8972
posted ago by oxygen ago by oxygen +8972 / -0

Senator Doug Mastriano is attempting today to get enough support to pass a resolution that would enable Pennsylvania to exercise their constitutional authority to seat the electors themselves and decide which electors to send to DC to vote for president. But enough of his colleagues need to support it in order for it to pass.

CALL THEM AND EMAIL!!! (PREFERABLY CALL). LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL. DEMAND THEY DO THIS. IF THEY DON'T, DEMAND TO KNOW WHY.

IF THEIR VOICEMAIL IS FULL, EMAIL THEM, AND THEN CALL BACK LATER.

PA senate:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/contact.cfm?body=S

PA House of Representatives:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/contact.cfm?body=H

Not sure who your PA state senator or representatives are? Click here

Doug Mastriano was on War Room this morning in case you missed it. The PA senate leadership was dragging their feet and Doug said we needed to contact the legislature:

https://youtu.be/hXQ4kDgjDiU?t=5786 (timestamp 1:36:20)

And remember: Even if the resolution is introduced and passes, enough republicans in both houses are going to have to flip to supporting Trump electors, not Biden. Remember how weak-kneed they are!

If you live outside Pennsylvania, you can still contact the Senate and House leadership:

Senate Pro Tem (republican): Jake Corman / (717) 787-1377 / (814) 355-0477 /

Senate Majority Leader (republican): Kim L. Ward / (717) 787-6063 / (724) 600-7002 /

Speaker of the House of Reps (republican): Bryan Cutler / (717) 284-1965 / (717) 783-6424 /

Majority leader of House of Reps (republican): Kerry A. Benninghoff / +1 (814) 355-1300 / (717) 783-1918 /

Comments (282)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-20
Tookens -20 points ago +9 / -29

Yeah I don't really get the strategy of talking up massive fraud outside the court, then going into court and not alleging fraud. But I'm not a super-lawyer so...

41
deleted 41 points ago +48 / -7
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
9
Tookens 9 points ago +15 / -6

You can make new allegations and introduce new evidence in an appeal.

11
eatenbyagrue 11 points ago +13 / -2

I dont think you can. You appeal errors by lower courts.

3
sybo 3 points ago +3 / -0

King v. Whitmer Exhibit Exhibit 104 — Document #1, Attachment #14 District Court, E.D. Michigan

Docket Number: 2:20-cv-13134

Date Filed: November 25th, 2020

Uploaded: November 25th, 2020 Sent 11. Another statistical red flag can be observed in Michigan where even the very limited remaining public data reveals 643 precincts with voter turn-out above 80%, according to county records. Further if these very limited remaining public data votes were normalized to 80% turnout (still 15%+/- above normal), the excess votes are at least 36,812 over the maximum that could be expected. We anticipate that precincts with excess voter turnout will be even higher with complete public data (Some larger precincts in Wayne Co and others are no longer publicly reporting their data).

Precinct/Township % Turnout City of North Muskegon 781.91% Zeeland Charter Township 460.51% Grout Township 215.21% City of Muskegon 205.07% City of Detroit 139.29% Spring Lake Township 120.00% Greenwood Township 100.00% Hart Township 100.00% Leavitt Township 100.00% Newfield Township 100.00% Otto Township 100.00% Pentwater Township 100.00% Shelby Township 100.00% Shelby Township 100.00% Weare Township 100.00% City of Hart 100.00% Grand Island Township 96.77% Tallmadge Charter Township 95.24% Fenton 93.33% Bohemia Twp 90.63%

Zeeland Charter Township 90.59%

real super legit it lol

1
Tookens 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yikes.. meant to type "can't".

7
sociopathix 7 points ago +8 / -1

Why would we want to sit for weeks in a lower court? December is 4 days away. The EC votes in about 17 days.

19
GreenBean 19 points ago +22 / -3

To get it to SCOTUS where it matters as fast as possible is what I would assume. I didnt catch that part when I was listening, I only heard the witnesses.

7
eatenbyagrue 7 points ago +11 / -4

That doesn't make any sense from a legal procedure standpoint. The case that gets appealed is frozen at what it was originally. You appeal based on error by the lower courts. You can't create new claims.

12
sybo 12 points ago +12 / -0

I think they want to keep most of the evidence close to the chest, not reveal too much in the lower courts, because they dont want to litigate in a lower court that might drag its feet on everything, so they file a small claim, and the court says fuck off, its an overall strategy to get the SCOTUS asap.

3
eatenbyagrue 3 points ago +3 / -0

The SC is not where you present new evidence. That is simply not how legal procedure works. You merely argue the lower court erred in some way. And if you have fuck all for evidence in the lower court (and didn't even bother to plead fraud), the SC isn't going to help you.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
BestTimeToBAlive 9 points ago +9 / -0

Well the lower court just ruled that there is no evidence. Which now, clearly there is. Hopefully the affidavits and exhibits can be added to scotus court to prove they do indeed have evidence and just cause.

2
tbakke125 2 points ago +2 / -0

they both granted a motion to dismiss so evidence was never brought up/evaluated so they can't say no evidence

2
eatenbyagrue 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is no hopefully about it. You cannot add new evidence. People seem to think at every appeal there is a whole new hearing and presentation of evidence. You appeal specific rulings, that's all.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0