10 thoughts on “A Win In PA”

  1. “The question is, how many votes are we talking about?”

    Not many if you believe Penn election officer; I don’t.

    “Pennsylvania’s chief election officer announced on Tuesday that around 10,000 ballots were received between the close of polls on Election Day and the evening of Nov. 6 — a number far too small to undermine President-elect Joe Biden’s margin of victory in a critical battleground state.

    The approximately 10,000 mail ballots are at the center of a case in front of the Supreme Court that President Donald Trump and his allies have pushed for, as they advance a broader strategy that’s less about actually making a cohesive legal argument than it is about undermining trust in the democratic process.”


    1. Politico is gas-lighting as usual. Probably at least 100,000. They just can’t help themselves but take a swipe at the President – “undermining trust” – as if it’s not the other way around.

      1. “Politico is gas-lighting as usual. Probably at least 100,000. They just can’t help themselves but take a swipe at the President – “undermining trust” – as if it’s not the other way around.”

        What is to stop Penn. election officials from sticking to this 10K figure? They will simply lie say that’s the correct number too small to effect election result; what happens then?

        1. Or even worse what if the Supreme Court says well now that the state court of Pennsylvania has conceded your primary point about the illegality of extending the voting time most of your whole case is now invalidated; need for us to rule on it at all. Probably why the state Court caved.

  2. That is just this motion. Rudy is amassing an enormous amount of evidence for additional motions that he says will disqualify at least 600k ballots in PA and 300K in Michigan. Plus, there are more states left to go.

    Also they learned from 2000 not to start in the state courts, but go directly to SCOTUS arguing US Constitutional law so that the justices don’t have to get the willies overturning lower court judges as they did in 2000 with Bush v Gore.

  3. What if the legislatures of Trump-voting red states started passing identically worded resolutions that said: “Due to the nation wide concerns of overwhelming fraud, this legislature is exercising its Constitutional right to directly select electors.” If a wave of states passed this, it might make it easier for the critical swing state legislatures to do it too.

    1. Because the authority of the legislature to determine election laws is already enshrined in the Constitution, and the issue in PA is the Administration decided “due to covid” that they somehow could then usurp that legislative authority. Why should red states or swing states follow the dictatorial excesses of blue state governors? If a wave of states did that; it would be easier to turn us into a fascist dictatorship.

      1. Directly selecting a slate of electors is actually prescribed by law, not against the law, as the actions of the Pennsylvania executive were. However, it is a rarely used part of the law, so it takes a lot of effort to overcome the inertia. A wave of red Trump states which internally have kess resistance to exercising that part of the law would be a good demonstration of support for the fight against the theft of the country by a few out of control cheaters.

  4. I’m most concerned about the Dominion (and other) software issues.

    *IF* that’s real, it’s a vastly graver threat to the US and the world than the vote fraud in Philadelphia, etc. (not that those aren’t bad)

    If there is even a chance it’s real, we need an audit, ASAP, nationwide of randomly selected jurisdictions that use it. Not just blue ones, all.

    I’ve long detested using software-based systems and electronic voting (most especially the paperless systems that leave no paper record).
    The “glitch” in Michigan should serve as a clear warning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *