Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
MI Supreme Court is rejecting bid to prevent certification because certification is already complete. In order, they say this does not prevent you in any way from challenging certification after the fact and getting an audit. They telegraph that they find the evidence of voter fraud to be SERIOUS, TROUBLING, and SUBSTANTIATED.
Nothing said is to diminish the troubling and serious allegations of fraud and irregularities asserted by the affiants offered by plaintiffs, among whom is Ruth Johnson, Michigan’s immediate past Secretary of State, who testified that, given the “very concerning” “allegations and issues raised by Plaintiffs,” she “believe[s] that it would be proper for an independent audit to be conducted as soon as possible to ensure the accuracy and integrity of th[e] election.” Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations, which include claims of ballots being counted from voters whose names are not contained in the appropriate poll books, instructions being given to disobey election laws and regulations, the questionable appearance of unsecured batches of absentee ballots after the deadline for receiving ballots, discriminatory conduct during the counting and observation process, and other violations of the law.... This development would seem to impose at least some obligation upon plaintiffs both to explain why a constitutional audit is still required after the Secretary of State conducts the promised process audit and to address whether there is some obligation on their part to identify a specific “law” in support of Const 1963, art 2, §4(1)(h) that prescribes the specific “manner” in which an audit pursuant to that provision must proceed
Yeah, but would an audit affect the results at this point? Or is it just a pipe dream that they are pretending will be conducted fairly later during a Biden admin?
Doesn't that piss you off? "Well, we know this thing was fishy, there's evidence of rigging everywhere we look, but what's done is done... ballots are mixed in and we can't overturn, you know, the system and stuff... but maybe we can do it right next time if we feel like it, I don't know, we'll see."
Like, give me a fucking break. This is RIDICULOUS.
It doesn't rely on them defying the "will of the people" if the courts rule our way. They don't even have to award us the votes—they just have to not award them to Biden.
Good point. A court ruling basically saying "holy shit it was rigged as hell!" would provide sufficient cover for Republican state legislators to withstand the MSM's "TeH WILL oF tHe PeOpLe!!!!" screaming.
They discuss that in the document. If evidence of fraud is found that is enough to overturn the election, that then has to be used in further court proceedings to overturn the election. After the results are certified, they can no longer be "uncertified" the court would have to see the evidence from an audit and then decided to nullify the election.
The judges say that your question is one that needs to be adjudicated. In fact, they say it is such an important question (what does an audit look like?) that they have ordered all court offices to expedite follow up cases having to do with vote fraud in the 2020 election.
I think it could. Technically, the legislature can appoint whatever slate of electors they want. Generally, they’ll appoint these electors based upon the certified results of the election and usually there’s little issue because a winner can be clearly determined.
This election is different however due to the unprecedented number of mail-in/absentee ballots combined with the highly polarized political atmosphere.
So in order for the state legislators to appoint a different set of electors than what the “certified” vote indicates, they would need ample evidence and political cover to either a.) appoint a different slate of electors or b.) not send any electors at all.
It may in fact be more politically viable for the state legislators to aim for option B as it would then shift the “heat” to the US House of Representives. Only time will tell how willing state legislators are to take a stand—the public hearings will certainly help a lot within the realm of public opinion, which is HUGELY important to get these guys and calls to shirk precedent
them niggas said there is evidence and if an audit turns out to prove da evidence is real then da legislature will have da green light to cast their own electors brah
Because he's a piece of shit and conflating both Trump cases and cases brought by everyday people as some sort of kill death ratio on Twitter. He's scum.
Democracy Docket was created by Marc Elias to serve as an extension of his voting rights and redistricting litigation and advocacy. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, Republicans made clear that they no longer supported voting rights.
Because the left are morons, and they see that the 'plaintiffs' (Trump campaign) motion is denied and automatically assume they won. But had they read the full order they would realize that he only denied the motion because there's no law in MI against an audit after the certification. Kinda of a screw up on the plaintiffs part because the judge's interpretation of the law seems to suggest that it actually HAS to be certified prior to requesting an audit, but either way the Judge does seem to be concerned about the anomalies.
However please note there are 7 members of the MI Supreme Court.
The order of 4 of them, a majority, was simply to deny the injunction.
This opinion is a concurring opinion of 1 of the 7 justices, and a second joined. A third judge disagreed with denying the injunction in the dissenting opinion.
So only 3 of the 7 judges said anything encouraging.
Doesn’t mean we can’t win after the audit but we should all know what we are reading.
Can hackers on our side block their doxxing attempt? Im not good with computers, I have no idea what I am talking about, just know there is a savvy internet army somewhere inhere.
unfortunately there is not a way to block another individual from posting personal information. The best way to prevent doxxing is to remain anon, which of course is impossible in some cases.
It doesn't have the same effect and always draws the ire of the higher ups. When the right threatens someone, the FBI will send the goon squad real quick.
Be sure to read the dissenting opinion, which points out things that should be obvious. Specifically, Justice Viviano identifies what the concurring Justices overlook, that not all audits are equal. Some audits are designed to improve the process for future elections, others are designed to ensure the accuracy of current elections. The latter type is obviously what the plaintiffs are advocating for and would be appropriate here. The concurring opinion assumes all types are of the former type.
Perhaps the Plaintiffs can amend their complaint to specifically identify and request the audit Justice Viviano is talking about.
Either way, even though it lends some. credibility to the claims of fraud, I find the concurring opinion extremely disingenuous.
Wow, I was reading through this case last night and it seemed pretty weak. Most of the plaintiff's "witness testimony" was easily refuted by a defense expert who essentially said "this only looked like fraud because the witness doesn't understand the process". For example, the one who swore she was told to backdate ballots didn't know that the date at that particular step in the process is irrelevant. Or the one who said people were given second ballots after not cancelling their first (impossible according to the defense witness).
It's totally possible the defense witness was ignorant or full of shit himself, but that wasn't my impression.
The defense “witness” wasn’t there at the time, all be can do is assume they were backdating something irrelevant or at a different step in the process when the witnessed saw what they saw. Regardless, why backdate anything whether it’s relevant or not? Why not check out the ballots in question to verify? As far as it being “impossible” to get a second ballot, that’s a lie. Perhaps it’s impossible if you’re following the rules, but it’s been proven that the fraudsters have managed to find ways around the rules.
MI Supreme Court is rejecting bid to prevent certification because certification is already complete. In order, they say this does not prevent you in any way from challenging certification after the fact and getting an audit. They telegraph that they find the evidence of voter fraud to be SERIOUS, TROUBLING, and SUBSTANTIATED.
From order -->
Nothing said is to diminish the troubling and serious allegations of fraud and irregularities asserted by the affiants offered by plaintiffs, among whom is Ruth Johnson, Michigan’s immediate past Secretary of State, who testified that, given the “very concerning” “allegations and issues raised by Plaintiffs,” she “believe[s] that it would be proper for an independent audit to be conducted as soon as possible to ensure the accuracy and integrity of th[e] election.” Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations, which include claims of ballots being counted from voters whose names are not contained in the appropriate poll books, instructions being given to disobey election laws and regulations, the questionable appearance of unsecured batches of absentee ballots after the deadline for receiving ballots, discriminatory conduct during the counting and observation process, and other violations of the law.... This development would seem to impose at least some obligation upon plaintiffs both to explain why a constitutional audit is still required after the Secretary of State conducts the promised process audit and to address whether there is some obligation on their part to identify a specific “law” in support of Const 1963, art 2, §4(1)(h) that prescribes the specific “manner” in which an audit pursuant to that provision must proceed
Yeah, but would an audit affect the results at this point? Or is it just a pipe dream that they are pretending will be conducted fairly later during a Biden admin?
This is the crux in a few states. What is the effect if an audit if it exposes fraud after results were certified?
Doesn't that piss you off? "Well, we know this thing was fishy, there's evidence of rigging everywhere we look, but what's done is done... ballots are mixed in and we can't overturn, you know, the system and stuff... but maybe we can do it right next time if we feel like it, I don't know, we'll see."
Like, give me a fucking break. This is RIDICULOUS.
Damnit that string of hopeless apathetic words is exactly how the left wants to proceed....
Well done capturing it in words
I have a lot of lead that will hopefully prevent them from moving forward with that plan.
Please don't compare us in MI to a banana republic. That would be very unfair to banana republics everywhere.
We will never concede to fake ballots and dominion! Never concede!
Add judges like this to the list.
Because it could prevent electors from being sent to vote.
Yeah, if the Republican state legislatures have sufficient backbones. Wanna guess how that'll probably go?
It doesn't rely on them defying the "will of the people" if the courts rule our way. They don't even have to award us the votes—they just have to not award them to Biden.
Good point. A court ruling basically saying "holy shit it was rigged as hell!" would provide sufficient cover for Republican state legislators to withstand the MSM's "TeH WILL oF tHe PeOpLe!!!!" screaming.
They discuss that in the document. If evidence of fraud is found that is enough to overturn the election, that then has to be used in further court proceedings to overturn the election. After the results are certified, they can no longer be "uncertified" the court would have to see the evidence from an audit and then decided to nullify the election.
State can decertify.
Revolution.
The judges say that your question is one that needs to be adjudicated. In fact, they say it is such an important question (what does an audit look like?) that they have ordered all court offices to expedite follow up cases having to do with vote fraud in the 2020 election.
I think it could. Technically, the legislature can appoint whatever slate of electors they want. Generally, they’ll appoint these electors based upon the certified results of the election and usually there’s little issue because a winner can be clearly determined.
This election is different however due to the unprecedented number of mail-in/absentee ballots combined with the highly polarized political atmosphere.
So in order for the state legislators to appoint a different set of electors than what the “certified” vote indicates, they would need ample evidence and political cover to either a.) appoint a different slate of electors or b.) not send any electors at all.
It may in fact be more politically viable for the state legislators to aim for option B as it would then shift the “heat” to the US House of Representives. Only time will tell how willing state legislators are to take a stand—the public hearings will certainly help a lot within the realm of public opinion, which is HUGELY important to get these guys and calls to shirk precedent
them niggas said there is evidence and if an audit turns out to prove da evidence is real then da legislature will have da green light to cast their own electors brah
Excuse me sir. I speak jive. May I help?
Best part of airplane. Also a joke hollywood would never do anymore.
are u low iq?
U speak pidgin, brah?
Dat shit be funny as fuck main!!! Dey be trippn
i aint makin no joke bitch made ass nigga stfu
Lmao!!! Keep going!!!
i meme'd it for ya!
https://thedonald.win/p/11QS2uVkLQ/
your link, Democracy Docket, is Marc Elias' website. Elias was Hillary's general counsel
maybe you'd like to archive the relevant page instead of sending TD.W clicks their way
Why would Elias have this on his website?
Because he's a piece of shit and conflating both Trump cases and cases brought by everyday people as some sort of kill death ratio on Twitter. He's scum.
i haven't the foggiest idea
here's archive link to the democracydocket's about page: https://archive.is/MFb5Q
relevant part:
Because the left are morons, and they see that the 'plaintiffs' (Trump campaign) motion is denied and automatically assume they won. But had they read the full order they would realize that he only denied the motion because there's no law in MI against an audit after the certification. Kinda of a screw up on the plaintiffs part because the judge's interpretation of the law seems to suggest that it actually HAS to be certified prior to requesting an audit, but either way the Judge does seem to be concerned about the anomalies.
Because Democrats are named in the docket.
The order was hard to find. This was first one I found. Too lazy now.
🙄 This is no time for laziness.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201124221411/https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf
Also, all Michigan SC and COA opinions are free online through the Michigan Courts' website: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/sct/public/orders/162245_41_01.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20201124221411/https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf
Agree there is encouraging language here.
However please note there are 7 members of the MI Supreme Court.
The order of 4 of them, a majority, was simply to deny the injunction.
This opinion is a concurring opinion of 1 of the 7 justices, and a second joined. A third judge disagreed with denying the injunction in the dissenting opinion.
So only 3 of the 7 judges said anything encouraging.
Doesn’t mean we can’t win after the audit but we should all know what we are reading.
Wait so this is not good news at all, they denied it by the majority, and this is just some dissent writing. Damn.
We already won.
How?
PS: Twitter, GET FUCKED! Here's an official source you can suck on.
It is a win for now... Until the Left begin their doxxing and harassment campaign, getting the Court to cave and give the win to Biden.
Can hackers on our side block their doxxing attempt? Im not good with computers, I have no idea what I am talking about, just know there is a savvy internet army somewhere inhere.
No, that can't be reasonably done.
unfortunately there is not a way to block another individual from posting personal information. The best way to prevent doxxing is to remain anon, which of course is impossible in some cases.
How about doxxing the doxers?
It doesn't have the same effect and always draws the ire of the higher ups. When the right threatens someone, the FBI will send the goon squad real quick.
Then it goes to the supreme supreme courts!
>supreme
Wait a minute, that sounds like racisms boys, reeee!!!
That's why everything gets shut down.
Be sure to read the dissenting opinion, which points out things that should be obvious. Specifically, Justice Viviano identifies what the concurring Justices overlook, that not all audits are equal. Some audits are designed to improve the process for future elections, others are designed to ensure the accuracy of current elections. The latter type is obviously what the plaintiffs are advocating for and would be appropriate here. The concurring opinion assumes all types are of the former type.
Perhaps the Plaintiffs can amend their complaint to specifically identify and request the audit Justice Viviano is talking about.
Either way, even though it lends some. credibility to the claims of fraud, I find the concurring opinion extremely disingenuous.
Wow, I was reading through this case last night and it seemed pretty weak. Most of the plaintiff's "witness testimony" was easily refuted by a defense expert who essentially said "this only looked like fraud because the witness doesn't understand the process". For example, the one who swore she was told to backdate ballots didn't know that the date at that particular step in the process is irrelevant. Or the one who said people were given second ballots after not cancelling their first (impossible according to the defense witness).
It's totally possible the defense witness was ignorant or full of shit himself, but that wasn't my impression.
The defense “witness” wasn’t there at the time, all be can do is assume they were backdating something irrelevant or at a different step in the process when the witnessed saw what they saw. Regardless, why backdate anything whether it’s relevant or not? Why not check out the ballots in question to verify? As far as it being “impossible” to get a second ballot, that’s a lie. Perhaps it’s impossible if you’re following the rules, but it’s been proven that the fraudsters have managed to find ways around the rules.
Then I would recommend to read the full SC order
Wut
Ummmm this has been DEBOOONKED
What’s all this black handshake bullshit after usernames?
Noobs
Yeah, but my friend said CNN says there's none, so who's right?
https://web.archive.org/web/20201124221411/https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf
These cock sucking fags need to be TRIED FOR TREASON AND HUNG!
B-b-but Twitter says there is no evidence of fraud!
Reeeeeee!!!