Elections Election Fraud update V.2 - more evidence?

[AWilder]

it’s all effortless. telling the truth or defending the truth takes less effort than lying. have you noticed how when someone lies they become all erratic and weird?

he said erratic and weirdly...

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

correct me if I’m wrong, but Pence can submit both slates of electors. senate picks the GOP electors, House like you say picks the state governor’s set of electors are Dem electors. it’s a deadlock, legislatures vs executives. what happens then?

That's incorrect, only the electors certified by the state legislatures, with the governor's signature and containing the sec of state's seal can be read by Pence.

 

[Ophydian]

it’s on it’s way

i have no problem accepting defeat if like you say claims are verified and turn to be false.

Bullshit. You will just move on to the next talking point.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

No, he can't. They are not certified by the state. It is no different than a group of people selecting electors. Only electors certified by the state can be presented to Pence. Read the Electoral Count Act of 1887. It was designed for this very situation. All Pence can do is read the electors that were certified by the state. Now, in other years, states have sent to two sets of electors, both certified, to be counted. That is where Congress gets involved in disputing that situation. As it stands right now, only one set of electors was sent to COngress.

they’re not just random people, they were GOP electors that state legislatures sent to congress.
i guess only time will tell. strap yourselves in boys

 

[Last Falconry]

by far the most annoying part of this whole charade is every half-assed unemployable dipshit suddenly becoming an expert* in constitutional law. Go back to your shanties, morons

 

[EyeOfNewt]

There are GOP senators who would side with Biden.

you never now who is on who’s side until the last moment. remember the democratic faithless electors that went against Hillary in 2016?

 

[Ophydian]

they’re not just random people, they were GOP electors that state legislatures sent to congress.
i guess only time will tell. strap yourselves in boys

No they didn't. Christ man. No one certified them as electors. Do you not understand English? The AZ legislature sending alternative electors is no different in terms of validity than if you and 8 friends wrote your names on a piece of paper and mailed it to Congress.

 

[AWilder]

they’re not just random people, they were GOP electors that state legislatures sent to congress.
i guess only time will tell. strap yourselves in boys

they can't make up their own process as an alternative. We have one government, not alternative governments. Trump lost. That's the reality. There is not an alternative.


Edti: oh lord, just realized this is coming from Epoch times...FFS man... you're hopeless. You're better off banned.

 

[woodguyatl]

correct me if I’m wrong, but Pence can submit both slates of electors. senate picks the GOP electors, House like you say picks the state governor’s set of electors are Dem electors. it’s a deadlock, legislatures vs executives. what happens then?

In Nevada they used social security checks and didn’t go by name alone to conclude that 1500 dead voters cast a vote in NV

With all due respect, that claim and the evidence was given to a judge on a Thursday. The judge reviewed the evidence and on Friday dismissed the case because the evidence does not support that claim. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.8n...publicans-lawsuit-las-vegas-clark-county/amp/

In Nevada the Trump team was arguing that votes of people without local addresses should not be allowed to vote and added those people to theire "illegal" vote tallies totally "forgetting" that most of those people were military stationed elsewhere who could legally vote in Nevada. Whoopsie.

 

[sickc0d3r]

They will still try on the 6th as it looks like the GOP will get one House Member and Senator to challenge the results in each of the swing states and try to nullify them so no candidate gets to 270. Dems control the House so no way this goes through as it has to be passed in both sections of Congress. It will be interesting to see what way McConnell and the GOP vote in this though. A few including Mitch have already publicly stated that Joe is the President Elect.

Imagine the precedent if Mitchie Boy's crew voted to approve this crap, knowing it won't pass the house. Might as well get rid of the presidential election and let congress pick one every 4 years (not a terrible idea, btw).

 

[Ophydian]

@EyeOfNewt SInce you don't use a search function

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373 is a United States federal law establishing procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. The law has subsequently been codified, with some modifications, into positive law[1] in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, which also contains other provisions related to presidential elections and vacancies. The law was enacted in the aftermath of the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock.

The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[2]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[3]:543 For example, one key ambiguity in Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) involves a situation where multiple slates of electors are sent from a state, and the House and Senate cannot agree whether the law requires the slate certified by the governor to count, or requires that no slate should be counted.[4]

The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election, the closest approach being in the contentious 2000 presidential election, which was ultimately resolved before the electors cast their votes. However, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore, regarding that election.

Certificate of ascertainment[edit]
Section 3 (now 3 U.S.C. § 6) requires the governor of each State to prepare seven original copies of a "certificate of ascertainment", each under the seal of the state, which identifies the electors appointed by the state and the votes they received, as well as the names of all other candidates for elector and the votes they received. The electors that are being appointed are determined “under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment.” The name of the presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate do not appear on the certificate; neither do the number of votes. The certificates only include the names of the slate of electors.[21]

The certificate must be issued "as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of electors in [a] State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment ...." That is, the certificates must be prepared as soon as possible after Election Day. The certificate must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States at least six days before the Electoral College meets[21] and six original copies must be delivered to the electors on or before the day on which they are required to meet and cast their votes.[22]

Certificate of final determination[edit]
If an election had been contested, 3 U.S.C. § 6 also provides that "if there shall have been any final determination in a state in the manner provided for by [state] law of a controversy or contest," then the governor must, "as soon as practicable after such determination," communicate, "under the seal of the State ... a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made."[22]

Notably, the relevant clause in 3 U.S.C. § 6 differs substantively from the original clause in Section 3 of the 1887 law, as shown below:

• Old version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State of a controversy or contest as provided for in section two of this act, it shall be the duty of the governor [to transmit a certificate of such determination etc.]"
• New version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the governor [etc.]

Under the original version, the clause appears to only apply in situations where the final determination satisfies the Section 2 "safe harbor." The current version requires a certificate to be sent regardless of whether the safe harbor applies. The difference may be relevant[discuss] since Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) prohibits Congress from rejecting any electors "whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to [3 U.S.C. § 6]."[23] (See Substantive counting rules below.)

This process was used by the state of Florida following the 2000 election when it submitted a "Certificate of Final Determination of Contests Concerning the Appointment of Presidential Electors" that was signed by the governor and secretary of state. As narrated by an attorney in the Office of the Federal Register at the time:

[O]n December 12, the Supreme Court announced its decision in favor of Governor Bush.... While other lawyers argued over the full meaning of the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, the Office of the Federal Register pored over it for a procedural path to formally end the dispute over Florida's electors. Because federal law did not account for a "re-ascertainment" of electors after a partial recount of votes, we had to devise a new form of document to suit the Court's opinion. The Florida Secretary of State submitted this unique final determination to us, and from our procedural point of view, the Florida electoral fight came to an end.[24]

Certificate of vote[edit]

The 2012 Certificate of Vote issued by Maryland's delegation to the Electoral College
As noted above, the Twelfth Amendment simply requires the electors to sign, certify, seal, and transmit their votes (now known as the "certificate of vote") to the president of the Senate. However, a clause in Section 3 required the governor to deliver certificates of ascertainment to the electors, and required the electors to "inclose[] and transmit[]" the certificates of ascertainment along with their votes. The electors must now make and sign six certificates of vote, and annex to each one of the list of electors that has been "furnished to them by direction of the governor."[25]

The last bold and underlined part is not difficult to understand. The governor is to deliver the ascertainment of the electors. Only the governor can do this and not the GOP or random Legislatures.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

With all due respect, that claim and the evidence was given to a judge on a Thursday. The judge reviewed the evidence and on Friday dismissed the case because the evidence does not support that claim. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.8n...publicans-lawsuit-las-vegas-clark-county/amp/

In Nevada the Trump team was arguing that votes of people without local addresses should not be allowed to vote and added those people to theire "illegal" vote tallies totally "forgetting" that most of those people were military stationed elsewhere who could legally vote in Nevada. Whoopsie.

This is how they do it folks lol.

Ok, these cases are super complex and deal with myriad packetized instances of fraud and cheating.

A judge couldn't possibly "review all the evidence" and dismiss it that quickly.

There is simply too much information to go through that quickly, these judges are punting the issue.

 

[woodguyatl]

This is how they do it folks lol.

Ok, these cases are super complex and deal with myriad packetized instances of fraud and cheating.

A judge couldn't possibly "review all the evidence" and dismiss it that quickly.

There is simply too much information to go to that quickly, these judges are punting ting the issue.

How much evidence was he presented?

 

[EyeOfNewt]

@EyeOfNewt SInce you don't use a search function

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373 is a United States federal law establishing procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. The law has subsequently been codified, with some modifications, into positive law[1] in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, which also contains other provisions related to presidential elections and vacancies. The law was enacted in the aftermath of the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock.

The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[2]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "ts central provisions seem contradictory."[3]:543 For example, one key ambiguity in Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) involves a situation where multiple slates of electors are sent from a state, and the House and Senate cannot agree whether the law requires the slate certified by the governor to count, or requires that no slate should be counted.[4]

The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election, the closest approach being in the contentious 2000 presidential election, which was ultimately resolved before the electors cast their votes. However, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore, regarding that election.

Certificate of ascertainment[edit]
Section 3 (now 3 U.S.C. § 6) requires the governor of each State to prepare seven original copies of a "certificate of ascertainment", each under the seal of the state, which identifies the electors appointed by the state and the votes they received, as well as the names of all other candidates for elector and the votes they received. The electors that are being appointed are determined “under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment.” The name of the presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate do not appear on the certificate; neither do the number of votes. The certificates only include the names of the slate of electors.[21]

The certificate must be issued "as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of electors in [a] State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment ...." That is, the certificates must be prepared as soon as possible after Election Day. The certificate must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States at least six days before the Electoral College meets[21] and six original copies must be delivered to the electors on or before the day on which they are required to meet and cast their votes.[22]

Certificate of final determination[edit]
If an election had been contested, 3 U.S.C. § 6 also provides that "if there shall have been any final determination in a state in the manner provided for by [state] law of a controversy or contest," then the governor must, "as soon as practicable after such determination," communicate, "under the seal of the State ... a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made."[22]

Notably, the relevant clause in 3 U.S.C. § 6 differs substantively from the original clause in Section 3 of the 1887 law, as shown below:

• 
  
  
  • Old version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State of a controversy or contest as provided for in section two of this act, it shall be the duty of the governor [to transmit a certificate of such determination etc.]"
  • New version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the governor [etc.]

Under the original version, the clause appears to only apply in situations where the final determination satisfies the Section 2 "safe harbor." The current version requires a certificate to be sent regardless of whether the safe harbor applies. The difference may be relevant[discuss] since Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) prohibits Congress from rejecting any electors "whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to [3 U.S.C. § 6]."[23] (See Substantive counting rules below.)

This process was used by the state of Florida following the 2000 election when it submitted a "Certificate of Final Determination of Contests Concerning the Appointment of Presidential Electors" that was signed by the governor and secretary of state. As narrated by an attorney in the Office of the Federal Register at the time:

[O]n December 12, the Supreme Court announced its decision in favor of Governor Bush.... While other lawyers argued over the full meaning of the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, the Office of the Federal Register pored over it for a procedural path to formally end the dispute over Florida's electors. Because federal law did not account for a "re-ascertainment" of electors after a partial recount of votes, we had to devise a new form of document to suit the Court's opinion. The Florida Secretary of State submitted this unique final determination to us, and from our procedural point of view, the Florida electoral fight came to an end.[24]

Certificate of vote[edit]

The 2012 Certificate of Vote issued by Maryland's delegation to the Electoral College
As noted above, the Twelfth Amendment simply requires the electors to sign, certify, seal, and transmit their votes (now known as the "certificate of vote") to the president of the Senate. However, a clause in Section 3 required the governor to deliver certificates of ascertainment to the electors, and required the electors to "inclose[] and transmit[]" the certificates of ascertainment along with their votes. The electors must now make and sign six certificates of vote, and annex to each one of the list of electors that has been "furnished to them by direction of the governor."[25]

The last bold and underlined part is not difficult to understand. The governor is to deliver the ascertainment of the electors. Only the governor can do this and not the GOP or random Legislatures.

there is also a law that prohibits governors and other state executives from changing election laws and yet they did. what is this cherry-picking of “i’m gonna follow this law but not the other”?

 

[Ophydian]

This is how they do it folks lol.

Ok, these cases are super complex and deal with myriad packetized instances of fraud and cheating.

A judge couldn't possibly "review all the evidence" and dismiss it that quickly.

There is simply too much information to go to that quickly, these judges are punting ting the issue.

Or there is no information. You choose the less believable option of the two.

 

[EyeOfNewt]

This is how they do it folks lol.

Ok, these cases are super complex and deal with myriad packetized instances of fraud and cheating.

A judge couldn't possibly "review all the evidence" and dismiss it that quickly.

There is simply too much information to go to that quickly, these judges are punting ting the issue.

how come we canadians are so based lol

 

[AWilder]

there is also a law that prohibits governors and other state executives from changing election laws and yet they did. what is this cherry-picking of “i’m gonna follow this law but not the other”?

please cite your sources.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

How much evidence was he presented?

It's so funny.

I post one answer around here these days, and 2-5 radical leftists quote me immediately. It's like they're being paid. What kind of vermin spends all day trying to obstruct truth like this?

Look at this loaded question bullshit. I already made the point. No possible way all the evidence was presented in a hasty brief court hearing.

Laughable.

 

[Ophydian]

there is also a law that prohibits governors and other state executives from changing election laws and yet they did. what is this cherry-picking of “i’m gonna follow this law but not the other”?

No, they didn't or the Courts which oversee this kind of stuff would rule in Trump's favor. Stop spreading Chinese popoganda.

You complain that the courts didn't review evidence because the arguments were procedure. Now you are claiming that procedure was not followed yet here are the courts throwing out that as well. Pick one and run with it. Bouncing all over the map doesn't help your case. It's hard to develop a theory when it changes every day.

You would make the world's worst possible detective.

 

[Ophydian]

It's so funny.

I post one answer around here these days, and 2-5 radical leftists quote me immediately. It's like they're being paid. What kind of vermin spends all day trying to obstruct truth like this?

Look at this loaded question bullshit. I already made the point. No possible way all the evidence was presented in a hasty brief court hearing.

Laughable.

I don't know vermin, why don't you tell us?