He should see a doctor about that.
This Is Not Evidence of Election Fraud. It's Just Images and Voices on Your Screen.
- Thread starter MaddSkillz
- Start Date
He should see a doctor about that.
Ariz. Supreme Court Agrees To Review Voter Fraud Case
Dr. Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, holds a press conference at the Maricopa County Elections Department as she reports the progress of the a post-election logic and accuracy test for the general election as she an observer of the test process Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2020, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:36 AM PT – Tuesday, December 8, 2020
In a victory for Arizona’s GOP, the state’s Supreme Court has decided to take on an expedited appeals case over voter fraud. On Monday, the state Supreme Court said it will review the appeal, but will not be hearing oral arguments.
The suit was filed by Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward who called to overturn the state’s election results and cited evidence of duplicated ballots. She had filed the initial suit last week, but it was dismissed by a Maricopa County superior court judge who, in part, cited a filing deadline technicality.
While the Supreme Court decision is a decisive victory for the Trump campaign, Ward was quick to point out that the campaign was employing a number of strategies in order to bring the truth to Arizona.
The high court ordered both sides to file written briefs for the appeal by next week.
Dr. Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, holds a press conference at the Maricopa County Elections Department as she reports the progress of the a post-election logic and accuracy test for the general election as she an observer of the test process Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2020, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:36 AM PT – Tuesday, December 8, 2020
In a victory for Arizona’s GOP, the state’s Supreme Court has decided to take on an expedited appeals case over voter fraud. On Monday, the state Supreme Court said it will review the appeal, but will not be hearing oral arguments.
The suit was filed by Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward who called to overturn the state’s election results and cited evidence of duplicated ballots. She had filed the initial suit last week, but it was dismissed by a Maricopa County superior court judge who, in part, cited a filing deadline technicality.
While the Supreme Court decision is a decisive victory for the Trump campaign, Ward was quick to point out that the campaign was employing a number of strategies in order to bring the truth to Arizona.
The high court ordered both sides to file written briefs for the appeal by next week.
SEVEN states have now joined Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota.
UPDATE: To reiterate: Re PA case, Alito denied the emergency relief. They have not ruled yet on the writ of certiorari, that is what will determine if they hear the case.
UPDATE: To reiterate: Re PA case, Alito denied the emergency relief. They have not ruled yet on the writ of certiorari, that is what will determine if they hear the case.
Ted Cruz has agreed to present the Texas case in oral arguments. He has argued nine cases in front of SCOTUS and IIRC he's not ever lost. If he's willing to personally argue this one, he thinks it has merit and a chance of winning.
A very good read.
To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling.I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.
First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.
Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.
Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.
Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.
Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:
1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers
2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio
3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.
Patrick Basham is director of the Democracy Institute.
https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/
To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling.I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.
First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.
Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.
Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.
Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.
Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:
1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers
2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio
3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions
4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures
5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’
6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing
7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes
8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law
9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.
Patrick Basham is director of the Democracy Institute.
https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/
It never happened. Nothing there as it was the most legit and transparent election in HISTORY! Just ask the main stream media.
Our libs will be along shortly to POO POO all of the fake news because it never happened. Nothing happened. What happened? Nothing.
Keep saying nothing and it never happened said saul alinsky.
Breaking: SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit
I'd just like for someone to detail what exactly was accomplished to secure our election process between 2016 and 2020? I ask because the left was incessantly challenging the election results for YEARS, because our election process was subverted and compromised during the 2016 election. Even DJT himself admitted back then that our election process was vulnerable. So what law(s) were signed and implemented since 2016? What funding was allocated? What oversight and cross-checking/verification processes were enhanced?
I ask because I don't remember hearing a single Democrat saying that the American election process was finally secure. Do any of you remember that happening? because as far as I can see, the only real difference between 2016 and 2020 election security, is that John Podesta's emails didn't reveal how corrupt the Democrats were this time around, and the DNC must've hired someone who could actually secure their servers.
Serious question...
https://rumble.com/vbosv1-this-is-the-one-the-case-weve-been-waiting-for.html
Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed the breaking news that state of Texas is suing four battleground states directly at the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a case of original jurisdiction at the high Court and could be outcome determinative on the election.
Filed by the state of Texas and its attorney general, this lawsuit is focusing on three main constitutional claims. Texas is saying that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in how they administered their elections violated the Elector’s Clause because it’s the state legislatures that have to make rules on how elections should be conducted and to implement changes if necessary. There’s an Equal Protection claim, as well as a Due Process claim.
The prayer for relief in the lawsuit is that the states cannot seat the electors and basically that the legislatures should, in each of these states, appoint new electors. So this has been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court overnight or morning by the state of Texas against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What is key is this case could be outcome determinative. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to agree with Texas, it could ultimately be outcome determinative if the state legislatures had to pick new electors.
My dad, Jay Sekulow, discussed the significance of this case:
“What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.
This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.”
This comes on the day that electors are being seated and then next week on December 14th, they will vote. So this all has to happen very quickly. This is extremely significant because the state of Texas has the jurisdiction to go right to U.S. Supreme Court, as it is a case or original jurisdiction between two or more states under the Constitution.
This is the most important lawsuit filed thus far during the legal phase of the presidential election. We’ll continue to keep you updated as it develops. At the ACLJ, we have been fighting to defend the integrity of the election and the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court takes up this case, we will look to file our own amicus brief along with our members.
The full broadcast is complete with much more analysis of this newly filed Texas lawsuit and how it may determine the outcome of the presidential election. The Court could issue a briefing schedule or reject the case at any moment.
Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed the breaking news that state of Texas is suing four battleground states directly at the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a case of original jurisdiction at the high Court and could be outcome determinative on the election.
Filed by the state of Texas and its attorney general, this lawsuit is focusing on three main constitutional claims. Texas is saying that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in how they administered their elections violated the Elector’s Clause because it’s the state legislatures that have to make rules on how elections should be conducted and to implement changes if necessary. There’s an Equal Protection claim, as well as a Due Process claim.
The prayer for relief in the lawsuit is that the states cannot seat the electors and basically that the legislatures should, in each of these states, appoint new electors. So this has been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court overnight or morning by the state of Texas against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What is key is this case could be outcome determinative. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to agree with Texas, it could ultimately be outcome determinative if the state legislatures had to pick new electors.
My dad, Jay Sekulow, discussed the significance of this case:
“What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.
This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.”
This comes on the day that electors are being seated and then next week on December 14th, they will vote. So this all has to happen very quickly. This is extremely significant because the state of Texas has the jurisdiction to go right to U.S. Supreme Court, as it is a case or original jurisdiction between two or more states under the Constitution.
This is the most important lawsuit filed thus far during the legal phase of the presidential election. We’ll continue to keep you updated as it develops. At the ACLJ, we have been fighting to defend the integrity of the election and the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court takes up this case, we will look to file our own amicus brief along with our members.
The full broadcast is complete with much more analysis of this newly filed Texas lawsuit and how it may determine the outcome of the presidential election. The Court could issue a briefing schedule or reject the case at any moment.
