

So, it's mostly a fantasy that a Presidential election can be "decertified", and pushing that agenda upon the ignorant seems like a real crappy thing to do.

It's just plain silly that you call it "subverting" the will of the people. If there was fraud, then clearly the fraud would have been a subversion of the will of the people.


However, the part where it says " including final resolution of any disputes" would make decertification impossible, because an election audit certainly counts as a "dispute".

originally posted by: Kaiju666

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: Kaiju666


What exactly is a 'smurf'.

Is this the latest derogatory term being thrown about by the party of inclusiveness?

'Deplorables' wasn't good enough?

'Tea Bagger' didn't get enough giggles?

Didn't like how 'Fake News' and 'Fascist' backfired?


Maybe I missed something while traveling.

Well, if you must know... It be a term I use for people with TDS. Predominantly certain peoples, I just lump them all together as smurfs. Smurfs are blue (hint hint). I'm surrounded by them. And no, I'm not red either. I claim no color. Election fraud has been committed (not the first time nor last) and needs to be taken care of and the people and powers responsible need to be...

Do the crime, do the time.

Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't noticed that being used before.

Agree 100% on the rest.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
It's just plain silly that you call it "subverting" the will of the people.

I dont. The National Task Force on Election Crises calls it that.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

If there was fraud, then clearly the fraud would have been a subversion of the will of the people.

Federal Law is Federal law....fraud or alleged fraud is not the topic at hand on this one. Decertification is and what i was responding to, and it would be a federal crime to subvert the will of the people (having lodged no complaints or disputes prior to the safe harbor deadline date as established by congress) to attempt a reversal.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

However, the part where it says " including final resolution of any disputes" would make decertification impossible, because an election audit certainly counts as a "dispute".

No, actually, according to Federal law, an audit actually doesn't count as a dispute with respect to decertification. The law is very clear on when elector disputes can be lodged, and it has an expiration date. I didn't write the law, but we all have to acknowledge it exists if we want to be intellectually honest.

I dont like Biden either, but we've got him now.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: tanstaafl
not an easy task, but it could be done.

It would violate federal law after:

You mean like the sqwing states violated federal law by continuing to count for a week or more after election day? That federal law?

Anyway, good thing you don't know what you're talking about.

So, it's mostly a fantasy that a Presidential election can be "decertified"

Except it's not, and pushing that falsehood upon the ignorant seems like a real crappy thing to do.

Here are a couple good overviews of the various findings of election wrongdoing, the first focusing on the efforts of private individuals in their states/counties, and the second focusing on the findings of Governor Kemp (Georgia) in response to critical findings reported to him by private citizens:

Meet the Technology That's Uncovering 2020's Voter Fraud

After the 2020 election results stopped in the middle of the night and vote trajectories magically changed when they fired up again, thousands of people, just like you, didn't buy it. They formed armies of canvassers in 35 or more states. They did something that has not been done at scale in the history of the country: they started checking voter rolls.

They did more. They filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests at unprecedented levels. Secretary of state offices, once a murky sinecure, had to answer real questions about what was going on.

The white hat canvassing team built a query for one state: "voters who voted in 2020 who never voted before." Guess what! 265,000.

In the same state, thousands of people came forward with stories that when they showed up to vote, they were told someone had voted for them. Get the picture?

In a southwestern state, in its second-largest city, there was a 21-day daily tabulation of cast ballots. Once a ballot is cast, it should not be changed. Not here.

When the millions of cast votes across over 21 snapshots were compared, thousands of ballots had been altered. Some were minor alterations, like a slight name change. Others were more interesting — like when someone voted in person, but his vote was later changed by an absentee ballot.

It gets better....

Much more at the link.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s Election Audit Report Admits Massive Fulton Errors First Revealed By VoterGA

The Kemp report identified 36 instances of duplicate or misidentified batches in the Fulton audit. Most of the examples are part of 36 incorrectly reported batches and 4,255 duplicate reported votes that were added to the Fulton November audit results according to Cross and VoterGA. The misidentified batches are part of the errors that comprised a whopping 60% batch error rate revealed at the press conference.

Vote misallocations also identified in the Kemp report highlight 7 falsified tally sheets that VoterGA revealed in July. For example, a batch containing 60 ballot images voted for Joe Biden, and 40 voted for Donald Trump was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump. The 7 batches of ballot images with 554 votes for Joe Biden, 140 votes for Donald Trump and 11 votes for Jo Jorgenson had tally sheets in the audit falsified to show 850 votes for Biden, 0 votes for Trump and 0 votes for Jorgenson.

Again, more at the link.

I can only excerpt so much!!!
------------------------------------------------

In Arizona --

Maricopa County To Interview Seven Applicants To Replace Steve Chucri After His Resignation Following Exposed Tapes on Suspected Election Fraud
There is only one person on the list that I would consider worthy... so I have no doubt that he won't be the one chosen! The others are pretty much Never Trumpers and widely considered RINOs.
----------------------------------------------

Update to Wendy Rogers' petition for state legislators calling for audits in all 50 states and decertification where appropriate:

CT senator denies joining group calling for nationwide audit of 2020 election

So Wendy has removed his name from the petition, but has added a couple more:

UPDATE: 187 Legislators from 39 States Write a Letter Calling for a 50-State Audit

So two steps forward and one step back = still making progress!
-------------------------------------------------

I have not watched the following video -- I just don't have the time! And Rumble vids are a pain in the butt to watch, so not inclined to try -- but both Jovan Pulitzer and Doug Logan are in it, so it might be worth someone else's while to watch:

Understanding The Arizona Audit with Doug Logan
-------------------------------------------------

Another video with AZ State Rep Mark Finchem, who is currently running for AZ Secretary of State, and is spearheading The Ballot Integrity Project promoting the adoption of new ballots with several safeguarding features and other election reforms:

W ATCH: AZ State Rep. Mark Finchem Expects Arrests in Arizona: “Maricopa County Isn’t The Only County – We Are Waiting for Indictments”

a reply to: alphabetaone

I don't have to tell you that it's generally considered bad form to post quotes without linking to the source. I will address this in more depth when I have the time, but for those wishing to do a little reading to inform themselves, I wanted to post some links.

First, your source, from the (self-annointed) National Task Force on Election Crises, basically formed as part of Team Biden's greatest election fraud organization ever(!!!):

ElectionTaskForce.org 1 The Electoral Count Act & The Process of Electing a President

And here is Wikipedia's history and description of the Electoral Count Act:

Electoral Count Act

Generally speaking -- because I don't have time to go into specifics right now -- this is a procedural act which only applies to the US Congress, in how they fulfill their Constitutional duties. It is in no way, shape or form binding upon the states. The states set their own election laws and rules, and can damn well decertify their results if they so choose.

Further, the Act itself stipulates that it applies when no laws have been broken in the state elections... And we know laws have been broken. Consequently, the basic standards and conditions for the Act have not been met.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hate to throw cold water on your parade but no just no.

Once Congress certifies results, that's it, there is no Dover there is no ability to say oops we made a mistake baby the states there's nothing left to do except adhere to the Electoral College rules.

By the rules, and States have tried to legislate this but it is not enforceable, the Electors could have if they so chose, voted in Trump. If they thought that there was fraud, if they thought there was criminal acts, if they thought anything. Heck they could vote in Bugs Bunny and Congress would have to certify it.

Thems the breaks.. No amount of whining and screaming and yelling about States decertifying will help that.

- Commercial Break -

Now that we've had almost a year to see President Biden operate, is it obvious that he's revealing something to his supporters which should have been kept secret? Today, someone would cut the feed, lol.

--From October 2020--

a reply to: vkey08

Blah blah blah... yada yada yada... boo fricking hoo.

Get a clue: Maybe start with the links I provided. Or don't. You can be as ignorant and arrogant as you like and continue to spew whatever nonsense you want to spew. But you're still wrong. You are not the final authority on anything. You are not the boss of the states. You are not the boss of the Feds. You are not the boss of the people. No one died and left you in charge.

a reply to: carewemust

Today, someone would cut the feed, lol.

While blasting "All Hail the Chief" over the PA system...


Thanks for posting!

originally posted by: Boadicea

I don't have to tell you that it's generally considered bad form to post quotes without linking to the source

What for? I have to deal with the same level of ignorance whether i do, which i have almost exclusively over my time here, or i dont.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Further, the Act itself stipulates that it applies when no laws have been broken in the state elections... And we know laws have been broken. Consequently, the basic standards and conditions for the Act have not been met.

Which is only applicable if disputes are lodged before the safe harbor deadline (assuming we're all still talking about the same thing here, the presidential election, at least I was)...any grievances after that are either falling upon deaf ears OR, in the case of an attempted subversion of the peoples will, a federal crime.

So really how are you any better than those you're decrying? You're willing to break the law to uphold the law. Either we all agree upon a shared set of statutes or we dont. If we dont, that's anarchy.

a reply to: vkey08

while I agree there is no federal law that allows for overturning the presidential election, can the individual state decertify it's total, and offer a revised total to certify if they audit and find mistakes? I don't know, which is why I asked.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Which is only applicable if disputes are lodged before the safe harbor deadline (assuming we're all still talking about the same thing here, the presidential election, at least I was)...any grievances after that are either falling upon deaf ears OR, in the case of an attempted subversion of the peoples will, a federal crime.

Disputes were lodged. One dispute long before Election Day, with the Supreme Court declaring the law was broken numerous times in their ruling, as I have posted numerous times (although some people don't want to acknowledge it even happened, much less its significance). The law continued to be broken up to and including Election Day, throughout the entire early voting period, despite explicit orders by both the State AG and the Supreme Court to cease and desist.

The Senate was literally in the middle of a nationally live streamed hearing with numerous people testifying to their personal knowledge and experience with voting irregularities and illegalities when the State's were wrongly certified.

Formal objections were made in the US Congress in certifying the Arizona electors, with evidence provided, when the hearing was abruptly halted due to the protestors and rioters at the Capitol.

Disputes were not settled and not resolved.

So really how are you any better than those you're decrying? You're willing to break the law to uphold the law. Either we all agree upon a shared set of statutes or we dont. If we dont, that's anarchy.

Nope -- I'm not the one who has broken laws, nor am I the one who wants laws to continue to be broken. I want resolution and restitution. I want the redress of our grievances as is our right. As I have demonstrated, the conditions and standards to certify the Electors was not met as stated and required in the Electoral Counting Act. Laws were broken. Disputes existed and were not settled nor resolved as stipulated in the act. The US Congress did not meet its own demands for certification. They broke their own law in certifying these results. The same Act that you provided. You are the one who does not want those laws -- "statutes" -- to be enforced and followed.

Furthermore, this Act is not written in stone. Congress wrote the Act and passed the Act, and Congress can amend the Act and Reform the Act as they deem necessary and proper. In fact, if this law is so poorly written and executed that it allows for a fraudulently elected candidate to "win," then it is their duty and obligation to correct that via necessary and proper legislation so it cannot happen again.

a reply to: Boadicea

ok

It was almost 1876 all over again !!

They couldn't have THAT in this day and age now could they 🚬

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: vkey08

while I agree there is no federal law that allows for overturning the presidential election, can the individual state decertify it's total, and offer a revised total to certify if they audit and find mistakes? I don't know, which is why I asked.

As far as I am aware, and I make that very clear as I only know the laws of several of the States well, (NY, CT, MA, NH, ME, CA, AK) not one of those states has a decertification or revision law on the books, and upon speaking to the Stty General here in the State I live in, he noted that for the State Legislature to do so may very well be unconstitutional, but as it's never been tried, there is no precedence.

That being said, he also went on to say that once Congress does their thing in December that's it, game over.

Only way out is to a) Ride out 4 years, vote someone new in. b) impeach , c) move