Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
11/2/2022 4:30:06 PM
Page / 84
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 1:59:01 PM EST
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


I don’t care about anybody’s take. It’s nothing but grandstanding and posturing.

I want to read the source document or the law which authorizes the VP to unilaterally de-certify the electoral college vote.
View Quote


We aren't Russia where you get to only vote one way. Here if you vote you get to choose. We don't do rubber stamps either.
brownells
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 1:59:05 PM EST
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


Who again, was the one with a hard drive full of screenshots of posts of people he didn’t like, and would follow them around GD posting those screen shots, anytime somebody didn’t pass his Trump cult purity test?
View Quote

Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:07:31 PM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chisum:


We aren't Russia where you get to only vote one way. Here if you vote you get to choose. We don't do rubber stamps either.
View Quote


Completely agree, and sort of my point.

Just because somebody opines on an issue, or offers their interpretation of a specific matter, does not mean they get a rubber stamp of credibility, just because somebody calls them as a “constitutional scholar”. Especially when it is painfully obvious they are wrong.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:11:52 PM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


Sure. Except congress, not the VP, decides which EC votes are valid. And they decided they all were.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, the VP's role is also to *only* count those electoral votes which are valid. Which, as has been shown, they were not.


Sure. Except congress, not the VP, decides which EC votes are valid. And they decided they all were.


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:14:36 PM EST
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


Not sure you can break it down more simply than that. Though I doubt you’re going to enlighten anybody who refuses to keep their blinders on.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Ok, apparently it's time to break out the crayons again.  Let's walk the dog starting with 3 USC 15:

This bit is self explanatory.  VP, in their role as President of the Senate, oversees the process of counting electoral votes on the prescribed day and time.




VP opens the votes, hands them to a couple staff flunkies who verify he/she isn't making shit up, and announces the result which is then entered into the official record.




Now the part that is apparently causing a LOT of confusion for some reason.  

VP calls for any objection to the votes as announced.  Any objection must be in writing and requires concurrence of at least one Senator and one Representative.




At that point, counting is suspended and the House and Senate adjourn to separate sessions to debate the objection.




The conduct of that debate is set in 3 USC 17:




Back to 3 USC 15 for an important bit about votes which can or cannot be rejected.




But what is section 6?  Glad you asked.  Section 6 says that the States are responsible for appointing electors.



"But dmnoid!" you say, "the States broke their own rules so Congress can throw it all out!".  "Alternate slate of electors!".  Got you covered, fam.  Still in 3 USC 15.




3 USC 5 says that appointment of electors is State business and whomever the State certifies as electors are electors provided they do so at least six days in advance of the deadline.




Back to 3 USC 15 where it says Congress only gets to make arbitrary decisions about votes if the State makes no determination about the validity of its electors.  Even then, it's not really arbitrary because it again requires the concurrence of both Houses.




Once all the drama is concluded the VP announces the results.




Absolutely nowhere in any of that pile of law and procedure does it say the VP can do anything but preside over the conduct of the proceeding, read the votes as provided by the States, and report the results for the official record.  In point of fact, his/her authority is specifically spelled out in 3 USC 18:



Not sure you can break it down more simply than that. Though I doubt you’re going to enlighten anybody who refuses to keep their blinders on.


Neither this weak-assed rant nor the posting before it changes the relevant facts one iota. Several states chose to follow an unConstitutional process for selecting electors, violating their own election laws in some cases, and that makes the electors from those states facially invalid. It cannot be otherwise. If it were otherwise, we'd have a free-for-all process, not a Constitutional one.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:15:30 PM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.
View Quote


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:15:32 PM EST
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By transplanted:


@planemaker

We had processes and procedures.

Leadership just didn't have the will to enforce them, because they were in on it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By transplanted:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, we can't. Until processes and procedures are in place to prevent a recurrence, then our republic is still at risk. Further, until prosecutions occur against those who engaged in deliberate fraud, then we continue to remain a nation without the rule of law.


@planemaker

We had processes and procedures.

Leadership just didn't have the will to enforce them, because they were in on it.


Hence the second part of my comment. Prosecutions are needed.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:18:49 PM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


Interesting, but doesn't seem to do much but declare the drop boxes inconsistent with WI law and put it in the hands of the legislature to determine whether or not they are used in the future.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
WI Supreme Court Decision

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/08/01/a-declaration-of-dissolution-wisconsin-supreme-court-fires-the-starting-gun/

A declaration of dissolution wisconsin supreme court fires the starting gun

“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Acourt of law has finally confirmed it: The 2020 election was “illegitimate.” And all the demands for sufficient evidence of voter fraud to reverse the outcome were a red herring.

The truly dispositive factor, as stated by a Republican Wisconsin state legislator in a March hearing and affirmed in the opinion: “If a vote is cast in an illegal process, it’s an illegal vote!”

The reasons for legislatively enacted absentee ballot protections are clear. Justice Bradley quotes the Wisconsin Legislature’s rationale: “(P)revent the potential for fraud or abuse … overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election … undue influence on an absent elector … or other similar abuses.”

And that’s exactly what unlawfully relaxed provisions occasioned in Wisconsin:

Nearly 3,600 trips by 138 “mules” to drop boxes to traffic 137,551 votes. (Trump lost the state by about 20,000.)
Illegal assistance with absentee ballots by nursing home staff to residents, some with dementia.
“Zuckerbucks” exploiting these changes to “purchase Joe Biden an additional 65,222 votes, without which Donald Trump would have won the state by 44,540 votes.”
But again, per Wisconsin’s Supremes, Donald Trump didn’t have to prove the existence or extent of fraud, only deviation from legislative schemes. Because – nota bene! – the votes’ unlawful nature is the proof.

The same “pollution” of the “integrity of the results,” as the Court expressed it, occurred in:

Michigan: Unlawfully imposed rules for validating absentee signatures and a refusal to comply with an enactment allowing access to drop-box video surveillance.

Georgia: The Stacey Abrams settlement that, as a U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief demonstrated, ran afoul of schemes regulating – what else? – drop boxes and signature identification.

Pennsylvania: A state Supreme Court decree involving absentee deadlines that, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, “squarely alter(ed) an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature.”

As Texas and 17 other states argued in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, these jurisdictions’ “significant and unconstitutional irregularities … cumulatively preclude(d) knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.”

Yet observers left and right shrug off the Badger State ruling’s significance. Slate sniffs, “Without a shred of evidence” (to repeat, irrelevant) “the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory” (unlawful votes are no “conspiracy”) “that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.” (That again.)

And sort of rightward, the Wall Street Journal trots out the usual dismissive arguments:

“Mr. Trump … lagged the state’s GOP congressmen by 63,547. Split tickets by Republicans more than explain why Mr. Trump fell short.”

Really? Trump had 95% approval among Republicans in October 2020. Yet GOP congressmen ran ahead of him?

“Drop boxes were an unlawful delivery method, but if real Wisconsinites put real ballots into them … that isn’t ‘fraud.’”

Again, fraud isn’t dispositive – illegal votes are. Outside anti-fraud provisions, how can anyone know who deposited the ballots?

“Bill Barr told a podcast recently that Mr. Trump was duly warned to get solid lawyers working to defend business-as-usual voting processes. … ‘He ignored that advice. He did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country. So a lot of these, bending of the playing field, were his own fault.’”

Trump’s attorneys combatted unlawful provisions state by state, before and after Nov. 3. Were slapped down repeatedly on the inappropriate “lack of evidence” standard. And even humiliated and threatened with sanctions for representing him.

Plus, try out this argument: “The woman was dressed provocatively and didn’t take self-defense lessons. So that sexual assault was her own fault.”

The Journal did get one thing right: “Judges are unlikely to throw out legitimate votes after the fact.”

Or even illegitimate ones. Alito also wrote that the Pennsylvania case had “national importance. … There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

Yet when a majority rejected the Lone Star State’s petition for lack of “a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,” even Alito allowed that he “would grant no other relief.”

Of course, that ruling was outrageous. As Justice Bradley wrote, “(A)ll lawful voters … are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question.” (Emphasis added.)

Petitioning states had an interest in preventing their “lawful voters’” disenfranchisement when battleground jurisdictions’ constitutional infractions led to an “illegitimate” national outcome.

These citizens “have not conferred their consent” for Bidenite misrule and ensuing harm – ruinous inflation, border chaos, institutionalized gender confusion and cancel culture, and global humiliation.

The British crown’s lack of “consent of the governed” led Thomas Jefferson to pen the immortal passage: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”

It has become necessary. Even the Reddest Waves this November cannot now undo the damage the Zuckerbergs, Jan. 6 zealots and the rest of the “well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies” have wrought to our system and processes. Or prevent another electoral heist in 2024.

Which returns us to the demand articulated here nearly 600 days ago: since they got no help from courts, “Deep red states should simply declare the union dissolved” – Jefferson’s term – “by nefarious actions to disenfranchise Americans.”

Justice Bradley has now officially fired the starting gun. Let the Great American Opt-Out commence.


Interesting, but doesn't seem to do much but declare the drop boxes inconsistent with WI law and put it in the hands of the legislature to determine whether or not they are used in the future.


It goes a little beyond that. Essentially, by stating the drop boxes were illegal, that by necessity indicates the "manner in which electors are chosen" was violated making Wisconsin's elector slate invalid along with their votes. Now do the other half dozen states doing the same.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:21:37 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chisum:


...Here if you vote you get to choose...
View Quote


LOL!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:22:13 PM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


You are the one contending that congress critters who didn’t actually object to an electoral college vote should count as something.

If you say you are going to do something, but then don’t do it, guess what? …..you didn’t do it.

The toddler games being played are apparent, though I’m not surprised to see a Trump supporter value words over actions. Just disappointed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By ChargerRTSTP3:


Actually, you can add Kelly Loefler in as well.

You have no point; you play games of a toddler.


You are the one contending that congress critters who didn’t actually object to an electoral college vote should count as something.

If you say you are going to do something, but then don’t do it, guess what? …..you didn’t do it.

The toddler games being played are apparent, though I’m not surprised to see a Trump supporter value words over actions. Just disappointed.


Congress need not challenge anything. Certain electors from states who violated the Constitution were invalid making their EC votes invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master here.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:23:18 PM EST
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:23:56 PM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.
View Quote


Cool. Except congress decides what EC votes are valid. Not you, me, nor the Vice President
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:28:31 PM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:29:05 PM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


Sorry bud. You brought up trolls chasing other posters around, not me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By 2tired2run:



Look dude give it a rest.....


Sorry bud. You brought up trolls chasing other posters around, not me.


Got a guilty conscience?  Because I mentioned no one by name.  Do us all a favor and go find another thread to spam.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:31:35 PM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


Cool. Except congress decides what EC votes are valid. Not you, me, nor the Vice President
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


Cool. Except congress decides what EC votes are valid. Not you, me, nor the Vice President


No, they don't. That's the point you steadfastly refuse to understand. Let me say this more slowly for you: The *Constitution* determines which electors and their votes are valid or not. Not following the Constitutionally defined process, by definition, makes those EC votes invalid prima facie. You don't have to like it, but you *do* have to understand it.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:32:50 PM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


It goes a little beyond that. Essentially, by stating the drop boxes were illegal, that by necessity indicates the "manner in which electors are chosen" was violated making Wisconsin's elector slate invalid along with their votes. Now do the other half dozen states doing the same.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
WI Supreme Court Decision

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/08/01/a-declaration-of-dissolution-wisconsin-supreme-court-fires-the-starting-gun/

A declaration of dissolution wisconsin supreme court fires the starting gun

“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Acourt of law has finally confirmed it: The 2020 election was “illegitimate.” And all the demands for sufficient evidence of voter fraud to reverse the outcome were a red herring.

The truly dispositive factor, as stated by a Republican Wisconsin state legislator in a March hearing and affirmed in the opinion: “If a vote is cast in an illegal process, it’s an illegal vote!”

The reasons for legislatively enacted absentee ballot protections are clear. Justice Bradley quotes the Wisconsin Legislature’s rationale: “(P)revent the potential for fraud or abuse … overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election … undue influence on an absent elector … or other similar abuses.”

And that’s exactly what unlawfully relaxed provisions occasioned in Wisconsin:

Nearly 3,600 trips by 138 “mules” to drop boxes to traffic 137,551 votes. (Trump lost the state by about 20,000.)
Illegal assistance with absentee ballots by nursing home staff to residents, some with dementia.
“Zuckerbucks” exploiting these changes to “purchase Joe Biden an additional 65,222 votes, without which Donald Trump would have won the state by 44,540 votes.”
But again, per Wisconsin’s Supremes, Donald Trump didn’t have to prove the existence or extent of fraud, only deviation from legislative schemes. Because – nota bene! – the votes’ unlawful nature is the proof.

The same “pollution” of the “integrity of the results,” as the Court expressed it, occurred in:

Michigan: Unlawfully imposed rules for validating absentee signatures and a refusal to comply with an enactment allowing access to drop-box video surveillance.

Georgia: The Stacey Abrams settlement that, as a U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief demonstrated, ran afoul of schemes regulating – what else? – drop boxes and signature identification.

Pennsylvania: A state Supreme Court decree involving absentee deadlines that, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, “squarely alter(ed) an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature.”

As Texas and 17 other states argued in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, these jurisdictions’ “significant and unconstitutional irregularities … cumulatively preclude(d) knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.”

Yet observers left and right shrug off the Badger State ruling’s significance. Slate sniffs, “Without a shred of evidence” (to repeat, irrelevant) “the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory” (unlawful votes are no “conspiracy”) “that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.” (That again.)

And sort of rightward, the Wall Street Journal trots out the usual dismissive arguments:

“Mr. Trump … lagged the state’s GOP congressmen by 63,547. Split tickets by Republicans more than explain why Mr. Trump fell short.”

Really? Trump had 95% approval among Republicans in October 2020. Yet GOP congressmen ran ahead of him?

“Drop boxes were an unlawful delivery method, but if real Wisconsinites put real ballots into them … that isn’t ‘fraud.’”

Again, fraud isn’t dispositive – illegal votes are. Outside anti-fraud provisions, how can anyone know who deposited the ballots?

“Bill Barr told a podcast recently that Mr. Trump was duly warned to get solid lawyers working to defend business-as-usual voting processes. … ‘He ignored that advice. He did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country. So a lot of these, bending of the playing field, were his own fault.’”

Trump’s attorneys combatted unlawful provisions state by state, before and after Nov. 3. Were slapped down repeatedly on the inappropriate “lack of evidence” standard. And even humiliated and threatened with sanctions for representing him.

Plus, try out this argument: “The woman was dressed provocatively and didn’t take self-defense lessons. So that sexual assault was her own fault.”

The Journal did get one thing right: “Judges are unlikely to throw out legitimate votes after the fact.”

Or even illegitimate ones. Alito also wrote that the Pennsylvania case had “national importance. … There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

Yet when a majority rejected the Lone Star State’s petition for lack of “a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,” even Alito allowed that he “would grant no other relief.”

Of course, that ruling was outrageous. As Justice Bradley wrote, “(A)ll lawful voters … are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question.” (Emphasis added.)

Petitioning states had an interest in preventing their “lawful voters’” disenfranchisement when battleground jurisdictions’ constitutional infractions led to an “illegitimate” national outcome.

These citizens “have not conferred their consent” for Bidenite misrule and ensuing harm – ruinous inflation, border chaos, institutionalized gender confusion and cancel culture, and global humiliation.

The British crown’s lack of “consent of the governed” led Thomas Jefferson to pen the immortal passage: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”

It has become necessary. Even the Reddest Waves this November cannot now undo the damage the Zuckerbergs, Jan. 6 zealots and the rest of the “well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies” have wrought to our system and processes. Or prevent another electoral heist in 2024.

Which returns us to the demand articulated here nearly 600 days ago: since they got no help from courts, “Deep red states should simply declare the union dissolved” – Jefferson’s term – “by nefarious actions to disenfranchise Americans.”

Justice Bradley has now officially fired the starting gun. Let the Great American Opt-Out commence.


Interesting, but doesn't seem to do much but declare the drop boxes inconsistent with WI law and put it in the hands of the legislature to determine whether or not they are used in the future.


It goes a little beyond that. Essentially, by stating the drop boxes were illegal, that by necessity indicates the "manner in which electors are chosen" was violated making Wisconsin's elector slate invalid along with their votes. Now do the other half dozen states doing the same.


If the drop boxes were illegal then any votes that came from the drop boxes were fraudulent.   Fraud vitiates everything.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:33:00 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.


And yours is to go read the Constitution and why when the Constitutionally defined process is violated that makes the selection of electors and their votes prima facie invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:35:17 PM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bhart89:


If the drop boxes were illegal then any votes that came from the drop boxes were fraudulent.   Fraud vitiates everything.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
WI Supreme Court Decision

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/08/01/a-declaration-of-dissolution-wisconsin-supreme-court-fires-the-starting-gun/

A declaration of dissolution wisconsin supreme court fires the starting gun

“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Acourt of law has finally confirmed it: The 2020 election was “illegitimate.” And all the demands for sufficient evidence of voter fraud to reverse the outcome were a red herring.

The truly dispositive factor, as stated by a Republican Wisconsin state legislator in a March hearing and affirmed in the opinion: “If a vote is cast in an illegal process, it’s an illegal vote!”

The reasons for legislatively enacted absentee ballot protections are clear. Justice Bradley quotes the Wisconsin Legislature’s rationale: “(P)revent the potential for fraud or abuse … overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election … undue influence on an absent elector … or other similar abuses.”

And that’s exactly what unlawfully relaxed provisions occasioned in Wisconsin:

Nearly 3,600 trips by 138 “mules” to drop boxes to traffic 137,551 votes. (Trump lost the state by about 20,000.)
Illegal assistance with absentee ballots by nursing home staff to residents, some with dementia.
“Zuckerbucks” exploiting these changes to “purchase Joe Biden an additional 65,222 votes, without which Donald Trump would have won the state by 44,540 votes.”
But again, per Wisconsin’s Supremes, Donald Trump didn’t have to prove the existence or extent of fraud, only deviation from legislative schemes. Because – nota bene! – the votes’ unlawful nature is the proof.

The same “pollution” of the “integrity of the results,” as the Court expressed it, occurred in:

Michigan: Unlawfully imposed rules for validating absentee signatures and a refusal to comply with an enactment allowing access to drop-box video surveillance.

Georgia: The Stacey Abrams settlement that, as a U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief demonstrated, ran afoul of schemes regulating – what else? – drop boxes and signature identification.

Pennsylvania: A state Supreme Court decree involving absentee deadlines that, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, “squarely alter(ed) an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature.”

As Texas and 17 other states argued in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, these jurisdictions’ “significant and unconstitutional irregularities … cumulatively preclude(d) knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.”

Yet observers left and right shrug off the Badger State ruling’s significance. Slate sniffs, “Without a shred of evidence” (to repeat, irrelevant) “the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory” (unlawful votes are no “conspiracy”) “that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.” (That again.)

And sort of rightward, the Wall Street Journal trots out the usual dismissive arguments:

“Mr. Trump … lagged the state’s GOP congressmen by 63,547. Split tickets by Republicans more than explain why Mr. Trump fell short.”

Really? Trump had 95% approval among Republicans in October 2020. Yet GOP congressmen ran ahead of him?

“Drop boxes were an unlawful delivery method, but if real Wisconsinites put real ballots into them … that isn’t ‘fraud.’”

Again, fraud isn’t dispositive – illegal votes are. Outside anti-fraud provisions, how can anyone know who deposited the ballots?

“Bill Barr told a podcast recently that Mr. Trump was duly warned to get solid lawyers working to defend business-as-usual voting processes. … ‘He ignored that advice. He did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country. So a lot of these, bending of the playing field, were his own fault.’”

Trump’s attorneys combatted unlawful provisions state by state, before and after Nov. 3. Were slapped down repeatedly on the inappropriate “lack of evidence” standard. And even humiliated and threatened with sanctions for representing him.

Plus, try out this argument: “The woman was dressed provocatively and didn’t take self-defense lessons. So that sexual assault was her own fault.”

The Journal did get one thing right: “Judges are unlikely to throw out legitimate votes after the fact.”

Or even illegitimate ones. Alito also wrote that the Pennsylvania case had “national importance. … There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

Yet when a majority rejected the Lone Star State’s petition for lack of “a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,” even Alito allowed that he “would grant no other relief.”

Of course, that ruling was outrageous. As Justice Bradley wrote, “(A)ll lawful voters … are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question.” (Emphasis added.)

Petitioning states had an interest in preventing their “lawful voters’” disenfranchisement when battleground jurisdictions’ constitutional infractions led to an “illegitimate” national outcome.

These citizens “have not conferred their consent” for Bidenite misrule and ensuing harm – ruinous inflation, border chaos, institutionalized gender confusion and cancel culture, and global humiliation.

The British crown’s lack of “consent of the governed” led Thomas Jefferson to pen the immortal passage: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”

It has become necessary. Even the Reddest Waves this November cannot now undo the damage the Zuckerbergs, Jan. 6 zealots and the rest of the “well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies” have wrought to our system and processes. Or prevent another electoral heist in 2024.

Which returns us to the demand articulated here nearly 600 days ago: since they got no help from courts, “Deep red states should simply declare the union dissolved” – Jefferson’s term – “by nefarious actions to disenfranchise Americans.”

Justice Bradley has now officially fired the starting gun. Let the Great American Opt-Out commence.


Interesting, but doesn't seem to do much but declare the drop boxes inconsistent with WI law and put it in the hands of the legislature to determine whether or not they are used in the future.


It goes a little beyond that. Essentially, by stating the drop boxes were illegal, that by necessity indicates the "manner in which electors are chosen" was violated making Wisconsin's elector slate invalid along with their votes. Now do the other half dozen states doing the same.


If the drop boxes were illegal then any votes that came from the drop boxes were fraudulent.   Fraud vitiates everything.


Even if someone were to claim it was done "unintentionally" and not deliberate fraud, it still makes Wisconsin's EC votes invalid.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:36:03 PM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


And yours is to go read the Constitution and why when the Constitutionally defined process is violated that makes the selection of electors and their votes prima facie invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.


And yours is to go read the Constitution and why when the Constitutionally defined process is violated that makes the selection of electors and their votes prima facie invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master.


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 no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:38:44 PM EST
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, they don't. That's the point you steadfastly refuse to understand. Let me say this more slowly for you: The *Constitution* determines which electors and their votes are valid or not. Not following the Constitutionally defined process, by definition, makes those EC votes invalid prima facie. You don't have to like it, but you *do* have to understand it.
View Quote


The constitution determines nothing. An inanimate object cannot make a determination. It defines a process, and guidelines. Congress makes the determination if that process or guidelines were followed.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:44:04 PM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


The constitution determines nothing. An inanimate object cannot make a determination. It defines a process, and guidelines. Congress makes the determination if that process or guidelines were followed.
View Quote
Congress does not determine if a process is constitutional.  Try again.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:45:19 PM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By usar_ds:
Congress does not determine if a process is constitutional.  Try again.
View Quote


When it comes to deciding the validity of electoral college votes they most certainly do.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 2:47:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: usar_ds] [#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History

View Quote
Nvmd.

I should know better than to feed the re-re trolls

At this point its just round and round with

"Nuh uh" lol
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 3:00:28 PM EST
[#24]
Please stop feeding the

Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 3:02:58 PM EST
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By usar_ds:
Nvmd.

I should know better than to feed the re-re trolls

At this point its just round and round with

"Nuh uh" lol
View Quote


Yeah, God forbid we actually have a conversation about the Constitution so people can get past some of these absurd beliefs about what it does or does not say.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 3:08:46 PM EST
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Banditman:
Please stop feeding the

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/126641/162524_jpg-2478282.JPG
View Quote


I could just as easily label those with erroneous understandings of the applicable US code “trolls”, but just because 2 people disagree doesn’t mean one side or the other is trolling. Perhaps having conversations about something of such significance as this is actually a good thing?
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 3:28:41 PM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ChargerRTSTP3:


Shenanigunz, I know you love to "counter" information you find inaccurate, so I am surprised you have not provided the information that was requested.

Could you show the class where 200 million people that were polled think the 2020 Election was "Fair" and believe there was no fraud?




Why are you laughing, you made a stupid fucking statement and are being called out on it.

Link Posted: 8/5/2022 3:32:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: Shenanigunz] [#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ChargerRTSTP3:


Why are you laughing, you made a stupid fucking statement and are being called out on it.

View Quote

And you have a stupid understanding of that statement.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 5:17:22 PM EST
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


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 no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.


And yours is to go read the Constitution and why when the Constitutionally defined process is violated that makes the selection of electors and their votes prima facie invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master.


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 no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Exactly. And, when the manner used does not comport with that which the legislatures may direct, that makes that selection invalid from a Constitutional process standpoint. It cannot be otherwise.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 5:18:52 PM EST
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


The constitution determines nothing. An inanimate object cannot make a determination. It defines a process, and guidelines. Congress makes the determination if that process or guidelines were followed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, they don't. That's the point you steadfastly refuse to understand. Let me say this more slowly for you: The *Constitution* determines which electors and their votes are valid or not. Not following the Constitutionally defined process, by definition, makes those EC votes invalid prima facie. You don't have to like it, but you *do* have to understand it.


The constitution determines nothing. An inanimate object cannot make a determination. It defines a process, and guidelines. Congress makes the determination if that process or guidelines were followed.


Yes, it does. Again, it is the basis of our Republic. Don't like it? Move to some other country. The process was either followed or it was not. It's a prima facie case. Congress needs to do precisely nothing.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 5:20:05 PM EST
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


When it comes to deciding the validity of electoral college votes they most certainly do.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By usar_ds:
Congress does not determine if a process is constitutional.  Try again.


When it comes to deciding the validity of electoral college votes they most certainly do.


No, they do not. Either the process followed what the Constitution laid out or it did not. Congress has no say in the matter.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 5:31:23 PM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Exactly. And, when the manner used does not comport with that which the legislatures may direct, that makes that selection invalid from a Constitutional process standpoint. It cannot be otherwise.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Nope, wrong again. The Constitution described what are and are not valid EC votes and because several states didn't follow the Constitutional process, those EC votes are facially invalid. This isn't a hard concept to master.


I'm fresh out of crayons at this point.


Well, if you'd stop eating them, you wouldn't have that problem.


Don't judge me.  Your homework assignment is to go read McPherson v. Blacker.


And yours is to go read the Constitution and why when the Constitutionally defined process is violated that makes the selection of electors and their votes prima facie invalid. Again, not a hard concept to master.


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 no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Exactly. And, when the manner used does not comport with that which the legislatures may direct, that makes that selection invalid from a Constitutional process standpoint. It cannot be otherwise.

You’re still wrong, but I’m sick of talking at a wall.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 5:48:18 PM EST
[#33]
Stop being children.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:37:54 PM EST
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, they do not. Either the process followed what the Constitution laid out or it did not. Congress has no say in the matter.
View Quote


I understand to you things are black and white. But the real world is gray.

That’s why 535 people vote on things that are…gasp….subjective.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:45:26 PM EST
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


I understand to you things are black and white. But the real world is gray.

That’s why 535 people vote on things that are…gasp….subjective.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By planemaker:


No, they do not. Either the process followed what the Constitution laid out or it did not. Congress has no say in the matter.


I understand to you things are black and white. But the real world is gray.

That’s why 535 people vote on things that are…gasp….subjective.

So 535 people wolves voted on what’s for dinner…

At some point we’re going to need to start dealing with the truth and stop listening to these slick talking wolves.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:50:41 PM EST
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bhart89:


If the drop boxes were illegal then any votes that came from the drop boxes were fraudulent.   Fraud vitiates everything.
View Quote


Correct.

And also the places that violated election laws to prevent bi partisan observation of the vote. Should also have been decertified.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:53:56 PM EST
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat:


Correct.

And also the places that violated election laws to prevent bi partisan observation of the vote. Should also have been decertified.
View Quote


There were many dozens of congressmen and senators who had vowed to challenge the electoral votes from several states for a multitude of reasons.

But for some reason, after the temper tantrum those idiots threw at the Capitol on 6 Jan, those congress people changed their minds.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:56:48 PM EST
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tree-hugger:

So 535 people wolves voted on what’s for dinner…

At some point we’re going to need to start dealing with the truth and stop listening to these slick talking wolves.
View Quote


As mentioned several pages ago, the real tragedy behind the newly proposed electoral act legislation, is that it will become virtually impossible for EC votes to be objected upon if it passes.  The smoothbrains view this legislation as some sort of vindication of their false understanding of the VP’s role in things, while the tyrants in congress slide this right under their nose.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:58:03 PM EST
[#39]
THREAD DERAILED
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 6:58:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: nu3gawhat] [#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:


There were many dozens of congressmen and senators who had vowed to challenge the electoral votes from several states for a multitude of reasons.

But for some reason, after the temper tantrum those idiots threw at the Capitol on 6 Jan, those congress people changed their minds.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Low_Country:
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat:


Correct.

And also the places that violated election laws to prevent bi partisan observation of the vote. Should also have been decertified.


There were many dozens of congressmen and senators who had vowed to challenge the electoral votes from several states for a multitude of reasons.

But for some reason, after the temper tantrum those idiots threw at the Capitol on 6 Jan, those congress people changed their minds.


Hmm so you're saying they had motive to use national intelligence resources to incite a riot and allow it to breach the capital building.

Who'd of thunk it.

Maybe one day they will tell us who planted those pipe bombs too.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 7:13:43 PM EST
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Timeflies:
THREAD DERAILED
View Quote

Troll train derailed this MF bigly.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 7:17:07 PM EST
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat:


Hmm so you're saying they had motive to use national intelligence resources to incite a riot and allow it to breach the capital building.

Who'd of thunk it.

Maybe one day they will tell us who planted those pipe bombs too.
View Quote


Nah, it requires a majority vote in both houses to overturn the EC vote of a given state, which was never going to happen. And the congressmen vowing to object were mostly doing it to pander to their constituents anyway. That said, it would have at least provided a forum for debate, and forced each representative to go on the record.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 7:21:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: CPT_CAVEMAN] [#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By planemaker:


Neither this weak-assed rant nor the posting before it changes the relevant facts one iota. Several states chose to follow an unConstitutional process for selecting electors, violating their own election laws in some cases, and that makes the electors from those states facially invalid. It cannot be otherwise. If it were otherwise, we'd have a free-for-all process, not a Constitutional one.
View Quote

Which is why the left went Leroy Jenkins on J6? Once they started bringing that up it probably would have opened a can of worms?

Or lead the charge I should say
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 8:58:45 PM EST
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Brahmzy:

Troll train derailed this MF bigly.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Brahmzy:
Originally Posted By Timeflies:
THREAD DERAILED

Troll train derailed this MF bigly.


Happens every time.

Same people argue with them instead of ignoring them every time.

Almost makes me wonder if they are a team.
Link Posted: 8/5/2022 9:01:58 PM EST
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaGoose:


Happens every time.

Same people argue with them instead of ignoring them every time.

Almost makes me wonder if they are a team.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
Originally Posted By Brahmzy:
Originally Posted By Timeflies:
THREAD DERAILED

Troll train derailed this MF bigly.


Happens every time.

Same people argue with them instead of ignoring them every time.

Almost makes me wonder if they are a team.


My bad.

I get tired of nonsense being spouted.

Back to Arizona news.
Link Posted: 8/15/2022 1:12:41 PM EST
[#46]
Interesting method of ballot manipulation



https://mbernhard.com/papers/unclearballot.pdf

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/video-election-hack-identified-can-instantaneously-swap-votes-ballot-even-stored/

Election Hack Identified that Can Instantaneously Swap Votes on a Ballot Before It Is Even Stored

There’s an election hack built before the 2020 election that can instantaneously swap the bubbles on your ballot. The “filled in” bubble of your candidate is moved to the hackers’ preferred candidate and swapped out with that empty bubble. The change is made before the “ballot Image” is stored on the election server and before it’s tabulated. By using the voter’s own marking style & penmanship, these changes are undetectable to the human eye.

Here’s the scenario. Using a blue pen you fill in the “Trump” bubble on a ballot. Election officials insert this ballot into a tabulator. Those pixels surrounding the Trump bubble are swapped in milliseconds with the empty Biden bubble pixels. After these changes are made, the ballot image is saved to the EMS, and the candidate selections update the election totals. If an election jurisdiction uses their digital “Ballot Images” to conduct an audit, they WILL NOT find these changed ballots.

Gateway Pundit created the below animation to provide a visual of how this election attack works (or view here). Any real election attack using this method has no visual component. It operates behind the scenes, completely hidden.



To conduct this type of an election attack, bad actors just need a sample ballot. These are published well ahead of all elections. The sample ballot is used to locate the exact bubble positions. The ballot is segmented into a grid or “bounding boxes“. Vertical and horizontal lines sweep the ballot to precisely locate the targeted candidate’s bubbles. Bounding boxes are made around each bubble. Extra white space is added around the bubbles to account for penmanship that strays outside the bubble. This becomes the template for that election. The pixels inside these boxes are what they swap.

Prior to the election, the attacker specifies the template, which races they want to affect (Pres, Senate, etc), and by how much. While ballots are being scanned, this malicious software keeps a running tally of the “real” ballot results. Ballot images are changed on the fly to achieve the desired election outcome. To avoid detection, attackers can specify just enough manipulated images to win the race, but not by alarming amounts. The only way to catch this hack is to compare the original paper ballot to the ballot image.

Awhile back two University of Michigan students successfully wrote this malicious software using only 398 lines of code. Their “Automated Ballot Manipulation” video and 18 page whitepaper show the details. Undergrad Jeremy Wink and grad student Kart Kandula developed it while at UofM’s Security Lab. They were under the supervision of election expert J. Alex Halderman. Using the voters’ own handwriting markings to alter ballots is a truly devious approach. Depending on the computer, the entire process takes about 40 milliseconds (.04 seconds). It leaves no image artifacts behind, so the changes are undetectable.

The students tested it against EAC-certified scanners. They also tested it against all six different ballot styles used in America. These come from manufacturers Dominion, ES&S, Clear Ballot, Diebold, and two styles from Hart InterCivic. The ballot styles for Dominion machines were the easiest to change. The Hart eScan ballots were the most difficult. The software can move all shapes used on election ballots including bubbles, circles, boxes, rectangles, ovals, etc.

This sophisticated software algorithm scores and rates the marked bubbles as Sensed, Ignored, or Marginal. Some voters might make excessive scribbles or stray into the letters of a candidate’s name. If the pixel area can’t be perfectly swapped leaving no artifacts, the algorithm skips that ballot and moves on to the next one. Configuring the software settings very high, so it leaves no trace evidence, they were able to change votes on at least 50% of all ballots.

To illustrate an illegal election operation the two men created an attack package called “UnclearBallot”. They disguised the attack by inserting malicious code into the “Windows Driver” that allows the scanners to communicate with the election system. They created a “microdriver” that essentially “wraps” around the original driver. This is what changes the ballots. But their malicious software can run in any environment. It doesn’t have to be a driver. It can be rewritten for a machine’s firmware, installed on an Election Management Server (EMS), and so on.

They simulated an attack using 181,541 completed paper ballots from Clackamas County. Oregon. They changed the results of ballot proposition. UnclearBallot was configured to only modify marks with a “high confidence” the alteration would not be noticeable. They were able to alter 62,400 ballot images, which is 34%. Afterwards, they selected 1,000 altered ballots at random for examination. Human auditors could NOT detect any evidence of ballot manipulation. Had they lowered the “confidence” settings, they could have changed 89% of the ballots. Only 11% were rejected, had no chance of changes.

What’s most alarming is that Matthew Bernhard was involved, a Research Engineer at the hard left Voting Works. The Center For Democracy and Technology (CDT) created Voting Works, spun it out in 2018. CDT’s major donors are the Soros Open Society, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Google, Facebook, Amazon. Others involved in this election project were Chinese speakers Henry Meng, Jensen Hwa, and Kevin Chang. In 2019 CISA and DHS partnered with Voting Works to push their bogus Risk Limiting Audits into many States before the 2020 election. It’s now used by 10 States. Voting Works has been an obnoxious proponent of mail-in ballots.

Students Jeremy and Kart noted there are technologies available that can detect this type of image manipulation on ballots. However, they were unable to find one election jurisdiction using any of this technology. Their team also suspects it would become an arms race. When the software that detects “image manipulation” advances, attackers will obtain it, and alter their malicious code to defeat it.

NOTE: A “driver” allows an external device like a printer or scanner to communicate with the operating system. The driver is the first thing the external device talks to. In a nutshell, the data flows from a scanner, to the driver, to the OS, and then to the hard drive. By putting the malicious code at the very beginning of this flow, it can change ballots before the OS even knows about it. The ballot bubbles are changed before the “Ballot Image” gets stored on the election server.
Link Posted: 8/15/2022 2:08:19 PM EST
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
Interesting method of ballot manipulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja6J1wY2UNw

View Quote


"....It leaves no image artifacts behind, so the changes are undetectable."

Good luck getting anywhere with this.

Election was stolen and they got away with it.
Link Posted: 8/15/2022 2:14:22 PM EST
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:


"....It leaves no image artifacts behind, so the changes are undetectable."

Good luck getting anywhere with this.

Election was stolen and they got away with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
Interesting method of ballot manipulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja6J1wY2UNw



"....It leaves no image artifacts behind, so the changes are undetectable."

Good luck getting anywhere with this.

Election was stolen and they got away with it.


The paper ballot is the artifact.
Link Posted: 8/15/2022 2:28:25 PM EST
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


The paper ballot is the artifact.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By DaGoose:
Interesting method of ballot manipulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja6J1wY2UNw



"....It leaves no image artifacts behind, so the changes are undetectable."

Good luck getting anywhere with this.

Election was stolen and they got away with it.


The paper ballot is the artifact.

those are all about to be destroyed, and election officials have a stunning lack of interest in looking at them or keeping them any longer
Link Posted: 8/15/2022 2:29:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: Shenanigunz] [#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:


The paper ballot is the artifact.
View Quote

Good thing CyberNinjas did a hand count of all the Maricopa County ballots and found those extra Biden votes.

Page / 84
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top