The stamp on the ballot is irrelevant. It only matters when it was delivered.
Don't forget the deadline for delivery in Pennsylvania was 8:00 p.m. Nearly half a million ballots were delivered to the convention center at 4:00 a.m. the next day
They would have to have a system for marking when they were received. Either they forged that, never marked them received, or received them late. All three could be deduced scientifically.
I think the bigger worry was how do we stop them from taking a ballot they received the day after the election and just saying it was received before 8pm Election Day?
Weren’t they updating their election website with the totals? There’s probably a backlog of the totals at that time. Just reverse back to that OR more likely you revote the state with NO MAIL IN VOTES ONLY ABSENTEE.
Can’t get away with that either because they were updating vote totals in real time. So if we know they were claiming Trump had 3 million votes at 8pm but try to disqualify that would leave him with less than that amount, we would know they stacked the “late” pile with too many Trump votes.
The fact that they were updating vote counts in real time severely limits their options for fuckery, fortunately.
Bingo. Even if they're able to segregate the ballots (which is a big assumption), Trump still gets fucked because of the USPS illegally back dating the ballots to November 3rd.
If PA isn't braindead retarded, they kept all the fake November 3rd post office markings. How do they separate the FAKE November 3 mail stamps vs. the REAL November 3rd mail stamps?
This order from Alito is extremely positive, but I don't think it alone solves the origami like layers of crimes going on.
It doesn't by itself, but we can file each instance of voter fraud as a separate crime, and charge the whole lot of them in a RICO case. It would be the largest in history, but it can and should be done. That's not what the Supreme Court is going to hear on, though. We're going to be dealing with several levels of the Judicial, probably for years, to sort all this out. SCOTUS will rule there's enough evidence that a certain amount of the count needs to be thrown out, and it will probably be enough to rule in our favor.
I'm afraid to ask because I don't want a question to turn into instant downvotes, but is there legal precedent for any of this, or is this entire mess of an "election" uncharted territory for SC to inevitably rule on? other than Bush V Gore I'm not familiar with anything like this ever being ruled on before.
Edit: Thanks for responses and info. this will truly be historic.
One of the things about Bush v Gore is that Bush specifically made an argument on the part of Article II Sect. 1, Clause 2 about state legislatures determining presidential election that was agreed with.
But as we indicated in our remand of the earlier case, in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail. And there is no basis for reading the Florida statutes as requiring the counting of improperly marked ballots, as an examination of the Florida Supreme Court’s textual analysis shows.
The scope and nature of the remedy ordered by the Florida Supreme Court jeopardizes the “legislative wish” to take advantage of the safe harbor provided by 3 U.S.C. § 5. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, at 6. December 12, 2000, is the last date for a final determination of the Florida electors that will satisfy §5.
Surely when the Florida Legislature empowered the courts of the State to grant “appropriate” relief, it must have meant relief that would have become final by the cut-off date of 3 U.S.C. § 5.
Good question, and the answer AFAIK is no there isn't, outside of Bush V. Gore and whatever the constitution says. Which is another reason this is so important- the legal precedent will (hopefully) protect future elections.
But who will ensure that this order is carried out accurately?
Woops, time to print new backdated ballots.
The stamp on the ballot is irrelevant. It only matters when it was delivered.
Don't forget the deadline for delivery in Pennsylvania was 8:00 p.m. Nearly half a million ballots were delivered to the convention center at 4:00 a.m. the next day
But were those "newly printed" ballots that also has "fake date" on it? How would anyone know which ballot was received at 4am?
They would have to have a system for marking when they were received. Either they forged that, never marked them received, or received them late. All three could be deduced scientifically.
In a Ferrari!
That's how you know it has to be legit!
I still haven’t seen this video.
Tell that to the idiots on twitter saying "this only affects a few thousand ballots."
Why. Let's ignore them instead
I just wanna know how they know which ones were delivered when and if that information can be suspect to fraud.
Basically. They're claiming that only a few thousand came in after the deadline now.
So while all other states had all those counted....they didn't? Makes sense...
USPS bee: okay boss i did the job boss strike through actual date and back date to day before election
The SC can throw out all ballots received after 8PM if it comes down to it
I think the bigger worry was how do we stop them from taking a ballot they received the day after the election and just saying it was received before 8pm Election Day?
Weren’t they updating their election website with the totals? There’s probably a backlog of the totals at that time. Just reverse back to that OR more likely you revote the state with NO MAIL IN VOTES ONLY ABSENTEE.
Are ballets alone trackable to the voter?
Notice the last few sentences in the order:
https://i.maga.host/mmdoj1f.png
which says that the applicant has now no way of knowing. Which to me indicates some major step will be needed to fix this shit.
Or alternatively, that they push Trump ballots into that pile instead and put in their own.
Can’t get away with that either because they were updating vote totals in real time. So if we know they were claiming Trump had 3 million votes at 8pm but try to disqualify that would leave him with less than that amount, we would know they stacked the “late” pile with too many Trump votes.
The fact that they were updating vote counts in real time severely limits their options for fuckery, fortunately.
Bingo. Even if they're able to segregate the ballots (which is a big assumption), Trump still gets fucked because of the USPS illegally back dating the ballots to November 3rd. If PA isn't braindead retarded, they kept all the fake November 3rd post office markings. How do they separate the FAKE November 3 mail stamps vs. the REAL November 3rd mail stamps?
This order from Alito is extremely positive, but I don't think it alone solves the origami like layers of crimes going on.
It doesn't by itself, but we can file each instance of voter fraud as a separate crime, and charge the whole lot of them in a RICO case. It would be the largest in history, but it can and should be done. That's not what the Supreme Court is going to hear on, though. We're going to be dealing with several levels of the Judicial, probably for years, to sort all this out. SCOTUS will rule there's enough evidence that a certain amount of the count needs to be thrown out, and it will probably be enough to rule in our favor.
Much of this is also up to the state legislatures.
Right now the United States is in a fight for its soul as a constitutional republic.
Especially since the PA legislature makes the rules and the rules didn't change. No votes after election day
And how exactly does anyone know which ones are those? They have been mixed in with the rest and pre-marked the 3rd.
Time for a new vote.
I'm afraid to ask because I don't want a question to turn into instant downvotes, but is there legal precedent for any of this, or is this entire mess of an "election" uncharted territory for SC to inevitably rule on? other than Bush V Gore I'm not familiar with anything like this ever being ruled on before.
Edit: Thanks for responses and info. this will truly be historic.
Most election related cases would have to do with civil rights, finances, and redistricting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_elections_case_law
There are some cases about elections, like California changing from a closed primary to blanket primary.
One of the things about Bush v Gore is that Bush specifically made an argument on the part of Article II Sect. 1, Clause 2 about state legislatures determining presidential election that was agreed with.
Here is the important part of (the concurring opinion)[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html] (towards the end of the brief):
Good question, and the answer AFAIK is no there isn't, outside of Bush V. Gore and whatever the constitution says. Which is another reason this is so important- the legal precedent will (hopefully) protect future elections.
This