Hi Mike
26 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 8, 2020, 12:26 a.m.

Hi Mike

I can't remember exactly but it seems to me somebody did a small sample number of Dominion machines results

The sample was in Biden's favor but enough questions were raised about the Biden win a larger sample number was used. This also favored Biden

Now the people  doing the audit agreed that Biden could have won  both samples,  but the Dominion machines were suspect

The end result was a complete forensic audit is going to happen

I don't have a link if I could produce a link because it was some time ago.

I remember Trump being accused of many things, ending in impeachment. Everybody said he was guilty until finally proven innocent

Some times the people who say nothing to see here speak too loudly

We have seen that in the past and look what happened

No: I do not believe Biden won a fair election. For every blustery PR statement made by Dominion machines there is another expert who claims to be able to prove Dominion is fraudulent

I will wait to see what Sidney Powell brings to court

Other wise this is not a very productive back and forth debate

Re: Hi Mike
By metmike - Dec. 8, 2020, 2:58 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for your sincere thoughts Wayne,

"We have seen that in the past and look what happened"

The 2020 election should be judged based exclusively on the facts of the 2020 election. Bringing up  "this happened before" or "that happened before" only justifies having a position based on the facts of something totally unrelated when the facts this time don't support a position.

"No: I do not believe Biden won a fair election. For every blustery PR statement made by Dominion machines there is another expert who claims to be able to prove Dominion is fraudulent"

We keep hearing about Dominion being fraudulent and the proof is there............just you wait, we'll have that proof.

Well, the election was 5 weeks ago and still no proof. 

"I will wait to see what Sidney Powell brings to court

Other wise this is not a very productive back and forth debate"

Some of us have been learning things and found a recent thread  linked below to be very productive,............WxFollower, metmike and Tim at least. Often, it depends on what we are looking for. If we are only looking for evidence to prove ourselves right and the evidence that comes out, keeps proving ourselves wrong.....then, we ignore it because of that...................then you are right, it's not very productive. 

                Election Fraud in Ga            

                            27 responses |            

                Started by TimNew - Dec. 5, 2020, 5:14 a.m.            


Re: Hi Mike
By joj - Dec. 8, 2020, 5:44 a.m.
Like Reply

"The proof is coming!"

Is that like... "The healthcare plan to replace Obamacare is coming"?

Is that like ... "You'll see my taxes when the IRS is done with the audit"?

and on and on..

Sorry, I have to say it.   This administration isn't your run of the mill lying politician.  He's a total con artist and there is nothing there.  He telegraphed his lies on the fraudulent election when he made the claim of fraud before the election.  

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By TimNew - Dec. 8, 2020, 7:26 a.m.
Like Reply

Ya mean like when the dems said they "were gonna impeach the mf'er" before he even took office?

Biggest lie I've ever seen was Schiff's faux rendition of the phone transcript that bore no resemblence to the actual transcript.   Somehow he got a pass for that.   But that's just one of an extremely long list of blatant falsehoods from the left.   Somehow,   they get glossed over.

By mcfarm - Dec. 8, 2020, 7:39 a.m.
Like Reply

yes Wayne many many question will hang over this election. Some fair, Some not so much. This dominion thing still is bothersome. What was that 400 million thru UBS from China all about? Was that ever explained? Why were they fighting investigation of their machines so hard? Seems it would of been the other way if they want a successful business model? Why do they keep insisting they had such security when we have various people pulling and plugging devices [sticks] into their machines? Were just randomly involved in the 6 states where there seemed to be nefarious activity? Don't even know that they were in all the 6 states now its such a mess. Maybe its not so but sure seems like where dominion is there is a mess.

and of course it cannot all be laid at dominion's door.  look at all the last minute voting changes that we allowed the dems to put in that corrupted the system.

By joj - Dec. 8, 2020, 9:54 a.m.
Like Reply

Your defense of the liar in chief is of course absent AGAIN.

So I will play your silly game of deflection.

Trump wanted help from the Russians.

Trump asked for help from the Russians.

Trump got help from the Russians.

Did the left make that up?  Oh H-NO!

By TimNew - Dec. 8, 2020, 10:55 a.m.
Like Reply

JOJ, I don't blame you for ignoring my point.  In your position,  I'd be tempted to do the same. Of course,  I wouldn't, and I have pointed out and akcknowledged Trump's lies on many occasions.

As far as your "Trump/Help/Russions) scenario..   Even Mueller disagrees.    Guess you  glossed over that part too.

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 8, 2020, 11 a.m.
Like Reply

I just read that Somebody [forget who] is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear arguments re Certification of PA results

I also understand Ted Cruz has agreed to oral argument before the Supreme Court

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By joj - Dec. 8, 2020, 12:55 p.m.
Like Reply


The Supreme Court will not even hear the case it’s so ridiculous.  Even with all the Trump appointments.

By TimNew - Dec. 8, 2020, 1:12 p.m.
Like Reply

As  a rule,  liberal appointees would be far more likely to hear a partisan liberal case than a conservative appointee would be to hear a partisan conservative case.

Conservatives adhere to the constitutuion.  Liberals adhere to some sort of liberal code that appears unwritten and hopelessly subjective.

So,  Trump appointees would insist on some constitutional or legal precedent to hear anything regardless of the source. I have not heard an argument from the Trump team that would match the criteria.

By mcfarm - Dec. 8, 2020, 1:27 p.m.
Like Reply

just wondering joj, what makes this case ridiculous?  Seems its a case where the constitution clearly gives the state legislature the power to make and change election law and along come the dens and changing on their own just months before a national election. That seems pretty clear, what your response to that?

By TimNew - Dec. 8, 2020, 2 p.m.
Like Reply

He's probably talking about the suit proposed by the Texas AG claiming the rule changes made just prior to the election by  several states diluted the votes of other states, including Texas.  The case barely has legs, and thats with a pretty loose definition.   It's not likely to go anywhere.

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 8, 2020, 3:35 p.m.
Like Reply

Well for those hoping the Supreme Court would hear arguments re: the 2020 election

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas vs. GA, Mich, PA, Wisc on [I think] Dec 8

I am sure others will have more information

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By WxFollower - Dec. 8, 2020, 4:29 p.m.
Like Reply


 I'd actually like to see it as I'd rather it get out in the open and be fairly debated. Do you have a link to this? All I see is the request for the SC to hear the case, not yet any approval:

 Trump allies turn to Supreme Court in long-shot bid to overturn 2020 election (msn.com)


By joj - Dec. 8, 2020, 5:14 p.m.
Like Reply

My prediction came true in just hours!

Supreme Court rejected the appeal in one sentence!

No dissents!

Go ahead keep throwing mud.

By metmike - Dec. 8, 2020, 5:21 p.m.
Like Reply

Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to nullify Biden win in Pennsylvania


The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid by Pennsylvania Republicans to nullify President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the Keystone State, dealing another blow to the long-shot legal effort by President Trump and his allies to overturn the election in the courts. 

The Tuesday order, which was unsigned and included no noted dissents, came ahead of the midnight “safe harbor” deadline, which provides states a kind of immunity from congressional oversight into election results that are certified in time.

The justices’ move leaves intact Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) late November certification of Biden’s victory in a state he won by more than 81,000 votes.

It also represents the latest in a lengthy string of defeats for Trump and his allies amid their increasingly dwindling legal campaign, which is largely premised on unsupported claims that the election results are invalid due to widespread fraud.

Among the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court petition were Trump ally Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).

The challengers’ original complaint, filed in Pennsylvania state court late last month, sought to strike down an expanded mail-in ballot policy that Pennsylvania put in place in 2019 after it was passed by the state's GOP-held legislature.

      Biden won three of every four mail-in ballots cast in the state, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed the case late last month, citing the litigants' undue delay in bringing the challenge, prompting the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 8, 2020, 9:37 p.m.
Like Reply

Supreme Court ONLY denied emergency injunction relief

In the order it did not deny cert.

Mike Kelly's suit is still pending before the U.S Supreme Court

I read Louisiana is joining with Texas

However it does look like Trump and allies are running out of run way. It is like landing a jumbo on a postage stamp

I wish I knew what all this means or what to believe

Trust me I don't really know

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By WxFollower - Dec. 9, 2020, 12:54 a.m.
Like Reply


 It means that we can pretty safely assume Biden will be the next POTUS as of 1/20/21. Even the 3 Trump Supreme Court picks are showing no interest in trying to change the election results from a Biden win. There just isn't nearly the evidence needed per them. Trump needs to focus on finishing out his term in a way that is good for my country.

By mcfarm - Dec. 9, 2020, 6:13 a.m.
Like Reply

interesting phrase "change the election results"......pretty sure many legal citizens who legally voted would say "correct the election results"

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 9, 2020, 10:21 a.m.
Like Reply

It seems Missouri AG has joined Louisiana and Texas in the fight to the Supreme Court

Missouri AG joined late on Tuesday

He would not have joined if there was no reason or hope because the Supreme Court had rejected everything

Looks like there is more there than meets the eye or the MSM would have us believe

This thing is getting bigger by the day as more states join the fight

It is hard to ignore three states and their wishes to be heard, non of whom have visible contact with Rudy and his efforts that I know

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By mcfarm - Dec. 9, 2020, 10:31 a.m.
Like Reply

wayne they clearly ignore their own state legislatures and broke the law and then made up their own law.....but after what Roberts did in the Obama care deal what hope do we have? very damn little....ya see we are a constitutional republic that has melted down to half the population does not have to follow the law

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 9, 2020, 10:43 a.m.
Like Reply

Wow: Are things heating up







South Carolina

South Dakota

 are all suing





SCOTUS has docketed the case meaning it will hear it

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By metmike - Dec. 10, 2020, 12:08 a.m.
Like Reply

17 States Urge Supreme Court to Review Texas Bid to Challenge Election in Battleground States


Seventeen states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Texas’s request to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states.

The states, led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 9 underscoring that the case filed by Texas is of great public importance and requires the attention of the nation’s top court.

Texas on Dec. 7 filed a motion asking for permission to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an attempt to protect the integrity of the 2020 election.

The Lone Star state alleges that the four key battleground states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot integrity measures.

In the brief, the 17 states argued that the Texas lawsuit warrants review by the high court as it presents important constitutional issues under the Electors Clause. It also raises concerns about election integrity and public confidence in the handling of elections, they added.

The states said they have a strong interest in protecting the separation of powers in how elections are regulated. When election officials made changes to the rules governing elections, these non-legislative actors may have encroached on the power given to state legislatures by the Electors Clause in the U.S. Constitution, they asserted.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections” may only be prescribed by the state “legislature” and “Congress.”

“Encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures by other state actors violate the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty,” the states wrote (pdf).

Meanwhile, the changes made by the defendant states to mail-in voting rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 17 states argued, would have likely enhanced the risk of election fraud since they strip away safeguards protecting against fraudulent behavior.

They added that the relaxation of safeguards for mail-in ballots create “needless vulnerability to actual fraud and undermined public confidence in the election.”

Some of these changes include removing signature verification, extending the deadline to receive mail-in ballots, and failing to implement consistent statewide standards for the handling of mail-in ballots, the Texas lawsuit alleged.

“These changes removed protections that responsible actors had recommended for decades to guard against fraud and abuse in voting by mail,” the states claimed in their brief.

The states supporting the Texas suit, all of which have Republican attorneys general, are Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Texas is hoping to obtain a declaration from the Supreme Court that the four states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. It is also asking the court to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the state is also seeking a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 10.

President Donald Trump’s campaign has also asked the court to allow it to join Texas in the case as a plaintiff. The president on Dec. 9 has described the case as “the big one,” adding that the “Country needs a victory.”

Re: Hi Mike
By wglassfo - Dec. 10, 2020, 12:52 a.m.
Like Reply

I am sorry I misunderstood the terminology re: "docketed"

I said "would" which is incorrect

I should have said "could" meaning SCOTUS has not made a decision to hear the case

I read your post MM and could not tell if Dominion machines would be allowed an investigation, under the filing by Texas

Tks for the post MM

Re: Re: Hi Mike
By metmike - Dec. 10, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
Like Reply

100 House Republicans sign brief backing Texas lawsuit challenging election results


More than 100 House Republicans on Thursday signed onto an amicus brief in support of the Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the election results in four swing states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that handed Democrat Joe Biden the White House.

“This brief presents [our] concern as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections,” states the brief signed by 106 GOP lawmakers.

Outgoing Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Mike Johnson (R-La.) — one of President Trump’s closest allies in the House, having served on his impeachment defense team — helped lead the effort to garner support from his GOP colleagues for the brief. Johnson is joining the GOP leadership team in the new Congress.

“President Trump called me this morning to let me know how much he appreciates the amicus brief we are filing on behalf of Members of Congress. Indeed, ‘this is the big one!’” Johnson tweeted on Thursday. 

Other key Republicans who signed onto the brief included Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.); Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the chair of the conservative Freedom Caucus; and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), the incoming RSC chairman.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), another top Trump ally, is not among the signatories. Neither is GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.). McCarthy twice declined to comment to reporters Thursday when directly asked if he supported the Texas lawsuit.

“The president has a right for every legal challenge to be heard. He has the right to go to the Supreme Court with it, yes,” McCarthy said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on Tuesday filed a lawsuit to the Supreme Court aimed at blocking electors from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia from certifying Biden’s victory. Paxton alleges the states' mail-in voting efforts during the pandemic were unconstitutional. Attorneys general from eighteen other red states have signed onto the lawsuit

The Trump campaign has largely been unsuccessful in its legal efforts to challenge the election results; dozens of challenges filed by Trump or his allies have been rejected by the courts. Trump has asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a former Texas solicitor general, to argue the latest case before the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported. 

But the last-ditch, Hail Mary has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill — and in the powerful Texas congressional delegation itself. For weeks, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), the top Republican on the powerful Appropriations Committee, has been telling Trump it’s time to “move on” and accept defeat. And Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a vocal Trump backer, voiced his concerns about the lawsuit on Twitter, opting not to sign on. 

“Respectfully, I will not join because I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation... of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states,” Roy tweeted.


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the GOP leadership team, has also questioned the merit of the suit. 

"You know, it's very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction,” Cornyn told CNN, “so you don't have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it.”

By mcfarm - Dec. 10, 2020, 6:10 p.m.
Like Reply

maybe these people should be reminded the reason this case was filed. About 5 states went around their own state legislatures {the only place election law can be made}  the remainder of the states followed the rules. If every ballot is not given the treatment millions are disenfranchised. The only place they can go for relief is the supremes.

By WxFollower - Dec. 10, 2020, 10:24 p.m.
Like Reply

 I’ve always been in favor of the Supremes and any other venue/meeting/assembly to hear the widespread fraud side of BOTH sides pleading their case and seeing where the chips may fall.