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

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Boadicea

ok

Just "ok"? Why am I not surprised... You accuse me of wanting to break the law --

So really how are you any better than those you're decrying? You're willing to break the law to uphold the law.

But when I point out that I have not broken the law, but others have broken the law and continue to break the law, and that I am simply demanding our Constitutional right to redress of our grievances -- including those broken laws -- and that you are the one who is not agreeing "upon a shared set of statutes", all you've got is "ok".

And this is exactly why I do not respect you, why you have lost all credibility with me, and why I do not believe for a minute that you are posting with any good faith whatsoever.

I have no doubt that you know I am right, and you are desperately trying to confuse, conflate and otherwise muddy the waters.

People power:

HUGE: Election Poll Worker Turnout for Republicans in Dane County Wisconsin Up from 41 Last Election to 318 For Next Election

The people of Wisconsin are livid with the stolen election and are taking their election process back from the corrupt Democrats and RINOs.

This is just the beginning, just one step of many steps, but this is how it's done. We cannot trust anyone but ourselves -- We The People -- to right this ship.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Boadicea

ok

Just "ok"? Why am I not surprised... You accuse me of wanting to break the law --

So really how are you any better than those you're decrying? You're willing to break the law to uphold the law.

But when I point out that I have not broken the law, but others have broken the law and continue to break the law, and that I am simply demanding our Constitutional right to redress of our grievances -- including those broken laws -- and that you are the one who is not agreeing "upon a shared set of statutes", all you've got is "ok".

And this is exactly why I do not respect you, why you have lost all credibility with me, and why I do not believe for a minute that you are posting with any good faith whatsoever.

I have no doubt that you know I am right, and you are desperately trying to confuse, conflate and otherwise muddy the waters.

So let me get this straight.

You offer up far right wing websites that have a loyalty to one candidate , a candidate that screams he really won, and that's proof that laws were broken. Anyone that wants to see actual proof, like me, is automatically uncredible because we don't believe the partisan reporting?

Is that the general jist of your argument?

Show me one case that is actually someone being arrested and tried, and then convicted, of MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD on the level that you are stating happened, and then and only then will I believe all the lies coming from that particular candidates minions and sycophants.

I can give you a hint, there are none...

a reply to: vkey08

LOL! First you told me there was no proof that anyone broke the law... I provided proof by way of a Supreme Court ruling, including excerpted quotes from that ruling specifically stating that the law was broken... and you disappeared. Never responding to my post, although you demanded the proof. Not before you disappeared... and not after you reappeared.

Now you demand --

...one case that is actually someone being arrested and tried, and then convicted, of MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD on the level that you are stating happened...

It's downright pathetic how many conditions and qualifiers you had to stick in there just to be sure I couldn't prove you wrong AGAIN!!! And pretty darn laughable as well.

So not just no, but HELL NO!

You've lost all credibility with me, and I don't give a damn what you do or don't believe, and I will not jump through your hoops. If you ever manage to eek out a halfway reasonable concern or issue that is worth responding to on its own merits, I may do so. Or I may not. But I'm doing it for my purposes, not yours.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I dont. The National Task Force on Election Crises calls it that.

A quick look at the membership is plenty enough to allow me to just rotflmao at your pathetic excuse of an attempt to provide some kind of unbiased contribution to the conversation.

Color me unsurprised (considering the source).

a reply to: Boadicea

There is no Supreme Court Of the United States ruling that anyone "broke the law", at least not in a criminal sense. It was a Procedural violation, there's a world of difference between that and "election fraud"

Claiming people have lost credibility with you simply because you cannot give the proof needed, is a classic trick that people use when their own arguments are how should I put it nicely, full of it.

However, I will give you this last chance to show a criminal case, anywhere in the US that is ongoing before a judge and jury, that is a person or persons engaged in MASSIVE election fraud. Not the one off people here and there that happen every year and would continue even with draconian laws passed.

Net you'll tell me that SCOTUS heard Mike Lindell's motion, which I know and everyone else knows they didn't..

Oh by the way, I've worked for the United States Government through five administrations, both Republican and Democrat, I will always stay neutral unless something is seriously off to one side or the other.

a reply to: vkey08

There is no Supreme Court Of the United States ruling that anyone "broke the law", at least not in a criminal sense. It was a Procedural violation, there's a world of difference between that and "election fraud"

Wrongdoing is wrongdoing... broken laws are broken laws... lying liars are lying liars and cheating cheaters are cheating cheaters. You can mock, belittle, minimize and otherwise try to deflect and deny, but that's all it is.

And playing dumb isn't going to work, as you were already informed that it was the Arizona Supreme Court, as it pertained to Arizona state law, as duly legislated by our State Legislators. I have previously provided you the court ruling, and quoted excerpts in the ruling which specifically referred to the laws being broken. The court's ruling -- not my opinion. I took the time and made the effort once, and you refused to even acknowledge the post, much less respond to it. Just as you have done continuously, preferring to tell me who I am and what I am and what my real motives are, often in the most insulting ways.

So keep your conditions and qualifiers and every other weasel word you can throw out to yourself. I will take exception and object to whatever I deem proper in terms of election integrity -- or the lack thereof -- not what you tell me. I will post whatever I deem appropriate for this thread -- The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform -- from whoever I deem proper, not who or what you want me to post.

Don't like it? Tough.

Why worry about the proceedure stuff? That's small potatoes. It just distracts from the main issue.


Why is mail in voting suspect? Because Ninjas found offset ballots. Runbeck is a quality oriented organization. I somehow doubt they'd let offset printing of ballots slide through their quality control process.


So this means:

If

A - Runbeck was the only organization authorized to print ballots.

And

B - Runbeck didn't print these.

Therefore

C - Some ballots must have been printed by someone that didn't have legal authority to print ballots.


That's what is called a "smoking gun".

(I guess the person holding it can always argue that maybe they were having a cigarette and some smoke got in the barrel.......

If you have enough suspension of disbelief, then any excuse will do.)



Adding:

You can add to that, the Ninjas' finding that over 50% of the names registered in the voter registry could not be confirmed to be real people. I had to go back to the July 15 video from the old thread to look and make sure where their data is coming from (The old link has been deleted, and I won't tell you where I found my link to it because I don't want it to get deleted also.)

When the data guy explained that the information had been deleted, he also explained that he was able to recover it. They only deleted the entry in the hard drive's directory list. They didn't zero out the data itself, so he was able to reassemble it.

So actually the Ninja's have full access, even though Maricopa tried to move it to somewhere it couldn't be subpoena'd.




Those are the two things you need for full fraud.

1- Entries in the voter registry for people who don't exist.

2- Printed ballots for those people, that never get sent to the Post Office. (And consequently don't need to match anyone's name/address because nobody will ever put them to that test.)



If over half the voter roles are fake, then that means Trump could receive 100% of the votes, and still lose. Nobody was taking any chances.

a reply to: vkey08

*sighs* considering the layout of voting districts you do not need MASSIVE voter fraud, flipping the right county can flip a state from red to blue, or blue to red.

That does not require MASSIVE voter fraud it just requires coordinated fraud activity.

I am sure you will object to the web site but here goes.

Heritage.org

All-mail elections have received heightened attention in the media these past few weeks. Prominent liberals highly endorse the idea, claiming it allows people to do their patriotic duty without risking being infected by the coronavirus.

In reality, without rigid safeguards to prevent fraud, misuse, and voter intimidation, absentee ballot fraud—while it may occur sporadically—already has affected the outcome of elections in states and counties across the country.

Just look at the 2018 congressional race in North Carolina that was overturned by the state election board. Or the mayor of Gordon, Alabama, who was removed from office last year after his conviction for absentee ballot fraud.

Although talk of voter fraud may be increasing because of the stakes in the 2020 election, The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database has been around for four years. With the addition of our latest batch of cases, we are up to 1,285 proven instances of voter fraud.

Voter fraud is a larger problem than just the 2020 presidential election.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: vkey08

*sighs* considering the layout of voting districts you do not need MASSIVE voter fraud, flipping the right county can flip a state from red to blue, or blue to red.

And it only takes one person, if the data isn't locked down.

One person sits at a terminal and inputs a bunch of fake names into the registry. Then generates print data for the names in question, copies it to a thumb drive, and then deletes it.

Then they generate the print data for all the legitimate names, and send that data to Runbeck.

Runbeck doesn't know how many names there are in the registry. They don't have access. So for all they know, the number of ballots in the run is the number that's supposed to be.




None of the other employees in the office would even know they did it. It just takes one bad apple.

seems the vote cannot even be counted correctly by those in the same party, up in Canada.

Glover files final court brief, wants PC leadership vote declared invalid and premier's chair deemed vacant

Shelly Glover's legal team has filed their final arguments in her bid to overturn the Progressive Conservative leadership vote that ended with Heather Stefanson becoming premier of Manitoba.

Glover lost to Stefanson by a small number of votes on Oct. 30 and wants a Court of Queen's Bench judge to order a new vote.

The final ballots totaled 16,546. Stefanson won with 51 per cent of the votes and replaced Brian Pallister as both leader of the Manitoba Tories and premier.

Glover, her scrutineer and two other supporters have filed affidavits to back her claim.

In the brief, Glover, a former member of Parliament and police officer, alleges that the Progressive Conservative party did not know how many ballots were counted and did not protect the integrity of the ballot-counting process.

The argument also notes there was no way of reconciling the number of ballots received with the number of votes ultimately counted.

3 people want the vote overturn

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why is mail in voting suspect? Because Ninjas found offset ballots. Runbeck is a quality oriented organization. I somehow doubt they'd let offset printing of ballots slide through their quality control process.

I'm not so sure about Runbeck being a "quality oriented" organization beyond suspicion, starting with the owner:

Although not listed as a member of the Executive Team, Brian Runbeck, identifies himself as the Client Services Manager/Project Manager and Production Coordinator at Runbeck Election Services. He manages the production of election ballots and related official election material. He claims he handles high pressure deadlines and high volume production.

Mr. Runbeck also made 50 separate donations to Act Blue, Biden for President and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee between August 15 and October 30, 2020.

EXCLUSIVE: Arizona Firm that Allegedly Sent Fake Ballots to Georgia, Runbeck Election Services, Is Closely Tied to Democrat Party

In addition to the calibration problems with off-set printed ballots, it was reported by the auditors that no ballots were printed on the correct stock of paper, resulting in the bleed-thru problems. I am also pretty sure that Runbeck printed and mailed absentee ballots directly to voters in Maricopa County, just as they did in Georgia, where they also printed the ballots.

Among the ballot issues found in Georgia --

We also know that ballots in Georgia were different for Democrat and Republican areas. This was done by the printer.

NOTE that the BAR CODE is missing from these ballots. This is important because as IT specialist Javon Pulitzer noted in testimony earlier this week, the Fulton County ballots in the general election for GOP precincts included a barcode while the ballots in Democrat districts did not include the barcode.

BREAKING: Fulton County Georgia Ordered More Than One Million Absentee Ballots from Printer Days Before the 2020 Election Knowing There Was No Time to Mail Them Out – Why?

As in Arizona, absentee ballots in Georgia were also printed and mailed directly to the voters by Runbeck. This additional order was sent directly to an election official. And, as noted in the title, the order was placed and received too late to process and mail the ballots. The "official" explanation came from the Secretary of State, Gabe Sterling, on Twitter --

They got hit by COVID. They was concern they couldn’t do logic & accuracy testing of the equipment. As a plan C, they ordered enough emergency ballots in case they had to do handmarked at all polling locations. They didn’t. The ordered ballots were known & in view all@the time.

Except that the ballots were ordered more than a week after the L&A testing question was resolved in court, and voting had already begun the day after that decision. And no other county except Fulton County ordered these extra ballots, although all counties would have been in the same circumstances.

Fulton County: Massive Last-Minute Order of over 1M Ballots Discovered

I don't know what to believe about Runbeck. I'm not ready to give them a free pass though.

a reply to: Irishhaf

That does not require MASSIVE voter fraud it just requires coordinated fraud activity.

This is an excellent way to phrase it -- "coordinated" fraud activity.

Much better than "massive" or "widespread". Both are relative terms, which can be applied in various ways, with very different interpretations.

a reply to: puzzled2

Wow. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I'm sorry to hear you all are dealing with the same crap, but I'm sure glad folks are paying attention up in Canada as well. I don't see Dominion mentioned, but I'm pretty sure they have operations in at least some parts of Canada.

ETA: I couldn't help myself... I had to check and sure enough:

Dominion Voting Systems has a history of controversy in Canadian elections

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: puzzled2

Wow. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I'm sorry to hear you all are dealing with the same crap, but I'm sure glad folks are paying attention up in Canada as well. I don't see Dominion mentioned, but I'm pretty sure they have operations in at least some parts of Canada.

ETA: I couldn't help myself... I had to check and sure enough:

Dominion Voting Systems has a history of controversy in Canadian elections

This really has been the perfect storm. To first make a campaign on demonizing anyone who would ask question, then belittling anyone who finds results, nobody wants to even look at this stuff, for fear of being canceled or ridiculed. I honestly don't believe the lefties here are staunchly against fair elections as it appears, I think they are just super easily led with a lustful desire to be smug arrogant assholes. But the fact that we are in a position where asking legitimate questions is frowned upon is the real tragedy.

I have to admit, a psyop of this magnitude is impressive, but when the derp brigade realizes they were played, the damage will have already been done. I can only hope that the efforts of you and others like you will help bring the truth to light. Even if the truth is mundane.

a reply to: network dude

This really has been the perfect storm. To first make a campaign on demonizing anyone who would ask question, then belittling anyone who finds results, nobody wants to even look at this stuff, for fear of being canceled or ridiculed.

It's something I literally had to see for myself to believe. I never would have expected the American people -- left, right, middle -- to accept being told, "Just trust us... and shut the hell up." Nor would I have believed that so many would allow themselves to be intimidated -- and silenced -- by mere words, no matter how insulting or even simply mocking and ridiculing. But this is where we're at.

I honestly don't believe the lefties here are staunchly against fair elections as it appears, I think they are just super easily led with a lustful desire to be smug arrogant assholes. But the fact that we are in a position where asking legitimate questions is frowned upon is the real tragedy.

You are so right. While it's easy enough to blow off the minions chanting from their echo chambers, when it's elected (and unelected) officials telling us that we have no right to know, they are effectively telling us that they are above the law, above reproach, and above accountability. Government has no rights. They have only those powers granted to them by the consent of the governed -- We The People. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on government. They cannot be allowed to operate in darkness.

I would have been very happy if election officials had said, "Here -- have at it. Check it out. Check it ALL out." Only to find there was nothing (or little) to worry about, and we had been assured of the honesty and integrity of our elections. But as soon as We The People were refused, that refusal in and of itself became a HUGE problem.

Sunshine is good for EVERYONE! (except of course the lying liars and cheating cheaters...)

I have to admit, a psyop of this magnitude is impressive, but when the derp brigade realizes they were played, the damage will have already been done. I can only hope that the efforts of you and others like you will help bring the truth to light. Even if the truth is mundane.

And even if the truth includes disinfo and misinfo deliberately injected into the public discussion/debate to distract from genuine problems. For example, I am more inclined to believe that any wrongdoing was committed by our own homegrown cheaters, rather than by foreigners infiltrating and tampering with counts and records. But what better way for the homegrown cheaters to distract and deflect attention from themselves than by creating the appearance of foreign interference? Sending the suspicious on a wild goose chase means that much less focus and attention on themselves.

I'm having trouble understanding the legalities of this, so maybe someone with more/better legal savvy can help:

Federal Judge Issues Order in lawsuit over Dominion election machines

A federal judge is questioning whether he has jurisdiction to hear a sprawling lawsuit against Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems that accuses the election technology company of organized crime and intimidating its critics.

The named plaintiffs to the class action lawsuit, all of whom are in Michigan, allege Dominion has violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act — typically used to prosecute gangs, cartels and the Mafia — by sending cease and desist letters to those who defamed the company.

So the plaintiffs -- those bringing the lawsuit -- are people who spoke out about election irregularities/illegalities in which Dominion was involved in the election. They did not necessarily speak against Dominion itself, but all received cease and desist letters to stop speaking about any irregularities/illegalities in the election. I assume that their lawsuit was filed in Denver because that is where Dominion is based, rather than Michigan where they live, and they were responding directly to the cease and desist letters issued by Dominion. I'm not sure why the judge is questioning his jurisdiction.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued an order for the plaintiffs to explain why he should not dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. His concern fell on narrow, technical grounds: The plaintiffs had not established that their fixed residence, or domicile, was different from that of Dominion’s.

Um... huh??? There doesn't seem to be any question about where Dominion is based, nor does their seem to be any question of where these people live, and where Dominion addressed the cease-and-desist letters. I'm assuming the judge doesn't think the plaintiffs live at Dominion headquarters in Denver. I am not finding any Dominion offices in Michigan that might have issued the cease-and-desist letters, and which would have been proper to sue instead. So I really don't understand what or how they are expected to establish "that their fixed residence, or domicile, was different from that of Dominion's."

The above link offers this link as further description/definition of "domicile" --

‘Domicile’ vs. ‘Residence’ vs. ‘Citizenship’ in Federal Court Jurisdiction – More Semantic Hairsplitting?

-- but it sure doesn't help me understand any better! Maybe someone here understands the legalities and technicalities and can explain better...

Speaking to the big picture, it is chilling that a government contractor, conducting the business of the people -- elections no less! -- can use legal threats and intimidation to shut down any talk of wrongdoing on their part.

Mike Pence: 'There were irregularities' in 2020 election, feels he made right decision Jan. 6

In an interview partially released Wednesday with CBN’s David Brody, Pence would not say that the election was "rigged" or "stolen," but said, "I believe there were irregularities about which I was concerned, and I wanted them to have a fair hearing before the Congress."

The interviewer, Dav id Brody tweeted --

NEW: @Mike_Pence won't use the words "rigged" or "stolen" regarding the 2020 Election. He tells me there were irregularities but, "I truly believe that that was properly reviewed in the courts and ultimately was passed on...

Pence washes his hands of any responsibility or accountability by hiding behind the Constitution --

"On January 6th, I said that I believe there were irregularities about which I was concerned, and I wanted them to have a fair hearing before the Congress," Pence says. "But from the founding of this nation forward, it's been well established that elections are to be governed at the state level and that the only role that Congress has is to open and count the electoral votes that are submitted by states across the country. No more no less than that."

ETA: 'I Believe There Were Irregularities' in the 2020 Election: What Pence Says to Angry MAGA Fans About What He Did on Jan. 6

Pence had every right and every reason to question the methods and means by which the states electors were chosen and submitted. Pence knew that objections were raised and evidence submitted at that very hearing... and that the opportunity and obligation to consider and weigh the evidence and objections was denied when the House was evacuated due to concerns about the protesters/rioters at the Capitol.

Pence did not live up to his responsibilities and obligations -- not under the Constitution, and not under the Electoral Counting Act. Pence did not fulfill his duties... Pence shirked his duties.

a reply to: Boadicea

The brave people of Wisconsin aren't going to let manic Democrat killers driving SUVs intimidate them.

a reply to: Boadicea


Without quoting your whole mess.

1) Federal lawsuits have two very specific criteria, it must be a Civil Rights issue or a Diversity of Citizenship issue.

White this means in plain English. If you have a Civil Rights issue it does not matter if you are in the same state or different state as the respondent, it's automatically accepted if valid to the Federal Courts. If, however it is not a civil rights issue: Then you run into a larger issue. You HAVE to be in a different state than the respondent, and that's not the respondents home office, it's the office they do business out of NEAREST TO YOU.

In this case, in order to do business in Michigan, Dominion would have had to have an office Michigan and be registered as a Michigan company, therefor the suit would have to be filed, you guessed it, in Michigan State Courts, and only go Federal if the State Courts had ruled against, ie: the appeal process. It doesn't matter that Dominion's head office is in Denver, if they have even one office in Michigan, which is required by law to do business in that state (or have a registered agent there that accepts service, one or the other is acceptable) it is irrelevant to the legal system where their Corporation HQ is actually located.

Hope this proves I can disagree with you but still offer up an explanation if needed.