PA Court Rules 2020 Election Likely Unconstitutional

That's a post, not proof. Try harder.

 

https://justthenews.com/government/...eport-electoral-college-deadlines-are-not-set

Amistad Project argues in new report that Electoral College deadlines are not set in stone

 

Again, cs, that's a white paper. It's an opinion. It's interesting, and they may be correct, but until it's presented in court, with an opposing opinion allowed, it doesn't amount to anything.

 

It says that anyone saying that Alito is letting the case 'die on the vine' is possibly wrong.

 

Perhaps, but it's irrelevant to the moment.

There are lots of issues to work on. Before we can even begin to prioritize, the parties need to suck it up and start doing their jobs, which means working together.

 

Witness statements are allowed in court.

 

Who are you to tell Alito what his job is? What other “issues” are more relevant than this one right now? Does SCOTUS need to decide the constitutionality of COVID-19 or something? It is not SCOTUS’ job to “work with” anybody; the judicial branch is supposed to be independent from the other branches, meaning that they don’t “work with” lawmakers or the President.

 

Absolutely !
Perfect reason for the SCOTUS to stay away from any Trump election lawsuits.

 

Sworn affidavits are evidence that are submitted to the court. If the witnesses lie in a sworn affidavit, then they have committed perjury and can go to jail for that. Do you think that these witnesses are going to risk jail time by lying about what they saw?

 

Affidavits are people.

 

When you have sworn affidavits proving that they witnessed fraud, and lower courts refuse to see them, then the independent SCOTUS is obligated to hear the case.

 

It's not PROOF though. It's typically used to establish credibility in (or discredit) the evidence. No (fair) trial has ever been decided on witness testimony alone.

 

You assume they told the truth in the 1st place then change their story. If they lied initially then keep up the lie the testimony will match the statement but still not be true. Still perjury but much harder to prove (if the sworn statement was an obvious lie, it wouldn't be used as evidence by any 1/2 decent lawyer).

 

How is it an obvious lie though? That has to be proven a lie in court.

 

UPDATED ON: NOVEMBER 24, 2020 / 7:42 PM / CBS NEWS
Washington — Pennsylvania certified the results of its election Tuesday, formalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory over President Trump in the state despite efforts by the Trump campaign to block it from doing so.


Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, confirmed in a pair of tweets that Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar certified the results for president and vice president. Wolf said he signed the certificate of ascertainment for the slate of electors for Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

"I want to thank the election officials who have administered a fair and free election during an incredibly challenging time in our commonwealth and country's history," Wolf tweeted. "Our election workers have been under constant attack and they have performed admirably and honorably."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvania-certifies-presidential-election-results/

Over in Pa

 

So Governor Wolf is an accomplice in a fraud case. Expect the subpoena to arrive in the mail, Mr. Wolf.

 

Haaaaa!!!! I didn't realize you were serious. No, I've never been a drug dealer. You are one confused dude.

 

I didn't say it was a lie. I was pointing out why it can't, on it's own, be used as compelling evidence. Witness testimony is the weakest link in any legal argument and on it's own means nothing. Without hard evidence to back it up, it's just baseless claims. If witness testimony is all you have, you have nothing.

 

Yes, and there were no republicans involved in the certifying process. No judges or courts throwing out fake news court cases.

 

by: Associated Press

Posted: Dec 4, 2020 / 05:25 PM PST / Updated: Dec 4, 2020 / 05:31 PM PST
California certified its presidential election Friday and appointed 55 electors pledged to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, officially handing him the Electoral College majority needed to win the White House.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s formal approval of Biden’s win in the state brought his tally of pledged electors so far to 279, according to a tally by The Associated Press. That’s just over the 270 threshold for victory.
https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/b...-after-california-certifies-election-results/

Now, it's only a matter of 9 days before it's all official. tRUMP lost.

 

But wait! There is more.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1334357552117800960

 

Just because something's in an affidavit, doesn't make it proof. Sure, the affiant's providing an honest description of what they saw or heard, and providing an honest interpretation of what they saw or heard, but that doesn't magically make their interpretations correct. It's just an honest statement of what the affiant believes to be correct.

For instance, let's take the dog walker who witnessed two people loading big bags into the back of a USPS truck in his neighborhood. As it was close to election day, he was suspicious and took photos, believing he was witnessing the transfer of illegal ballots.

Yes, he honestly saw what he saw. And yes, he honestly believed that. And he swore as much in an affidavit.

But, the resulting affidavit doesn't prove that illegal ballots were being picked up by USPS.

 

Great post

So obvious to some, but sadly not others

 

Great point, clennan.

This is what he really saw:



Probably just mistook them for ballots.

Honest mistake.