tl;dr - in the raw voter logs it seems we can use the "date last changed" to know when PA received the ballot. There are MANY THOUSANDS of votes which were received after 11/3. In the PA system they are ALL marked "last vote date" 11/3. But their "date last changed" reveals when the vote was actually physically received.
This might not be huge - but its nice to have our OWN numbers and OWN data so they cant just bullshit us.
LOOKING AT ALL THE RAW PA VOTER LOGS
- 11/04 : 493,184 ballots
- 11/05 : 317,110 ballots
- 11/06 : 172,628 ballots
TOTAL : 982,922 BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER 11/3
[how I counted this at the bottom]
And of course Team Trump might want to throw out all ballots received AFTER 11/3.
And of course PA might claim they cant tell who is who.
But their voter log does show this info in the "date last changed" column.
-
this of course does not indicate when they were post marked
-
and who knows if they lied about some of the "received dates" (ie came in on 7th but they back date it in system)
==HOW EXTENDING MAIL IN DATE TO 6TH DOUBLE FUCKED PA CHEATERS==
[ note : this only matters if we can get judge to throw out all ballots received after 3rd ]
PA cheaters thought that the 6th was the last cut off date. So even if the back dated they prolly put the 4th, 5th or 6th since they thought it was "legal"
So in trying to cheat and extend 3 days they actually did us a favor because we can now ID all late ballots (after 3rd).
If the cut off would have been the 3rd they could have back dated them all to the 3rd and itd make it impossible to see what is what.
==MORE INFO ON HOW TO SEE "LAST CHANGE DATE" IS SAME AS BALLOT RECEIVE DATE==
A pede has linked us this
https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/pages/ballottracking.aspx
- Online / Absentee ballot tracking
I do a test lookup for WILLIAM THOMPSON county DAUPHIN with dob 01/12/1922
- PA voter roll says he voted on 11/3
this is because that is when they OFFICIALLY count ballots
but in the voter logs it says "last change date" was 10/28/2020
USING THE SITE ABOVE we can see this is the date they RECEIVED the ballot
Not all votes can be looked up in this tool. I tested with several other names and each time if the record is found the web site "Ballot Received" date matches the voter log "date last changed" data.
screen shot from voter log
screen shot from web site
==HOW I COUNTED THIS==
I am on linux and have all PA county files in 1 folder.
Then I do this command
grep 11/04/2020 * | wc -l
This scans all files (*) for 11/04 then the wc -l command counts the lines matched.
This command searches all files and dumps the matches into a different file
grep 11/05/2020 * > pa-nov-5.txt
screen shot for the nerds showing commands and results and counties.
all data scrapped from the logs someone dropped on TD recently.
log data dump - https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8Sjcj1V/happening-a-user-just-purchased-/
missing head info - https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8SlshNq/
zip here
size : 60.60 MB
3 files
pa-nov-6.txt
pa-nov-5.txt
pa-nov-4.txt
This is fantastic work, but even with how clearly they violated election laws in PA, I don't see how a judge signs off on invalidating 900k votes. Not saying they can't do so legally, just that no judge will have the balls to do it. SCOTUS took a ton of heat for a long time just for getting involved in the 2000 election case and I think it only takes one judges to puss out or have someone lean on them to flip the case.
How solid is SCOTUS on this?
edit- I actually gave this some more thought and identified what my problem is. It seems like the narrative they're trying to push in court (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the votes were illegal because either they didn't get witnessed or were received late.... that's fine, but as long as there's plausible deniability that this all might have just been incompetence or an isolated fraud I just don't believe the courts will be willing to intervene. I think they should, but I doubt they actually would (probably try to cite some reason why they don't have to see the case). I think the only way you get SCOTUS making a ruling is if they totally expose this as a planned fraud BY THE BIDEN CAMP. The point is, they need to see the public on this being planned before the courts will actually make a move. That means more direct evidence than we've seen so far. Thoughts?
When the scale of the fraud is revealed SCOTUS will have two options: rule against the fraud and effectively overturn the election by sending to the house & senate, or rule to allow it and basically undermine the rule of law and their own constitutional purpose forever. Pray they choose option 1, and we avoid war!
Can additional scales of vote fraud disenfranchisement be made? You have valid, verifiable, certifiable votes on one side of the scale. You have invalid, unverifiable, uncertifiable votes on the other side of the scale. Including those invalid, unverifiable, uncertifiable votes in the net count is necessarily disenfranchising the much bigger valid, verifiable, certifiable batch. This is so even if you do not know if there is a mix of each of those two types in the late counted batches.
At that point some level of disenfranchisement becomes wholly unavoidable. So better to choose the stack on the side of the scale that disenfranchises the least. The responsibility and fault of disenfranchisement lies with those individual poll workers and ballot counters. But weighing each set of ballots in a scales of justice manner results in less harm tossing the invalid, unverifiable, uncertifiable ballots. And including those invalid, unverifiable, uncertifiable ballots results in more harm to the valid, verifiable, certifiable ballots.
They could also just shine a light on it and send it to the electoral college.
election law does not require fraud. it only requires that the law was not followed.
in this case, a state court order was issued to the state government to follow the law. then an emergency SCOTUS order was issued to the state government to follow the law because they clearly weren't. now there's a state court order finding the law was not followed after two court orders. SCOTUS is on our side here.
ACB is likely to vote against the deadline extension as it is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but you are correct in that it only takes one of "our" justices flipping to flip SCOTUS (this is already assuming Roberts rules with the left).
If it's any consolation though, there are a number of factors at play where SCOTUS is very likely to rule the deadline extension as unconstitutional:
There doesn't need to be a planned fraud by the Biden camp for this to happen, though, and the evidence for that will be sorely lacking.
These Democrats in the inner city precincts are like independent terrorist cells, they don't need any central authority to disrupt and create chaos. They know what to do without needing to be told.
So the idea there is a master plan in place by Team Biden to coordinate all this is not just far-fetched, it's unnecessary.
Democrats will be Democrats.
I would stress that they don't even have to rule to throw out ballots. They can just say " we rule you must follow the PA constitution" which then you kick back to the legislator's who will immediately say late votes don't count.