Image 01 Image 03

Stay focused on the prize

Stay focused on the prize

There are a lot of distracting false or misleading viral stories making the rounds. Focus on the prize. Trump needs to find votes through recount or other vote count irregularity, or find a court to rule that specific categories of ballots were unlawfully cast, whether through fraud or contrary to election law. That’s the prize.

There is a lot of litigation regarding election fraud. Some of it is significant, some of it small ball, but it all needs to work it’s way through the legal system. The allegations are serious and pervasive; whether they are successful remains to be seen.

As I’ve expressed before, the Trump campaign should Stay the course on election contests and litigation – Almost 70 million Trump voters deserve the effort:

There may or may not be fire for all the smoke surrounding mail-in ballots and vote counting, particularly in Philadelphia, and irregularities in other contested states. But the Trump campaign and GOP need to see it through to the end.

It really is that simple….

At the end of the day, which could be just days or weeks away, we’ll know if Trump and his team have the goods. Almost 70 million Trump voters deserve the effort.

I’ve also pointed out that people should be realistic about the high hurdles to success whether in recounts or litigation:

So it’s not over, but we have to be honest with ourselves that it remains a longshot. Trump needs hard evidence of major fraud, miscount, or computer malfunction to prevail in court. A specific category of ballot that was not legally cast is going to have to be identified, and it’s going to have to be in a sufficient quantity to make a difference.

I understand that people want hope. But hope doesn’t spring from being unrealistic. That only leads to disappointment.

There is a lawsuit filed today in Pennsylvania that received a lot of attention. It seeks to prevent PA electors from voting in the electoral college vote. The lawsuit catalogs a lot of problems, but asking a Court — eventually the Supreme Court — to grant that relief is highly unlikely. It’s one thing (which the lawsuit also does) to ask the court to bar a specific category (e.g. late) ballots, it’s another thing to essentially throw out the entire election in a state.

There also is a viral social media story about Real Clear Politics putting Pennsylvania back in the undecided column. When I saw that, I went to Wayback Machine for the RCP page, and easily confirmed that the story is false, RCP never changed anything — it has had PA as undecided since election day. Tom Bevan one of the founders of RCP just confirmed this.

There also is a viral story, started by AP, that Attorney General Barr has authorized investigations into election fraud. That’s misleading. Here is Barr’s memo.

It simply restates DOJ policy that only substantial and credible allegations of fraud that might affect the outcome of an election can be investigated prior to certification of the election, though extreme caution must be used. But it doesn’t find that there is such fraud or authorize a specific investigation. It cautions against even investigating non-credible, non-substantial allegations. It’s a nothingburger, but it’s spreading.

Folks, stay focused. Trump needs to find votes through recount or other vote count irregularity, or find a court to rule that specific categories of ballots were unlawfully cast, whether through fraud or contrary to election law. That’s the prize. Focus on the prize.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 9, 2020 at 9:25 pm

Sidney Powell Discusses Election Fraud:

“We have identified 450,000 ballots in key states, that magically only voted for Biden”…

Stop watching the b.s. on the ‘news’.

Anything ‘Murdoch’ is dead: Rupert’s idiot son is doing what a lot of second generation rich kids do: screw-up what the first generation built. Thus: tune-out Fox and tune-out the NY Post: they are run by Murdoch’s idiot son and the likes of rino sh-t like Paul Ryan are on the board of directors.

McCain, dead, is probably a more reliable source of news.

JusticeDelivered | November 9, 2020 at 9:37 pm

It will be so sweet if Trump prevails, they will go ape shit, and likely force us to defend ourselves.

Suggesting that dropping millions of ballots off at post office constitutes a legitimate election is absurd. There is no way possible to verify anything about this election.

To accept this fraud and then complain about the results is absolutely dumbfounding. We have hoards of voter registration volunteers registering voters on the streets, in grocery store parking lots and in the jungles of Malaysia for all we know and they all get a ballot, sight unseen.

If this is acceptable, then there are no elections; let’s stop pretending — the government will elect our politicians for us.

I’ve seen several variations of the Dominion software story – citing from 1 to 3 separate instances of vote switching. The initial story grew legs immediately with several presumptions on Gateway Pundit where I first saw it. Basically, it was the machine, it’s used in 45 counties (give or take) and in 28 states.

I’m a bit of a hacker/nerd and retired from a software development group where I did SWQA and SWCM. The software in a single machine could have been hacked or exploited, or a separate program could have been executed from remote and remained in memory to do the bidding in the background and then be deleted when the machine was turned off which would wipe the memory. Got my head bit off on GWP for suggesting that – of COURSE it’s the machine was the reply because relatives of Pelosi and Feinstein are involved in the management/ownership of Dominion.

People are grasping at anything to explain the loss. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the claims have been retold so many times that they’ve forked into what sounds like multiple claims – but in fact are just different versions of the same story.

Me? I’m hopeful someone comes up with photos/video of the (alleged) trucks and operatives bringing in boxes of ballots. Likewise bouncing votes off the SS death index, USPS address change index, etc. And the sharpie pen fiasco. COncrete examples that need to be inventoried for their extent until the numbers overcome the difference for the state.

I was a bit taken aback by Lewandowski’s (?) press conference the other day where he cited a single proven case of a dead person voting. “That’s 1” I thought – now come up with a few hundred thousand more. If that’s the extent of what they can prove, we’re beaten.

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | November 10, 2020 at 1:29 am

    The first mistake is relying on anything from Gateway Pundit. GP is less reliable than the NYT, WaPo, and NBC/ABC/CBS. Jim Hoft make stuff up.

    That doesn’t mean everything there is garbage, any more than everything on the MSM is garbage; but a story is more likely to be garbage if it’s reported on GP than if it’s reported by the MSM. Especially if it’s only reported on GP, or originates there. Nevertheless, the story tonight about the MI AG’s letter seems genuine, and that’s a huge story, so well done GP, for once.

    Dominion. I’ve seen people all over the place repeating GP’s garbage claim that Pelosi’s Chief of Staff is Dominion’s CEO, and that Richard Blum is a major shareholder.

    The first claim is high-octane BS, and a deliberate lie by Joe Hoft at GP. Other people slightly downgraded the claim from CEO to merely a “key executive”. It’s still BS. Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s former COS, works full time for a big K St lobbying firm. He is not any kind of executive at Dominion. His only link to Dominion is that it is a client of the firm he works for, and he is assigned to that account. I say Hoft is deliberately lying, because he makes the claim and then “verifies” it by linking to a Bloomberg story saying just what I just wrote, in the expectation that his readers are too stupid to read it. He even cites the key paragraph, as if it supports rather than refutes his claim.

    As for Blum being a major shareholder, Dominion Voting Systems is a privately held Canadian company; Hoft’s source “verifying” this is a tweet from some brazen liar, claiming that Blum owns 60% of Dominion, but reproducing as “evidence” an SEC form reporting share purchases, showing that in 2006 Blum owned about 66,000 shares in Avid Technologies, a US company that has no connection with Dominion, and which had at the time over 40,000,000 shares outstanding. So 14 years ago Blum bought a 0.16% position in a completely different company, and somehow that makes him a 60% shareholder in this one! That is not negligence, it’s deliberately lying.

    The sharpie thing in AZ is more BS. The ballots there are deliberately designed to work even if the ink bleeds through. And any ballot that for any reason won’t scan is not discarded, it’s simply copied and they scan the copy. So those claiming that votes with sharpies are not being scanned are just lying.

    Citing instances of dead people voting can be useful if they are not recently dead, so it can’t be a good-faith error. Cases where someone mailed their ballot and then died, or where the ballot arrived after the person died and the grieving family voted as they thought the person would have wanted, are not going to help; there can’t possibly be enough such cases to affect the election. But if you can find cases that aren’t like that the you have something. Not that a handful of cases can themselves affect the election, but by finding a handful that you can prove are deliberate fraud then you create reason to believe that there may be many more such cases, and you justify an investigation.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 2:25 am

      Which articles in particular are you referring to? If anything, given how absolutely debased the Democrat media is, TGP is light years more trustworthy in 2020.

      What I don’t like is their screatchy end of the world alarmism BUT if you filter that out and use a fair amount of common sense then they have a place.

      I like that they get stories before other sites (like this one) by several days.

      So yes, which stories in particular are you referring to or they have been wrong reporting about?

        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | November 10, 2020 at 2:39 am

        Well, why don’t you start with this one? Jim Hoft made two earthshattering claims about Dominion, both of which are utter bullshit and he knew it.

        You know when I realized Hoft was a damned liar? When he claimed to have personal inside information from three separate sources that Darren Wilson had an “orbital blowout fracture of the eye socket”, which turned out not to be true. To support his claim he took a stock image of a CT scan of such an injury, erased the source, and posted it as if it were Wilson’s scan; many people fell for it and jumped directly to that conclusion.

          mailman in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 5:01 am

          Because you declare something doesnt make it so darling! But you know, you can always be an adult and use your common sense to filter what you do and do not read but as Ive already said numerous times…given how the Democrat media has utterly debased itself these last 4 years, TGP is LIGHTYEARS more trustworthy hahaha

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 9:02 am

          What do you mean “because I declare something”? The facts are there, right in front of you. I just demonstrated that the very story you brought up is complete bullshit; how can you ignore that?

        dmacleo in reply to mailman. | November 10, 2020 at 8:35 am

        when proved his headlines were incorrect, pointed out by many others in that thread, banning started.
        his headlines often exaggerate.
        for the local to him stuff he is good, lot of info others ignore from the STL area.

      tphillip in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 10:44 am

      Great citations. Wonderful read. Much WoW. Would recommend.


      Any time you can provide URLs to the articles you hate and the sources you’re using to debunk them we may actually listen to what you say.

      Otherwise that’s a huge pile of steaming, unsupported pile of bovine excrement.

      Par for the course for you.

        Milhouse in reply to tphillip. | November 10, 2020 at 3:41 pm

        Excuse me? The article is linked in the comment I replied to. I showed that it’s false, using the article’s own purported “evidence”. All you have to do is look at it to see that Hoft is deliberately lying.

    Milhouse, I wasn’t as clear as I could have been in my OP. My point being with the Dominion software and what I considered alarmist leaps in logic from them, was the Dominion TIMES 45 Counties TIMES 28 States EQUALS 1,260 places where voting fraud occurred. Strongly inferred by GWP. Also, and I didn’t drill down on this observation, he claimed that the map of where Dominion was used included all the swing states in dispute now. My quick and passing glance at the map of swing states gave me a “huh? check your geography” type response. I’d have to go back and look harder but it struck me as another logic-leap the intent of which was to incite the readership.

    I do scan GWP on a daily basis, but within my own head, I ascribe a kind of credibility score. For my sensibilities, I like the Epoch Times because they’re better researched, measured, credible, and do not resort to sensationalized headlines. Likewise the Federalist. Articles don’t turn over as fast on either of those sites. So it is for speed of reporting new findings that I keep an eye on GWP. But I don’t appreciate the chicken-little-ism that shows up in the titles and editorialism.

    More and more, I find myself turning off certain web sites because they’re upsetting to my spirit, my shalom, reading less and opting for something more boiled down and picked clean. 😉 I increasingly like oatmeal and jello, too. And Legal Insurrection – Leslies patriotism – Fuzzy’s ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’ – Mary’s indignant zeal – Kemberlee’s wry humor – the Professor’s pithy wisdom. I don’t get the feeling that I’m being ‘programmed’ here like elsewhere – more an ‘among friends and compatriots’ feeling here.

I fear Barr is running a “slow code”. When a patient has coded and the intent is to let nature take its course but not wanting to NOT do something, the code proceeds at a slow pace hoping death irretrievably wins first. Example is the Durham investigations which will fade away in late January.

    Barr is either mentally retarded, or he is in on the treason.

    Take your pick.

    Olinser in reply to alaskabob. | November 9, 2020 at 11:40 pm

    That was my impression as well.

    Barr did literally nothing to counter vote fraud before the election.

    He’s said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING before this.

    Barr only got off his fat ass when it became obvious that no, Trump was NOT going to just quietly surrender like Mitch ‘the Bitch’ Romney.

    Not quite ‘slow code’, but this feels to me remarkably similar to what I call ‘liability safety’.

    In a production environment, the alleged ‘safety’ department is more concerned with avoiding lawsuits than actual safety. When an injury happens, they do an analysis that often ends in totally nonsensical ‘fixes’, i.e. mandated masks in the workplace. Everybody knows that they are worse than useless in an environment where you perform a physical job for 8 hours, but we wear them anyway because the company doesn’t want to get sued. Same thing with safety glasses despite the fact that 95% of the people work in a job and location where there is absolutely zero risk to their eyes. They don’t care if its actually going to prevent injuries (and in fact makes it more dangerous by compromising vision in steamy areas), they care that it stops them from getting sued.

    This feels to me like they gave Barr an ultimatum either get off your ass and do something or get fired and Grenell is going to take point.

    Frankly I anticipate something like the Franken/Coleman bullshit. Where years after the fact they finally admit that yeah, Coleman won, but gosh gee, it was just too late to do anything.

Eastwood Ravine | November 9, 2020 at 9:55 pm

If you have the evidence of the theft of an election, but the courts rule otherwise, what’s next. Especially so since know the Left will do awful things.

See Eye Vee Aye El Double-You Aye Are

I agree that the legal hurdles for this to succeed are steep. Never bet against DJT.

However, if this has no satisfactory court resolution then 70M voters will perceive Biden as an illegitimate POTUS. Which would a karmic reversal of the last 4 years. You reap what you sow.

One thing that struck me here is, we may be getting the burden of proof backwards. The burden of proof is required in criminal cases because they inflict great punishment in individuals.

So, in the case of whether an election was valid, why would the burden of proof fall on the candidates, rather than the election officials? An invalid election has the possibility of cause many people great rewards, and great losses, and the election system has many months, and vast sums of money to ensure that it does have proper traceability and accountability in its votes.

We demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a $20 parking ticket, so why can we not also demand such proof from a system that could disenfranchise millions and may very well end in rivers of blood? Do the people not deserve that small measure of accountability from our State?

    Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | November 10, 2020 at 1:44 am

    Because the burden of proof is always on the one making an assertion, the one challenging the status quo. The election officials are in charge of the election, and if nothing happens they will finish counting and certify their results. There If you want to stop them you have to show that there is something wrong.

      Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 8:10 am

      Can a country function where a third of its population believes the vote was illegitimate?

      Poll: 70% of Republicans Say 2020 Election Was Neither Free, Nor Fair

      And if the election officials cannot show the legitimacy of the vote they ran, what on earth do we have them for? A convenient fig-leaf?

        Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | November 10, 2020 at 9:11 am

        In 1876, 1960, 2000, 2004, and 2016 at least a third of the country thought the result was illegitimate, and yet the country functioned well enough despite that. And those are just the ones I thought of now; I’m sure there have been others. In 1860 nobody disputed the result’s legitimacy, but a large section felt they couldn’t live with it.

        Also, your argument cuts both ways. If Trump ends up winning, more than a third of the country will never believe that to be legitimate.

          Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 9:55 am

          Then may your chains lie lightly upon you. You seem fitted to them.

          alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 12:01 pm

          “and yet the country functioned well enough despite that.” Depends what one means by “functioning well”.. especially now. I’d drag out Godwin’s law, suggest Kotkin’s tomes on Stalin or even David Remnick’s “Lenin’s Tomb”, even with Remnick being totally blinded to the similarities of today’s Left and those in that book, about countries that functioned “well enough”. How well is New York functioning these days?

      stablesort in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 8:26 am

      It could be argued that hundreds of election officials asserted that mail-in voting is fraud free, fair and effective. It is reasonable that we demand proof of such assertions now that their assertion has been put into action.

        Milhouse in reply to stablesort. | November 10, 2020 at 9:13 am

        Sorry, that’s not how it works. Their position is the default one, because they are the duly designated election officials; it is we who assert the opposite, so the burden of proof is on us. We may not like it, but that’s how it is.

Went to military school. Went to Wharton. Reportedly studied “The Art of War.” Successful business career. Successful entertainment career. Came down a golden escalator and beat 16 GOP/GOPe candidates. Took on the biggest political juggernaut in modern history and crushed her. Survived 3 years under the legal microscope of 16 angry democrats. Did what no other politician does, fulfilled the promises he made (where not thwarted) and then some.

I’m not ready to believe that President Donald J. Trump wasn’t ready for what the democrats/msm were going to do this election. I believe he was, and had/has contingency upon contingency to not only defeat them, but expose them once and for all as the corrupt cheaters they are and have been for decades.

    alaskabob in reply to CKYoung. | November 9, 2020 at 11:21 pm

    To carry out this missions requires both a lot people and no moles to leak strategy. No leaks. True Americans. Move… countermove. This would have to be done in enemy territory. Think of planning D-Day from within German occupied France. There are layers and layers of loyal Dems doing their part for the Party. This goes from mass printings to local vote handlers to a cottage industry of individuals… voting in adjoining states. This is a Zaibatsu.

    Olinser in reply to CKYoung. | November 9, 2020 at 11:34 pm

    While I would like to believe that, I think that its respectably likely that Trump accurately gauged the MAGNITUDE of the support that he had, and thought he was well past the margin of cheating.

    He got millions more votes than Obama in 2008. Trump got almost TEN MILLION more votes than he got in 2016.

    He literally got the most votes in history, had the highest percent of minority votes of an R candidate EVER.

    And it still wasn’t enough. They’re STILL trying to cheat him out of it, and it looks like they may succeed.

    He may have been caught off guard by the sheer magnitude of the fraud that they were willing to perpetrate to get rid of him.

      Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | November 10, 2020 at 1:46 am

      ad the highest percent of minority votes of an R candidate EVER.

      Not ever. The black vote used to be solidly R. But in a very long time.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to CKYoung. | November 10, 2020 at 1:22 am

    The Democrats have been screeching all year long that they were going to do this world’s biggest election fraud!

    Remember just last month Joe Biden was openly bragging like Psychos do that he had the biggest and best election fraud team in the universe!

    Add that to the proven history through three different centuries now that the Democrats lie cheat and steal steal steal!

      Joe clearly meant that to stop what Dems were accusing in a prospective manner against the Trump campaign, the Biden team had an anti-fraud team in place.

        stablesort in reply to Ira. | November 10, 2020 at 8:30 am

        Convenient isn’t it when your man cannot hold a thought or complete a sentence. You can just fill in the blanks as necessary.

          I stand second to none in being pro-Trump since May 3, 2016. Biden is more likely (even at 0.0001% probability) to be your man than my man.
          Since I resent the lie (often repeated by Biden) that Trump said, or even implicated, that the white nationalists at Charlottesville were good people, I think its fair to call out what I think is a mischaracterization of what Biden said.

        MarkS in reply to Ira. | November 10, 2020 at 1:57 pm

        I’m usually impressed with mind readers, but in this case….?

On the contrary, I don’t think the courts will go so far as invalidate the tally in an entire state, especially since the Constitution allows them to punt the decision.

According to Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, the State Legislatures, not the courts, unambiguously have the final say on electors;

Each state shall appoint, in such manner *as the Legislature thereof may direct*, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …

But the only way this works for Donald Trump is if his campaign is, first of all, able to develop and provide solid evidence of voter fraud. And for that, he needs to send teams of lawyers, forensic auditors, data analysts, shoe leather investigators, etc. to Fulton County in GA, Wayne County in MI, Allegheny County and Philadelphia County in PA and Dane County in WI.

There’s no way what happened can survive proper scrutiny.

The Trump Campaign needs to be making demands for information and documents, should already be analyzing the tabulation data from the machines, should already be matching voters’ dates of birth, SSNs, names and addresses to voter registration and participation records, and securing sworn affidavits by poll watchers and other individuals.

Not to mention the immediate impoundment, and granting of physical access to the ballots themselves for their forensic examiners.

What’s the likelihood of thousands of voters casting ballots (an implausibly large number only voting in the Presidential race) across the different wards and precincts in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Detroit, etc. with numerous different local and state offices on the ballot, not to mention absentee ballots, all using the exact same set of pens, and/or filling the spaces in the exact same pattern?

What’s the likelihood that Trump drove up his share of the vote in every demographic, in every part of the country, except for these four/five very strategic municipalities in these four very strategic states?

How many absentee or mail-in ballots were sent in the four/five counties? How many were received back? When? Where were they stored? How were they secured? Where are the records from the precincts? How many people in a precinct voted in person, by mail or absentee? What was the chain of custody for the ballots and ballot boxes? How did vote tallies get on thumb drives and then go missing to be found days later?

These are questions with answers that should have audit trails that can be verified, and that’s just barely scraping the surface of a proper in-depth audit, which has actually never been done of an election in the United States before.

With evidence in hand, Trump can then make the case to GOP State Legislators, who hold
majorities in both Houses of GA, MI, PA and WI, that legitimate voters in other parts of the state – *their constituents* – were *disenfranchised* by fraud perpetrated by the Democrat machines in Fulton, Wayne, Allegheny, Philadelphia and Dane counties, and demand that they stand up and defend the rights of their voters.

    It can’t survive scrutiny, but it’s unlikely the courts will allow that scrutiny. Courts work backwards in election fraud cases. In criminal cases, reasonable suspicion is usually sufficient to warrant (so to speak) an investigation. You don’t need proof of guilt to investigate somebody because if you had proof of guilt you wouldn’t need to investigate in the first place. In election fraud cases, reasonable suspicion pretty much always gets rejected. You need actual proof of election fraud before the court will let you hold up an election or investigate it. Like I said, backwards, and very wrongly so in my opinion. It’s a legal regime that allows election fraud to flourish.

    That’s why Trump will get nowhere unless SCOTUS doesn’t act like cowards. In a sane world he has more than sufficient reasonable suspicion to warrant closer investigation: poll watchers being kicked out, polling stations being blacked out so nobody can watch them, mysterious late night vote counting, packages being brought into the polling stations, the statistical anomalies, etc. Unfortunately all the lower court judges will say none of those things are proof. Indeed they are already doing so right now.

      MarkS in reply to randian. | November 10, 2020 at 2:00 pm

      SCOTUS will act the cowardly lion when the options before it are to uphold the law and subject the country to four years of rioting, looting, murder and mayhem, or take the easy way out and have four years of Tucker and Hannity complaining

    fishstick in reply to Martin_Knight. | November 10, 2020 at 6:26 am

    its like what randian typed out

    the problem is the lower courts will not consider any irregularity the Trump legal team as meeting proof positive for election fraud

    despite the many instances to be listed in 4-5 states

    the real problem is though is that the Republicans are challenging the legality of this voting issue

    AFTER the election was held

    this all needed to be done and the issues raised beforehand to better sure the integrity of the mail-in vote but the Republicans like true idiots decided to punt on the issue

    now it is likely too late, barring a Supreme Court order that invalidates enough votes in specific precincts and orders a re-vote with stricter guidelines in place

    but that is very unlikely to occur because the Justices won’t want to be seen as the arbiters of such a heated issue

    see Trump is behind the 8-ball because they simply waited too long

    THIS shit should have been brought up in May, June

    as to when it gets to the Supreme Court: we already know 3 will undoubtedly oppose any measure to hold the election to any accountability

    then it just comes down to Roberts and another on the conservative side

    should someone like Kavanaugh decide to flip on the issue, than so will the Chief Justice

    and another big problem the Republicans are going to have is actually tabulating which ones are the fraudulent votes

    these mail-ins were done in such a way that signatures didn’t need to match, postmarking was slackened, with the ballots themselves having no verification process

    in other words – there was no difference between one ballot to another

    it was just a slip of paper, inside an envelope which was suppose to be held to the standard of authenticity

    which again… was a signature and a stamp and that many judges ruled need not meet any correct standard

    the State Legislatures, not the courts, unambiguously have the final say on electors;

    No, they don’t. Their role is to decide how the appointment is to be made. They’ve done that; they decided that it is to be made by holding a general election in their state, at which all the state’s citizens can vote, and that the result is to be certified by a certain official (generally the secretary of state). That’s it. Their role is over.

    In principle they could change their minds now and choose a different method for appointing the electors, but according to federal law they would run the risk that the electors thus chosen will be rejected.

      tphillip in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 10:50 am

      “No, they don’t.”


      Oh wait. You’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.


      Apparently you can’t read Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1 of the US Constitution.

      Or the following cases:
      Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997)
      Millsaps v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 535, 538-40 (6th Cir. 2001)
      Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537, 552-53 (7th Cir. 2010)

      Oh, and don’t forget in 2000 when the US Supreme Court told Florida to follow its own laws and threw out all the shenanigans the Florida courts had done to that point.

        Milhouse in reply to tphillip. | November 10, 2020 at 4:24 pm

        Yes, I am serious, and you’re a f***ing moron. Of course I’ve read Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1 of the US Constitution. The state legislatures set the rules for congressional elections, but congress can make its own rules, which override whatever the states say. (And it has in fact done so, so the rules made by state legislatures are only valid when they don’t contradict the ones congress made.) What the ***** do you think it has to do with the topic we’re discussing?

        The only relevant clause is the one Martin Knight cited above, which is Article 2 § 1, 2nd paragraph. And that does not at all support the claim he made. The fact is that legislatures don’t certify their electors. They play no active role in the presidential election process at all. Their only role is in having, long ago, set the rules for how their state’s electors are to be chosen.

        Foster v Love. A “preliminary” congressional election at which someone may be declared to have won the seat, so that the “real” election is cancelled as unnecessary, counts as the real election, and must therefore be held on the date congress set. Again, what the ***** do you think it has to do with the topic we’re discussing?

        Millsaps v. Thompson. Early voting in congressional elections is fine, so long as the result is never determined until after the date congress set. Once again, what the ***** do you think it has to do with the topic we’re discussing?

        Judge v Quinn. The 17th amendment’s requirement of a special election to fill senate vacancies allows the state legislature to say when it should be, and if it says the special election won’t be until the next general election, then that’s what should happen. Seriously, what the ****ing **** do you imagine this has to do with the topic? Did you just pick three cases at random, so people would think you have some idea what you’re talking about?

It appears that the President needs what is called “class evidence” in forensics to point to fraud, and then assess the evidence for individual transgressions.

I would think that ballots received after election day would immediately be suspect, particularly, as in PA, the requirements for a postmark and a signature were removed. Would this not suffice as a class of ballots that, as the counts show, significantly altered the counts from President Trump to Biden AFTER the election. The Trump votes cannot be suspect, since most were delivered in person with the normal checks. The Biden “surge” required the suspension of the normal checks and balances ensuring the validity and veracity of the ballots to gain his advantage.

All ballots counted in an unobserved count, particularly when the Republican observers were excluded or kept away from the ballots likewise constitute a class of ballots that are suspect at minimum.

Ballots with the down ticket candidates being the opposite of the presidential candidates is, while not impossible, when in significant numbers, very suspect, as that flies against the normal pattern of voting.

Count stoppages, and mail in ballot counts AFTER the regular count imply some sort of subterfuge, culminating in an effort to generate enough ballots to counter the legitimate in person votes. Ballots magically appearing at 3am fall into this category.

The software “glitch” issue is interesting, and can be assessed by matching the software results with the real ballots, another good reason for a recount.

If the witnesses pan out for any of the mailroom/ballot counting rooms, they should be believed and checked out. They are eyewitnesses to any alleged fraud and their veracity is supported by their willingness to come forward (as opposed the the left’s penchant for using anonymous sources).

In summary, any ballots counted without observation by representative of both parties should be suspect, and any counting should have been suspended until such observers were available, for the appearances of fairness and ballot veracity.

For y’all’s consideration. I am not qualified to parse and decide its validity. So no comment.

What’s absolutely galling to me, and should be galling to every single American who cares about fairness, election integrity and the rule of law is that the vile Dhimmi-crats transparently promoted the use of mail-in ballots — rationalized based on Wuhan virus — with the express intention of facilitating the very fraud, chaos, lawsuits, etc. that are occurring, now. This outcome was no accident — it was done by design, with nefarious and self-serving intent. And, plenty of folks predicted, pre-election, that paper ballots were a recipe for disaster. It’s obvious to anyone possessing a modicum of rationality and common sense that paper ballots are intrinsically ripe for abuse and mischief — either in the voting, or, in the tallying process, or, both.

So, now, having planted the seeds of post-election chaos, the Dhimmi-crats have the incredible nerve to posit that those Americans — POTUS included — who possess totally justifiable and legitimate concerns about rampant shenanigans (e.g., stopping ballot counting for a prolonged period of time; preventing GOP witnesses from viewing the counting; numerous suspicious computer “glitches” that just happen to award GOP votes to the other side) and violation of election laws, and, who want re-counts to ensure a fair and factual outcome, are somehow being obstructionist, sore losers. This attitude is a product of the Dhimmi-crats’ perpetual, bullying totalitarianism.

Mail-in ballots should be restricted to use by military servicemembers stationed overseas, and, Americans living abroad. That’s it. And, let’s get rid of advance voting, while we’re at it.

    Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | November 10, 2020 at 9:26 am

    It’s obvious to anyone possessing a modicum of rationality and common sense that paper ballots are intrinsically ripe for abuse and mischief — either in the voting, or, in the tallying process, or, both.

    On the contrary, paper ballots are the least open to abuse. That’s why after 2000 we on our side pushed so hard to go back to them. Paper ballots can be counted by hand, if necessary; electronic or mechanical ones can’t.

    stablesort in reply to guyjones. | November 10, 2020 at 9:47 am

    You seem to be mixing usage of the term ‘mail-in ballots’ for ‘paper ballots’. Paper ballots are the most secure form of ballots possible as long as their chain-of-custody is maintained.

    While mail-in ballots are paper ballots, the chain-of-custody is lost multiple times and it is impossible to verify the ballots or the election.

    Election officials use a registration list to mail the ballots, but they don’t address the ballots themselves. Instead, they give the registration list to private mailing services who actually address the ballots and stuff them in envelopes.

    The private mailing company then bundles the ballots and delivers them to the post office. The post office sorts the ballots by address and forwards them to the intended recipient and the mail carrier delivers the individual ballots to the addressee.

    To mail the ballots we have had to trust several organizations:

    * Election officials to identify legitimate voters
    * Election officials to send only one ballot to each voter
    * Mailing service to correctly address and bundle each ballot
    * Post Office to correct sort forward all ballots
    * Mail carrier to properly deliver eac ballot

    If the world consisted of perfect people, we would need no government. Alas, none of us are perfect so we need government, laws and police to keep civilization operating as intended.

    In the past four years: the FBI, DOJ and intelligence communities attempted to remove a sitting US President. The House of Representatives knowingly attempted to falsely impeach the US President.

    So we must trust that Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe etc. have no clones working among the election officials, mailing services and post offices and that is just to get the ballots out.

    The return path is an equally perilous journey. We’ve all heard of ballot stuffing where ballot boxes are stuffed with fraudulent ballots. Well mail-in voting triples the number of boxes that can be ‘stuffed’ with ballots: the official ballot boxes, post office collection boxes, and ballot drop boxes conveniently located throughout our communities. The latter two are completely unobserved and ripe for abuse.

Can we all agree at this point that AG Barr is a malignant clown, in on the plot?

I have 0 faith in Barr, what has he done to deserve it?
But I have faith this fraud cannot stand or we are doomed to ever have a fair election again. 1st the Democrats will do everything they can to Californication the country, 2nd getting the feeling the Deep State manipulating voter electronics has as much to do with it as actual vote ballot stuffing. The vote differential between President and down ballots must be that or very lazy ballot manufacturing.

    randian in reply to Skip. | November 10, 2020 at 4:05 am

    There was enough corrective election fraud in Georgia to overcome the downticket problem they created for themselves in the Presidential election. They forced a runoff election for both Senators and I’m sure the same election fraud techniques will be used to guarantee both Senate spots go to the Democrat.

      fishstick in reply to randian. | November 10, 2020 at 7:13 am

      which is why this has to be litigated out for the Supremes to get a verification process installed for any non in-person vote

      the issue is easily fixed by adding a verification number to a ballot plus needing a matching signature, ON THE BALLOT ITSELF

      it is much harder to perpetuate fraud on a ballot that needs the latter and has the former

      and these ballots would be made on demand, not printed en-masse

      otherwise the mail-ins would need verification by resident name and address on the ballot along with needing matching signature

      doing such makes it easy to cross-check as to WHO voted on that ballot

      and if IT doesn’t match up – BOOM – it doesn’t count

        Milhouse in reply to fishstick. | November 10, 2020 at 9:29 am

        the issue is easily fixed by adding a verification number to a ballot plus needing a matching signature, ON THE BALLOT ITSELF

        Huh?! You can’t have anything on a ballot that identifies the voter. That would violate the fundamental principle of the secret ballot.

          fishstick in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 10:55 am

          if you can’t add any verification as a check, then there is no way to confirm said secret ballot is a legitimate one

          the ballots have to be unique in the case of non in-person voting

          otherwise the process is fraudulent

          and that’s what happened in this election where basically blank slips where just mailed out into the blue

          in your secret ballot scenario – there’s no way anyone could have any confidence in the system

          MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 2:06 pm

          but you can have a list of registered voters and a list of who voted

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 4:31 pm

          Fishstick, the secret ballot is a fundamental requirement. It’s just as basic a part of our system as “one man one vote”. It cannot be compromised in any way. What you are proposing throws it out the window.

          And you seem to think this is something new; it’s how absentee voting has worked since before any of us was born. Ballots may not have any identifying marks; there must not be any way of linking an ballot to a voter. That’s why all identifying information is on the outer envelope, which is discarded as soon as it’s verified.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2020 at 4:32 pm

          but you can have a list of registered voters and a list of who voted

          Indeed we can, and we do. What could possibly have given you the impression that we don’t? What fishstick wants is a way to identify each ballot and find out who cast it, and that would destroy the election’s legitimacy a lot worse than anything going on now.

        stablesort in reply to fishstick. | November 10, 2020 at 9:55 am

        Mail-in voting is not fixable; it offers literately tens of thousands of unobserved opportunities for fraud and corruption.

          fishstick in reply to stablesort. | November 10, 2020 at 11:02 am

          it is fixable though if each ballot has a confirmed signature and an ID number of some sort that makes it unique and its own

          and said ID would be linked to an address on the voter registration database

          I mean preferably we would only have in-person early voting and in-person election day votes, minus the military mail ballots

          but coast to coast mail-in elections cannot be verified by any metric

          because once the ballot leaves the envelope, it just like every other ballot

Every voter in any affected jurisdiction should be given a chance to be party to a lawsuit regarding the fraudulent diminution of their vote.

Support any reputable organization engaged in lawsuits. For instance I just supported:

Write your Republican representative asking for his or her public support for recounts and lawsuits.

Randy Steinberg | November 10, 2020 at 7:53 am

Prof. Jacobson is correct. If this thing somehow flips it won’t be because it’s discovered 100,000 dead people voted. Maybe the recounts will uncover some computer errors that could flip the closest of States like Georgia or possibly a ruling orders that a certain cache of ballots is invalid. What the real story is is hysteria over Covid was able to initiate the mail in process. Dems knew it would favor them because many of their voters don’t turn out on Election Day. This made it much easier for them to turn out numbers. Republicans were typically behind the curve or not aggressive enough in fighting it early on. That’s the lesson. The proof no one actually believed Covid was a danger was the Biden celebrations. The same people who told us it was too dangerous to wait calmly in lines at the polls with masks on and easy social distancing said nothing when tens of thousands gathered and mixed, with who knows what level of masking, to celebrate the announcement on Saturday and Sunday. Trump should pursue all avenues but I’m skeptical there will be enough to flip PA, GA, and AZ, assuming he holds NC.

    each lawsuit already filed or to be filed needs to make its way to the Supremes by any count

    I think the election results being flipped is highly unlikely due to the way the mail-in ballots were designed

    because even if a vote is fraudulent, one would ever know it due to it looking the same as every other ballot

    so the only feasible way the vote tallies get flipped back to Trump’s favor is by way of miscounts or the Supremes throwing out entire districts for re-voting

    and I don’t see the latter happening

    but it’s the process that needs to be rescinded by way of showing the many inconsistencies and irregularities that happened in 2020

    as the process was entirely corrupted by state and local officials and had no integrity protections to begin with

    then after Trump’s legal gambit, republicans or right of center groups need to open class action lawsuits to be placed on all ballots cast

    THIS is something that should have been done a long time ago but it was always a can the republicans kicked down the proverbial road

    and it came back to bite them in this presidential cycle

      Randy Steinberg in reply to fishstick. | November 10, 2020 at 9:24 am

      I agree with much of what you have said, and the other tactic that will likely work is the rush to declare Biden President-Elect. Will judges have the courage to disqualify large swathes of ballots, even if something does appear fraudulent or in violation of law? Between the mainstream media, big tech, Hollywood, and the Washington establishment, which, right and left, wants Trump out, you’ll have to find a judge with some amazing gumption to say, “100,000 PA ballots need to be tossed out.” Don’t see it happening unless something is so shockingly obvious in its corruption. A postal sorter back dating 100 ballots in Michigan won’t be enough.

        well in the case of a judge throwing out a 100k votes

        it isn’t that far of a stretch considering how Trump was up triple digits in 2 states on election night, then counting abruptly stops, only for 6 hours later for there to be a 120k-0 and 200k-0 tally going to Biden

        not to mention in those same districts, monitors were kicked out and cameras were improperly angled as to not see a thing

        again like you said – it will take a judge with real moxie to push it, but none of which exist at the local or state level

        Trump’s only path to 270 is through the Supremes and I’m wagering one of the conservative 4 will join with Roberts to not push this issue

        BUT this is all something that should have been done in May, not after election day

        AND that is what pisses me off

    Randy, I and hundreds (occasionally thousands) have been attending the Saturday Freedom/Trump rallies in Beverly Hills for over 2 months. While there, well over half of the attendees do not wear masks. The rallies kept getting bigger despite COVID. I have yet to hear of any of us coming down with COVID.

Hi , Michelle Malkin has come across than interesting point about the behavior of a Superpac called “Supermajority”. Supermajority was a female lead Pac funded by Mr Soros and other Leftist non-profits that was “Text Banking”.
Whilst a bit complex, it seems this outreach has identified people that have lived in various States previously and bad actors have obtained their ballots for nefarious reasons.

People have had votes cast without them knowing it, from States they previously lived in.

Michelle Twitter has more details and she is asking if people can double check if they have “voted” without their knowledge in previous States they have lived in.
If we are going to stop this fraud, we the people must spend time to expose this. And thus take away from the Democrats their most effective Vote Winner, Electoral Fraud.
Please read Michelle Malkin’s Twitter Feed about how we can pass around to all friends and family how to check if you have “Voted” without knowing about it in a previous State.

Keep the fight up please, the World needs to see the USA correct this fraud, and then lock the responsible up for a very very long time under Sedition laws.

Aussie Supporter.

There are several parallel options/angles for redress.

IMO, the courts would be wiser to take up the motions from team Trump and authorize discovery to ferret out some of the glaring issues.

1. Swing state vote count stops not in one but in several states on election day.
2. Trump ahead when count stopped.
3. Count resumed and large numbers of Biden ballots counted to erase Trump lead. Across several states.
4. Election observers not allowed to meaningfully observe. If they can’t view the process in order to attest to it then they didn’t meaningfully observe.
5. Failure in these same states/counties to remove ineligible voters from registration list. This alone is a violation of federal law.
6. States loosening or ignoring state law regarding witness information and ID for mailed ballots. Violation of state and maybe federal law.

IMO, as the counts came in on election day the d/progressive political machine in these states/counties realized that the plan wasn’t working. They stopped the count, regrouped and ‘found/generated’ Biden ballots.

The stats in the d machine counties demonstrate this:
1. Higher participation rate
2. Higher Biden vote %
Both way higher than the rest of the state or neighboring counties not under machine control.

Obviously the old standby of dead voting and out of state voting was used as well. In Nevada lots of folks moved out of Vegas due to Rona Chaos. They don’t live in NV.

With all this as background. The courts will be setting up the r controlled legislature in some of these states to act if they courts ignore all this.

The r controlled legislature could rule the election tainted and act by:
1. Sending alternate slate of electors
2. Invalidate the ‘shady counties’ only by direct the SoS to certify only votes in the rest of the state
3. Simply change the way EC is awarded. Award two electors to the state winner, but award the others by CD.

Bottom line. If courts refuse to allow discovery and to act on what the investigation shows the state legislature could act.

If some of these obvious anomalies are not addressed by courts then pressure on legislature grows.

Is any of this enough to change current counts? Maybe. The bigger issue is to destroy the

    CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | November 10, 2020 at 9:04 am

    The bigger issue is to destroy the political machines by exposing the corrupt practices, prosecution of the criminals and building enough political pressure to reform the voting system to ensure shenanigans are curtailed.

      and who in the hell is gonna do that? Barr won’t, and any AG Biden appoints certainly will not!

        CommoChief in reply to MarkS. | November 10, 2020 at 4:30 pm


        From the tenor of your post, whomever does any of it will be doing so without your participation, endorsement, support or acknowledgement based on your current state of despair.

Anyone shrugging off the clear obvious and blatant fraud cause we will run someone really good in 2024 has their head buried somewhere. They pull this off…getting a corrupt senile old man in instead of one of the most effective loved candidates we have ever had…then NO Republican will ever be allowed to win again. Professor time for you to stop naysaying and get to work however you can to #StopTheSteal

What we have here is two very different things which could be evidence of the same thing, active election fraud by government officials.

First we have obvious examples of actual violations of state and federal election law, by the active exclusion of authorized counting monitors and actions which directly inhibited their ability to monitor the vote counting. While it wold be more problematic to successfully prosecute people for these criminal violations, they can still be used to justify a thorough investigation of the results of these actions. If they resulted in any improper ballots to be tabulated, or even if there was only strong evidence that such a thing occurred. This could well be sufficient for redress to be imposed. This could reasonably be limited to all votes tabulated by the jurisdiction, especially those occurring during the period when observers were banned [if such information is available], be excluded from the state vote tally. This would eliminate the tainted pool of ballots.

Now, if other evidence is included, such as video evidence of suspicious containers being delivered to the facility in question in the middle of the night, “eye witness” testimony of illegal or improper activities and forensic evidence of various types, this strengthens the case for redress. All tht needs to be done is prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that improper and/or illegal activities took place which likely allowed the introduction of improper or illegal ballots to be counted, it does not need to be shown conclusively what the exact number of those ballots is or that the number was sufficient to significantly skew the results of thee election. If a food product is adulterated, it is not necessary to show that the entire lot from which the tainted product came to get the rest of that lot of product removed from the shelves.

As I said before, the election anomalies reside largely in five major Democrat controlled cities/counties; Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Las Vegas/Clark County and Atlanta. Excluding the votes, or even just votes which were tabulated after the time when it is likely that the fraud occurred, would swing all of the states housing these jurisdictions back to Trump. This is the easiest and fairest course of action to take.

As the Chief pointed out, this is not about electing a particular candidate. It about the fact that elected and appointed government officials nullified the will of the voters, in a national election, through the use of election fraud. Elections have to be totally transparent. Many safeguards have been put in place to insure that a large amount of transparency exists, outside the voting booth itself. When those safeguards are overridden, then the validity of the vote count, as well as the entire election, becomes suspect. In 2016, there was NO evidence that any election fraud had been perpetrated which allowed Trump to win. None. And, still we endured months, if not years of investigation which turned out to be entirely based upon “evidence” made up out of whole cloth. Now we have clear evidence that improper and illegal actions took place, which could well have allowed election fraud to occur and those organizations which exist to investigate and report on such things are not only standing mute, but telling us to ignore these incidents. Something has got to give here. What happens next, in this country, depends upon exactly what gives.

    randian in reply to Mac45. | November 10, 2020 at 11:33 am

    it does not need to be shown conclusively what the exact number of those ballots is or that
    the number was sufficient to significantly skew the results of the election

    What you say should be true, but it isn’t. If you’ve read my post above, you know that judges work backwards in election fraud cases. If you want a recount or any other real investigation of an election you have to show that it’s reasonably likely that the election result will change if you do. In other words, you have to already have the proof to get the proof. That’s why what should be clear and obvious cases of election fraud, like the 2004 Washington state governor’s race or 2008 election of Al Franken, are not contested, and why Trump is about 99% likely to have all his lawsuits summarily rejected.

      Mac45 in reply to randian. | November 10, 2020 at 12:13 pm

      Not exactly accurate.

      While courts generally are reluctant to take any action, which may reverse the results of an election, it would all depend upon legal charges, the circumstances and the level of evidence to support those charges.

      Now in both the Franken case and the Washington state gubernatorial case, they was never aggressively litigated by the GOP, probably due to the Consent Decree which the GOP entered into in 1982 and which was not rescinded until 2018. And, both were essentially local races, though Franken was a low level federal position.

      However, the landscape has changed, for the 2020 Presidential election. In the first place, we are talking about the highest office in the land. In the second, there is prima facia evidence that both state and federal election laws were violate by local election officials. There is wide spread circumstantial evidence that some level of election fraud, involving local election officials, possibly significant vote fraud, did in fact occur in several locations. Third, the changes in vote tallies, after the observed observed violation of election law occurred, substantially changed the outcome of the election in the states in which they occurred. And, finally, the ridiculous 1982 GOP consent decree is no longer in place.

      Now, the question is not whether election fraud actually occurred, in these locations. The question is, first, does a preponderance of the evidence presented prove that it is more likely than not that such fraud occurred, second is it more likely than not that such fraud changed the outcome of the election and, third, what is the least invasive form of redress which will negate the probable fraud, restoring the balance existing before it was most likely perpetrated, while adversely affecting the votes of the least number of lawful voters. That is the argument. How the courts will respond to that argument is still an unknown. But, then, that is always the case with the courts.

        CommoChief in reply to Mac45. | November 10, 2020 at 6:01 pm


        Yes indeed. We need a certain level of evidence that is compelling enough for additional discovery to be granted in order to generate proof.

        Even then the proof generated via discovery has to rise above a certain threshold for a court to take drastic measures. On the other hand the proof generated might be enough for the state legislature to act if the courts decline.

        It ain’t easy, but it isn’t impossible either.

          What are you talking about? You DO NOT NEED “discovery” to introduce evidence in court. Discovery insures that the DEFENSE has access to all evidence, germane to a criminal case, which is held by the prosecution. All you need to enter evidence in court of law is a witness to verify it and a ruling that it is germane to the issue at hand. Witness affidavits, witness verified video, audio and photographic evidence, statistical analysis, backed by expert testimony do not have to go through any “discovery’ process, other than be “discovered” by an investigator.

          All a court needs is for the presented evidence to rise to the level of proof by a preponderance. Now, that standard is pretty fluid. And a compelling combination of proof of illegal activity [banning vote monitors] with strong circumstantial evidence that counting ballots, not legally cast or received, is likely to have occurred during the period of illegal activity, is very likely to rise to the level of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This is not a criminal action, but a civil one.

This to me is very simple, don’t believe your own eyes. The Star Wars game of “These are not the drones/votes you’re looking for. Be patient. We know.

Senator Lindsey Graham: “I’ve got more information. We’re now finding potentially that 25,000 nursing home residents in different nursing homes requested mail-in ballots at the exact same time. You can’t ballot harvest in Pennsylvania. What are the odds that 25,000 people in different locations of the same age group requested at the same time a ballot? Somebody is up to no good in these nursing homes.”

I wish they would focus more on the software “glitch” and push for a manual recount in all counties in Michigan that used that software. If other “glitches” are found maybe it could flip Michigan or at least be enough to get manual recounts in other places that used the software like GA. This is the easiest thing that could flip the election and be the most easily accepted and understood by regular people.

WashingtonLawyer | November 10, 2020 at 3:56 pm

Aside from the fraud allegations, the bigger, in my view, legal issue in Pennsylvania was the state Supreme Court overruling the Legislature and allowing ballots received after 8 p.m. to be counted, which is why as I understand it, Justice Alito ordered those ballots be segregated.

If that PA SCO is unconstitutional, as Professor Ken Starr says it is, and those ballots are rejected, then the allegations of fraud as they relate to PA may be moot. The other issue no one seems to be talking about is if there is evidence of coordination of voter fraud across different states; i.e., the software “glitch.” We haven’t really even scratched the surface of that issue publicly as yet.

The Trump Administration seems extremely confident, down to Secretary Pompeii’s comments today about a “smooth transition to a second Trump term.” This begs the question in my mind, “Do they know something(s) we don’t know?”