Great notes. I have only read a bit and it's glorious. Gotta read the rest tonight.
In PA the Legislature is majority Republican, so there is a vanguard there siding with the Plaintiffs (Texas) against the Defendants, who essentially include PA's executive branch.
Basically this, they are the vanguard. The others will fall in line should the Supreme Court effectively acknowledge the legislature's power granted by the Constitution to set the electors at will.
Exactly, let this be the start of a great and glorious redemption arc for Bryan Cutler.
She probably rushed it out just in time before the holiday. On a related note, let's wish a Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish pedes here. We have the best Jews, don't we folks?
Primary that feckless loon.
Bush v. Gore refutes this logic.
Federal Constitutional claims raised by Texas preempt any state constitutional questions of interpretation.
*And we would've gotten away with it if it weren't for their lawyers, and Joe's little dog too. *
Also a legalpede, and that Wisc situation jumped out at me early as well. To pile on, how quickly the response went toward public policy arguments was another indication of weakness.
Literally trying to gaslight the Court about the state of public trust. Bad argument.
No need to dwell in anger over this. Understand that their very best arguments here are laid bare, and are easily found wanting. They have a poor case and they are now in front of SCOTUS, not some bought and paid for kangaroo court in Harrisburg.
His entire crew at the ACLJ is top notch.
If the Act is unconstitutional, the mail-in ballots were not sent "legally" unless some of them fell into the category of absentee ballots, which is distinct and constitutionally recognized under certain conditions in PA.
No, it'd be 0.26 votes.
.26% is expressed as 0.0026. 2.6% is 0.026. 26% is 0.26.
Can you or someone please link this different study? TY in advance.
Exactly. No need to exaggerate, or misdirect, as that tweet does. If people think that some huge number like 26% has to be there for there to be fraud, that will have really mislead the cause. We are looking for small proportions sufficient to flip the state; the allegations are about a carefully calibrated algorithm meant to do this; not some piece of crap hack job distorting the election so wildly as to be easily noticed.
Actually it is the opposite. This guy is misquoting a .26% figure to grab attention. The convincing fraud effort is to siphon small proportions of votes sufficient to flip the state; a gigantic number like 26% is not going to be found and convincing people that a big huge number needs to be there is just harming the cause.
It looks like this CPA misquoted the findings. The fact that there was any discrepancy proves the point that the results are unreliable, but he screwed up the number and may have been deliberately exaggerating for all we know. https://voterga.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/press-release-dominion-flips-trump-votes-to-biden-in-ga-county.pdf
TLDR of the above link: State-wide margin for Biden was .26% and this machine had .26% votes flipped for a .52% net shift. Specifically 37 Trump votes were counted by the machine as 37 Biden votes out of a total of 14,192 votes processed. In other words, the net shift was 74 out of 14792, thus .52%. Small percent but enough to flip GA if broadly applied.
His "26%" is wrong and unhelpful, but big numbers get attention so IDK maybe it does help with that but it empowers criticism and "DEBOONKING" BS.
I think we'd need exact precinct numbers to see if this machine was present at a precinct Solomon determined to be "seized" at any point in time on election night to say it "matches" or corroborates anything in Solomon's work.
What I am saying is, this may be separate, independent evidence from what Solomon has done, and that is fine too. It doesn't need to be a part of what he has uncovered, but if it is great. We just do not know that yet b/c we'd need precinct information regarding this machine to make that connection.
I followed Solomon's analysis pretty well. I do not, however, know the precinct numbers in GA by heart such that I could match them to their home county. Nor does this report cite exact precinct numbers for where these ballots were originally counted; it is just reporting that the machine produces inaccurate results. It doesn't need to do more than just that to prove the unreliability of the results on election night.
That is, for those interested, a great reference to the Court in Throckmorton:
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
The Court itself goes on to quote J.C. Wells' treatise on Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis:
Fraud vitiates every thing, and a judgment equally with a contract -- that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for in general the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud. . . . Likewise, there are few exceptions to the rule that equity will not go behind the judgment to interpose in the cause itself, but only when there was some hindrance besides the negligence of the defendant in presenting the defense in the legal action. There is an old case in South Carolina to the effect that fraud in obtaining a bill of sale would justify equitable interference as to the judgment obtained thereon. But I judge it stands almost or quite alone, and has no weight as a precedent.
Undoubtedly those ballots were distributed to "seized" precincts by the algorithm to create a corroborating paper trail to match or nearly match the manipulated vote totals.
I've never been so proud to be a Pennsylvanian. We have a lot to clean up here in terms of election integrity and fraud prevention, but this was the big first step that needed to happen; a rejection of injustice.