I don't have a good take on this. This sounds more like "Russians are spreading disinfo and faked/hacked/edited documents regarding Dominion to undermine our completely and totally fair elections." Than eluding to actual fraud. Undermining elections and undermining "confidence" in elections are very different takes.

Then by definition she's not a Dr. If thats the case.

Isn't any PhD in any field a doctor? Doctor of Philosophy. It's just the highest degree you can get in a subject. I agree she's not a Medical Doctor, and this criticism is only valid if she is using her title to mislead others into believing she has a medical degree or expertise. You can't criticize non-hard science PhDs for using the term Dr., it's a degree in philosophies, not medicine or hard science.

The excel file is last updated in 2016, so is this 4 year old info?

Didn't work for me with the login. I went to my actual state site to check, but there's no info on mail out date vs vote date. Only thing it shows is that I voted for 2020. That's it.

The argument was one State being damaged by another due to breaking their own law and the constitution. I would also think it would be thrown out for standing. Why would Trump Campaign sue a State on behalf of another State? The State court would likely say that only the damaged state could sue.

Issue with him is he tends to take the side of the government. He was very bad on 4th Amendment stuff. My fear is he'll make a no ruling, rulng. Something like "The States conduct their elections however they see fit, and determining whether it was done correctly and accepted is for the US House and Senate to decide, not the courts. The States are free to break their own laws and pick whichever electors they want. The electors in turn can vote for the person that lost. And lastly, the US Congress can choose whether or not to count the vote of the electorsat all. Since they have those powers the court cannot interfere and force the hand of the parties one way or another. The results from those States will stand. Texas can instruct their US Congressmen to reject the electors from those States in Congress. This is the only relief the court can provide.

I have not used this Content Filter before, but it's buggy. The content filter only works for the 1st page, even if you're on infinite scrolling.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/382 That's for congress, but basically says, "Here's how to contest after certification by the State". So yes, certified elections can clearly be contested. The congress themselves are the final "Judge of elections" according to the constitution. In Pennsylvania if a judge rules someone else won, the law says the SOS must certify them the winner. It's not hard.

If the person is already seated and there is proof the outcome is wrong, it would be a new election. If it is before someone is seated, then depending on the circumstances they would either hold a new election or seat the real winner, if known. If certain unreliable ballots are greater than the margin of victory, then it's a new election. If it's specific ballots you can allocate to a specific candidate, you can seat the right person. This has happened many times. The outcome can also be changed by the legislative body they are being seated to if they don't agree.

They are contested though. A state can say it's not contested if they want, but if it is contested in the court and not resolved in time, then it is contested regardless if they say it's certified. By your logic, the people in power can cheat and certify their fraudulent elections, leaving the challengers in those elections unable to contest. Can people not in charge or in government certify or decertify an election? No. How would a challenger contest elections that don't adhere to the law? Looked another way, could those in power stay in power by refusing certification if they lose? Hypothetically, if proof of fraud is found after certification, are you saying it's too late? Why then are states required to keep evidence and ballots for months or years after certification?

This statement is inaccurate because the two statements are unrelated. Hollywood cracking might be true, but Matt's stance isn't an example of this happening right now. Matt has been fair to us from the beginning in 2016. Good on him. This is more of an example that you can be successful while respecting MAGA. If framed in that way, then you can say Hollywood is cracking because Matt has not been canceled yet.

I know you're well intentioned, but until there's something concrete, all these types of posts do is create false hope and make people complacent. Hope deferred makes the heart sick. Since this is all the info given in this tweet, it's obvious this twitter account is finding anything just to generate buzz. They found one case canceled and knew the way they phrased it would give them traffic. This sounds like a grifter account. If nothing comes of this tomorrow, assume this account is just trying to get clicks.

Then is it fine legally since she wasn't on that ballot? There'd be nothing here at that point. Where are you getting your info? This sounds like disinfo to spread doubt to me.

I think there's an argument for both. My instinct is that Wednesday is best for Trump because stuff would be officially in dispute and not resolved before the deadline. An argument can be made that the other way too, so maybe the judge wants to avoid that. It's possible the State agrees that waiting until Wednesday is good for Trump, so they already finished the response and want to move the hearing up to avoid passing the safe harbor deadline

I think it was John Podesta or something who said "never let a good crisis go to waste." It's entirely possible that was actually some horrible bioweapon from a lab gone bad and wuhan flu came afterwards as a separate thing. Also possible wuhan flu killed whatever that was so it was released on purpose. Personally, for many of these things I don't think the original crisis is fake, but it is being used.

Don't forget that he also represented Richard Jewel in his defamation lawsuit vs the media and FBI/DOJ.

So is this a news person or a Biden Campaign Strategist at CNN?

I'm confused about 12 and 13. I thought SCIFS were a place where there are no electronic or recording devices allowed so you can view classified information without it leaking outside. That's like the opposite of what you're saying it is. If they entered a SCIF they would have 0 communication with the outside or know anything about what was going on with the election.

Whats the soap box?

Your title is maybe just wishful thinking because there statement is just to cover their asses. "we're just doing our job, we don't look at what we're shredding" "they're making allegations about us, but we aren't liable since we don't know what we shredded, we went to the FBI first, so you can tell we're not the bad guys"

Huh? No, the whole point is the company is putting up a front like they're for guns and 2a. Supporting act blue is the opposite of that. So people are okay supporting a company that respects veterans and 2a, but now it looks like that is likely just a marketing ploy. You think people were supporting them bc their coffee is so much better than sbux?

No. This muddies the waters. Focus on the election fraud, don't retweet this crap and combine it together. Don't try to attach voter fraud and satanic pedophiles together or you lose.

A plane going to Toronto means nothing if there's nothing showing that they raided the HQ of Dominion. Can you let us know how many planes have gone there the past year? Even if they did raid Dominion HQ, I'm actually not thrilled with the idea of that actually happening. Remember when the FBI stormed Jeffrey Epstein's Island and took everything and then we never heard about it again?

Not trying to be mean or anything, but a whole bunch of false hope is extremely demoralizing. We can look at it if something good comes of it, but no reason to hype this.

Are you being disingenuous? If you show good probable cause that it was switched, show exactly how it can be switched, then all you need is an honest hand recount to prove it. Showing good probable cause and anomalies is what allows you to stop the certification to do a hand recount.