I don't think this was necessarily a sting operation. I agree with the fact that he had safeguards and there was definitely military intel monitoring this election with definitive proof of tampering as confirmed in some of the hearings and by Trump's lawyers. Trump also said at a rally before the election that we should tell our governors not to cheat because he has eyes on them and very bad things will happen to them. But a sting operation implies near perfect control of the situation. Trump doesn't have complete control as he had to convince some Republicans to be patriots and fight for truth in state governments. It will be in his control once at least one state flips and Ratcliffe drops his report. As Sidney said, this is the modern 1776.
Most people dont realize it but there are actually TWO Wisconsin State Supreme court cases that were ruled recently, so a lot of people are very confused.
Case A was filed Before the election by smaller republicans and basically saw the rules get changed by governor executive order this year, and they sought to get the court to rule in favor of the law, not the executive order - confirming that anyone who requested the indefinitely confined status on their own was a valid vote, but if the state sent them one without them asking for it, it doesn't count. The Supreme Court ruled in our favor and said we are correct - Wisconsin state law requires every indefinitely confined ballot to be individually requested and reviewed on a case by case basis. If we had this ruling prior to the election it would have prevented nearly 200,000 illegally cast votes. But it took the state Supreme Court too long to rule, so it will do nothing now, but will prevent this type of illegal voting in future elections.
Case B was filed AFTER the election by Trump's team and basically pointed at all of the work from The Voter Integrity Project, and said "Look -> see how many times this happened! these shouldn't count.". And the supreme court ruled against trump saying what's done is done, and since there was no ruling on whether they can count these types of votes or not, they can be counted. In other words if Case A had ruled sooner, Case B would have pointed at case A and therefore gone in Trumps Favor, but since they waited to rule on Case A until Case B was ready to be declared, Case B was rejected.
Likely what we'll see next is trump appeal Case B to the federal supreme court and say "Well now that the state supreme court has ruled on Case A.... Can you re-rule case B?"
I don't think this was necessarily a sting operation. I agree with the fact that he had safeguards and there was definitely military intel monitoring this election with definitive proof of tampering as confirmed in some of the hearings and by Trump's lawyers. Trump also said at a rally before the election that we should tell our governors not to cheat because he has eyes on them and very bad things will happen to them. But a sting operation implies near perfect control of the situation. Trump doesn't have complete control as he had to convince some Republicans to be patriots and fight for truth in state governments. It will be in his control once at least one state flips and Ratcliffe drops his report. As Sidney said, this is the modern 1776.
I thought WI flipped after their supreme court decision?
Most people dont realize it but there are actually TWO Wisconsin State Supreme court cases that were ruled recently, so a lot of people are very confused.
Case A was filed Before the election by smaller republicans and basically saw the rules get changed by governor executive order this year, and they sought to get the court to rule in favor of the law, not the executive order - confirming that anyone who requested the indefinitely confined status on their own was a valid vote, but if the state sent them one without them asking for it, it doesn't count. The Supreme Court ruled in our favor and said we are correct - Wisconsin state law requires every indefinitely confined ballot to be individually requested and reviewed on a case by case basis. If we had this ruling prior to the election it would have prevented nearly 200,000 illegally cast votes. But it took the state Supreme Court too long to rule, so it will do nothing now, but will prevent this type of illegal voting in future elections.
Case B was filed AFTER the election by Trump's team and basically pointed at all of the work from The Voter Integrity Project, and said "Look -> see how many times this happened! these shouldn't count.". And the supreme court ruled against trump saying what's done is done, and since there was no ruling on whether they can count these types of votes or not, they can be counted. In other words if Case A had ruled sooner, Case B would have pointed at case A and therefore gone in Trumps Favor, but since they waited to rule on Case A until Case B was ready to be declared, Case B was rejected.
Likely what we'll see next is trump appeal Case B to the federal supreme court and say "Well now that the state supreme court has ruled on Case A.... Can you re-rule case B?"