https://youtu.be/ijjwS6h-PyU

and of course this

so what? same procedure was used in 2018 ... could it be made better? yes but is what was done illegal? unconstitutional? or is there evidence of fraud? ... so far all these have been looked at (numerous times, in numerous courts) by the courts and found to be negative

point by point...
*Just because it's the same procedure as a previous time doesn't make it a good procedure.
*The first thing that was done illegally was that the Secretary of State made a settlement agreement with the Democrat party of Georgia that resulted in a change to election procedures which is unconstitutional by both the state and federal constitutions as the legislature of the state are the only ones that have the right to change the laws governing election procedures.
-- These changes resulted in allowing the use of mail in ballots and removed all safeguards such that there was no way to verify that individual voters were connected in any way to the ballots that were mailed in. Because of this the only way to tell if fraud at that level took place is to do a signature verification audit which the Secretary of State refuses to do. So, basically, evidence of this can't be provided because the person with the evidence refuses to provide it.
*As to the cases being looked at numerous times by numerous courts; they have not. All cases have been dismissed on procedural issues so that evidence was never introduced and thus was never reviewed for substantiation.

I posted earlier this: "Wood’s argument is that the procedures in the Settlement Agreement regarding information and signature match so overwhelmed ballot clerks that the rate of rejection plummeted and, ergo, invalid ballots were passed over and counted. This argument is belied by the record; the percentage of absentee ballots rejected for missing or mismatched information and signature is the exact same for the 2018 election and the General Election (.15%). This is despite a substantial increase in the total number of absentee ballots submitted by voters during the General Election as compared to the 2018 election," the judge wrote." ... that would NOT be a procedural issue but in fact an evaluation of the evidence brought by the plaintiff (represented by Woods)

@Soburin the plaintiffs alleged that low signature rejection rate was indication of fraud but that rate was consistent with 2018 rejection rate when the number of mail-in ballots was less and no fraud was alleged

@Soburin also note that I explicitly said the procedure certainly could be made better but the fact that it could be better does NOT mean that what was done is illegal or that fraud has occurred. It is incumbent on the plaintiffs alleging fraud or illegality to prove such in a court of law under the rules for evidence and to the legal standard of proof ... so far that has not happened though numerous cases have been brought

The settlement agreement was from March of this year. Prior to that the mass mail in ballot thing wouldn't have been a thing so comparing to 2018 doesn't make any sense as any ballots mailed in in 2018 would have been absentee ballots which would have been handled under a more stringent authentication process.

@Soburin, you just advanced to level 7!

settlement agreement didn't change the law it just clarified the procedures for which the law would be followed ... mail-in ballots in 2018 were done under the same law as 2020

I agree it is incumbent on plaintiffs to prove fraud but if your evidence is controlled by the defense and they won't give you access to it... how do you go about doing that?

The settlement agreement did change the law. That's why Texas is suing Georgia, among others.

your evidence? if you have evidence bring it but if you merely suspect some evidence exist then you must show at least enough evidence for discovery

Smoke is billowing from a house. Do I have to enter the flames to prove there's a fire?

and when Texas loses that case that will settle the issue than in fact the law was not changed? YES?

Sure. Let's see what happens.

smoke? or smoke and mirrors?

Oh, there's lots of smoke.

I appreciate the feedback and discussion. Keep in mind that my comments to Robert were sent directly and not meant to be a comprehensive dissertation. Only so much needs to be said in that context. Robert asked if he could share my comments and I agreed. You can search and see that we have all discussed these issues at great length. In my comments, I was pointing out that the PA response had provided justification for the PA SC ruling and that supported the ruling on merit. It also made a case that Act 77 was believed to be constitutional when the Republican led legislature passed it (long before CoVid was a known thing).

In the first PA Act 77 case, the Rep legislators sued Boockvar for violating the provisions in Act 77 by making temporary accommodations during the pandemic (these were deemed necessary by the SotC and justified in her responsibility to ensure a safe and fair election). The Republicans sued Boockvar for not following Act 77 - never once suggesting it might be unconstitutional. The PA SC sided with Boockvar and the US SC voted 4-4 leaving the changes in place before the election (Chief Justice Roberts chose to let the temporary measures stand). In that regard, these issues being re-raised in the TX suit were already settled.

PA absolutely does signature verification. They also instituted a cure process where-in voters were notified of ballot rejections for whatever reason and allowed to come in and correct the issues. This is one of the complaints that Republicans made, because Boockvar sent out instructions to the whole state for curing. Rep-leaning counties chose not to follow the cure process, because they figured more mail-in ballots would be from Dems. When Biden won, they claimed that it was unfair that they chose not to follow the cure process.

Recounts, to my knowledge, never include signature verification. GA checked signatures on mail-in ballots when requested and when received.

It's not cheating when you follow your own state's laws.

yeah but who started the fire? and whose house is burning down?

Bad actors come in all shapes and sizes.

about 6'3", 240 lbs and $200 million richer since the election is what I'm thinking

Grifty Don

got to admire a guy who wins even in defeat

Indeed, perhaps envy.

hopefully not ... surely you can admire what you don't envy

$200 is probably chump change for him.

200 mil. ^

He probably uses $100 as TP.

exactly ... lots of chumps giving their change to him

Zing

But my point is that if he’s a grifter.. he’s an idiot because he missed out on 400k x 4.

@yetiCodes, you just advanced to level 13!

Hey guys! I need some hyelp. I'm curious about something. The FBI handled previous accusations of Jeffrey Epstein. If they were incompetent in finding evidence and doing their job, why are they still the ones investigating

did he? or did he just turn $1.6M into $200M plus?

Eh, why not take both?

Seems like an unsatisfactory motivation considering he (to my knowledge) is the richest president... ever.

Let me fact checking myself on that real quick.

Can lawyers step in and claim that FBI is incompetent with the Jeffrey Epstein case, and they should not be the ones harvesting information?

Yup, lol. 4,500 millions of 2016 US$
Second place goes to George Washington at 587 millions
Then Thomas Jefferson at 236 millions.

because giving up one enables the taking of the other ... look I'm idiot when it comes to this (that I have a sticking point of morals, but that's my own shortcomings) but I can tell you I have seen this giving up of his salary lauded by his followers innumerable times as to his virtue ... the very followers that are donating with reckless abandon to his legal fund currently