Yo I have to stand up for Tim Pool at least in some respects. I agree with the usual complaints around here about him but he is a solid bridge for moderates or the uneducated to the light. He red pulled the hell out of my college age brother after I turned him onto tim pool about 6 months ago and now my brother is a rabid pede on here. Tim has his flaws and his motivations are suspect but we need to give a little credit where it's due.
She shouldn't. The judiciary isn't supposed to be political and it would set a bad precedent. It would look like she thinks she owes the President.
I think it's better for her to rule on the case even if she takes his side because she can always fall back on the law and the standards of ethics.
It definitely can be. The 4-4 I was referencing was their decision not to accept the appeal back in october when trump team asked them to decide if the PA supreme court violated the federal constitution by infringing on their state legislature's right to set election law. The state legislature basically made a law for the criteria to accept an absentee ballot and the state supreme court changed it because of COVID. They can't do that and the law is unseverable meaning if one provision is invalidated the entire statute is invalidated, which I interpret to mean NO MAIL IN BALLOTS.
Now they surely have to accept the case to make a decision. Something insane would have to happen for them not to strike down the PA supreme court's ruling that changed the law for acceptance of ballots after 8pm on November 3 and extending it to november 6.
The most important question is always this: what is the remedy? How can they throw out those ballots that came in late if the crooks threw out the envelopes with the time stamps? And what about the evidence of back dating? This has been the question eating at me all week.
Do they order a revote? Throw out all absentee ballots? Sent it to the PA legislature to vote on who should get the electors? I don't know. It's crazy.
Well, I think Kallman and the Plaintiffs (good guys) are asking for (1) an injunction to halt the certification of the vote until (2) they can get an audit of the results. The Defendants are arguing that the only remedy available is a recount or a process audit after the results are certified. A recount is not the desirable outcome because it just recounts the votes - we need the signatures to be checked, voters verified by canvassing, etc., to expose the fraud.
I am not an expert on any of this but I do think Kallman did a good job framing the issue and giving the judge an "out." What I mean when I say that is it sounds like the judge can agree with plaintiffs and grant the injection and order an audit without having to say he believes fraud happened. All the judge has to say is the witnesses seem credible, the audit is a state constitutional right, and that Mr. Thompson dude can't explain away everything.
The best part, IMO, was when Kallman pointed out that Thompson's affidavit DID NOT ADDRESS the witness' claim that votes were being attributed to people not listed on the ballot.
Attorney Pede here. Just throwing my two cents in.
The judge actually seemed receptive IMO of Mr. Kallman's argument. A lot of people are saying he seemed biased because he asked some tough questions of our guy and voiced some displeasure at the "probably not democrats," who were yelling stop the vote, etc. However, it's his job to ask the questions and he can have an opinion on people's candor. Whatever. The important piece for us to digest was, right after this exchange, I thought Kallman did a good job returning the scope back to this current case and the request for relief. Judge acknowledged and keep rolling.
I am not saying he is going to side with us but I have heard and been a part of hundreds of these hearings and I came away from this thinking there's a good shot he grants the injunction and an audit.
Here's to hoping.
Just as an aside since we're all fired up here and even GEOTUS is cool as a cucumber today so why can't we be too as we trust the man himself:
Looks like photos from his Doonbeg resort in Ireland. Absolute world class golfing if you can manage a day without torrential rain and gusts of wind. One of the best resorts I've ever been to and the staff are wonderful. Unsolicited plug in case you ever visit Ireland - I cant recommend this place enough. Been once for holiday because MAGA and once for an Irish wedding.
That's all folks!
There is a difference in defending the U.S. against foreign foes and shooting your own people. You have 20k national guardsmen in the capitol and you have 1.5 million serving to make sure no other countries step on us. I think the real scrutiny would come about if there was a violent insurrection or revolution against this fraud and the servicemembers choose to take the side of the usurper and illegitimate force.
Does stealing an election invalidate the threat china poses against us? Does it change the fact iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet and destroy america?
Who knows? If we went full 1776 maybe we would see more servicemembers defecting, but the psyop is strong and the practical reality is there is a huge amount of grey area in serving the country; do you abandon your post against the CCP advances in the south china sea? Abandon your positions in korea? Against the potential russian advance in europe post the hostile takeover of Krimea? Maybe these servicemembers deserve the benefit of the doubt, as their oaths are to protect these United States, and the real question you are asking cannot be posed until the servicemembers are called upon to fight against their own people... as Trump has shown, sometimes you need to hold people's feet to the fire to see the maggots and rats scurry out.
Just thinking.