Thank you, his suits are specific to MA, one is about the state refusing to release the actual ballots, only saying they would allow access to the machine copies which are useless.
MA law already requires them to give access to the actual ballots, they are refusing to follow the law.
That one case in New York over a congressional seat 2 days ago sided in favor of the nominee who was frauded out of their victory. I'm surprised that it isn't being discussed more because the implications could be a game-changer!
Out of something around 1600 instances of statistical impossibilities, inconsistencies & flat-out fraud the judge concluded that 1400 of them were substantiated and verifiably fraudulent and/or unconstitutional. Which was a LOT more than the 50 needed to flip the election for that congressional seat.
Firstly the judge was a federal judge meaning that precedents set by this hearing could most likely be applied to other cases pertaining to various federal elections.
The judge ruled that the initial winner had to hand over his position to the real winner.
This sets not only a precedent, but a modern precedent that in the event that the election was fraudulent and/or contained enough blatant inconsistencies/impossibilities than not only does the false winner has to step down, but that the election is given to the true constitutional winner.
Furthermore it established that this can be done even if the election has already been certified, or even if that person has already assumed the position/been inaugurated.
I feel as though we could very well be on the verge of seeing this precedent used in the near future, especially in Pennsylvania where a judge ruled that all late mail-in ballots were unconstitutional, as well as in Arizona as they've finally got the primordial pools of refuse that occupies the Maricopa County Board of Elections to hand over the Dominion voting machines for a real audit and analysis of the machines.
After the Dominion machines are proven to be compromised and/or having been connected to the internet, or tampered with than that would provide more than enough momentum and justification to analyze the machines in other states afterwards.
Thanks! Idk man I feel that a lot of people are so caught-up in the grand-scheme of things that they forget to look at the cascading/avalanche effect that more (seemingly) minor events can induce. Then these people get demoralized when the grand scheme doesn't manifest all at once; there has to be momentum behind the unveiling of larger events, they don't just magically appear & rather the lack of momentum could hinder the manifestation of the bigger events.
These suits are in MA, will they have any bearing on other state elections, sincere question
It’s possible, they will surely set legal precedent that could be weighed in future lawsuits.
Thank you, his suits are specific to MA, one is about the state refusing to release the actual ballots, only saying they would allow access to the machine copies which are useless.
MA law already requires them to give access to the actual ballots, they are refusing to follow the law.
That one case in New York over a congressional seat 2 days ago sided in favor of the nominee who was frauded out of their victory. I'm surprised that it isn't being discussed more because the implications could be a game-changer!
Out of something around 1600 instances of statistical impossibilities, inconsistencies & flat-out fraud the judge concluded that 1400 of them were substantiated and verifiably fraudulent and/or unconstitutional. Which was a LOT more than the 50 needed to flip the election for that congressional seat.
Firstly the judge was a federal judge meaning that precedents set by this hearing could most likely be applied to other cases pertaining to various federal elections.
The judge ruled that the initial winner had to hand over his position to the real winner.
This sets not only a precedent, but a modern precedent that in the event that the election was fraudulent and/or contained enough blatant inconsistencies/impossibilities than not only does the false winner has to step down, but that the election is given to the true constitutional winner.
Furthermore it established that this can be done even if the election has already been certified, or even if that person has already assumed the position/been inaugurated.
I feel as though we could very well be on the verge of seeing this precedent used in the near future, especially in Pennsylvania where a judge ruled that all late mail-in ballots were unconstitutional, as well as in Arizona as they've finally got the primordial pools of refuse that occupies the Maricopa County Board of Elections to hand over the Dominion voting machines for a real audit and analysis of the machines.
After the Dominion machines are proven to be compromised and/or having been connected to the internet, or tampered with than that would provide more than enough momentum and justification to analyze the machines in other states afterwards.
"THE BEST IS YET TO COME!"
This should be its own post
Thanks! Idk man I feel that a lot of people are so caught-up in the grand-scheme of things that they forget to look at the cascading/avalanche effect that more (seemingly) minor events can induce. Then these people get demoralized when the grand scheme doesn't manifest all at once; there has to be momentum behind the unveiling of larger events, they don't just magically appear & rather the lack of momentum could hinder the manifestation of the bigger events.
Maybe. Wish I had a better answer.
Not tin foil, more like stainless steel.
Based Pajeet