Arizona Election Audit

#1,276
#1,276
USAFgolferVol said:
How long have you felt elections weren't fair? Did you feel the 2016 election wasn't fair. Trump said so himself until election night. What about the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections? What about 1972? 1960? 1968? Bobby Kennedy would have been elected had he not been assassinated
Click to expand...
I have doubts any election has been fair for decades. I'd say corrupt big money has worked to corrupt this government and our elections since its inception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,277
#1,277
tnmarktx said:
There is documented proof that private entities had direct access to voter rolls during the 2020 election? Where is your outrage over this. There's no proof of what you or the corrupt Biden DOJ is claiming here. I'd add, if they had something they'd already have stopped the audit. The AZ audit will continue.
Click to expand...

Democrats were trying to get access to voter rolls in Tennessee but they were failures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and tnmarktx
#1,278
#1,278
tnmarktx said:
Yes, he will continue to be the head of this turned communist Gov. The continued weaponization of the DOJ vs political opponents will continue.
Click to expand...
Aren't you a Trump supporter? As president, Donald Trump frequently used his Twitter account to urge the Attorney General (either Jeff Sessions or William Barr) to investigate both of the opponents he faced in the Presidential General Election - Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. It would take a chainsaw to cut through the irony of this last sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#1,279
#1,279
BowlBrother85 said:
Aren't you a Trump supporter? As president, Donald Trump frequently used his Twitter account to urge the Attorney General (either Jeff Sessions or William Barr) to investigate both of the opponents he faced in the Presidential General Election - Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. It would take a chainsaw to cut through the irony of this last sentence.
Click to expand...
And yet the DOJ did not go after either. This has been the most corrupt administration up to this point and that's really saying something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#1,280
#1,280
tnmarktx said:
And yet the DOJ did not go after either. This has been the most corrupt administration up to this point and that's really saying something.
Click to expand...
No investigation into Joe Biden was publicly announced or acknowledged by the DOJ. We don't necessarily know what the DOJ did or didn't do at Donald Trump's behest. Trump was explicitly asking then-Attorney General, William Barr, to investigate the Bidens in several of his tweets from last year. Such a request made by a sitting president could justifiably be described as being "an abuse of power". A term you have thrown around quite a bit in this thread.
 
#1,282
#1,282
USAFgolferVol said:
Barr was the DOJ! Before him, it was Sessions. Do you understand the role of the AG?
Click to expand...
Accusing Biden of "weaponizing the DOJ" is the most oblivious thing I've ever read from a Trump minion on this forum. That reveals a colossal lack of awareness of who Donald Trump was as president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs
#1,283
#1,283
BowlBrother85 said:
(1) NOT AS OF JANUARY 6, 2021 - the day of the riot. The electors had already been selected and they had already met and cast their votes for president on December 14th. The only thing left to do as of January 6th, was for the sitting VP to read aloud the certificates cast by those electors representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia in order to finalize the vote count. January 6th only involved procedural formalities. It was already over.

(2) Trump wasn't simply wrong about that. He was lying. Pence's Chief of Staff, Marc Short, says that it was explained to Trump that it was not within the power of the VP to unilaterally disregard electoral votes on January 6th, which Trump had been pushing Pence to do. As a result of this explanation, Short says he was banned from the White House grounds. As of January 6th, Trump continued to tell his supporters that Pence could cast aside electoral college votes in the states that he was still contesting... but on January 6th, Trump knew better than that. Per Marc Short, it had been explained to Trump that Pence had no such authority to do that.
Click to expand...

1) That's not accurate; SOLE authority for the selection resides in the state legislature, who can substitute their own electors anytime up to the presentation of President and VP to Congress. Yes, Dec. 14th is the date electors cast their vote for president but again, the legislature can wipe those votes if deciding the election is so plagued that it does not represent - in their opinion - the will of the people express through a valid vote tally. They have PLENARY power in selecting electors, vested by the federal constitution; they ALLOW state electors in the assumption the will of the voters is exercised. If they do NOT think the election exerts the will of the voters, they may substitute a slate of electors before or on Jan 6 prior to the Congress joint session at 1:00PM. That's when the die, constitutionally, is cast. Plenary power is plenary power and there are no exclusions simply because it deviates from the norm (the broad assumption of valid election).

Strictly on the basis of usurpation of that plenary power by courts, governors, SoS, election boards, attorneys general, could state legislatures have - and should have - exercised that power in the face of blatant fraud, aside from questions of voting systems fraud, the End. Aside even from violations of state constitution, all states that did so acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

SCOTUS entirely abandoned their duty of defending the Constitution and is compromised beyond redemption with the current composition of justices, none more derelict than John Roberts. Primarily, it is his cowardice - or ideology - that has relegated the court, laughably referred to as a 'conservatively packed court', to a PAC.

2) As you note, Short is Pence's CoS, not Trump; he's not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. So, how does an opinion contrary to his make the opposing opinion a lie? Your logic stinks.

But here, I'll help because I'd like to see you get a win for a change. Sekulow, who is obviously Trump's lawyer, advised the VP doesn't have that unilateral authority. So, whether other advisors were contradicting Sekulow (I don't know and you don't either), to be a lie, Trump has to know it's untrue. That mean accepting the advice as true, but taking the opposite position. Again, I don't know that and neither do you. You harangue on things repeatedly that are demonstrably false; are you lying or just watching MSNBC ALL the damned time?

I've done all I can do to help you. It's up to you to you, as you said, to prove "an intent to deceive" and not actually believing it to be true. Godspeed, Bowl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY
#1,284
#1,284
BowlBrother85 said:
So... you are immature, on top of being woefully inarticulate. I see. LOL.
Click to expand...

I guess so; I mean if I use your "mental midget" or "short bus" and a dozen other insults, then I'm not immature?
Do you have a Bowl's Book of Rules for Mature Name Calling that I can borrow? Thanks, ole' buddy!
 
#1,288
#1,288
BowlBrother85 said:
Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state law..
Click to expand...

Not completely accurate if you take it as it is written. The Constitution supersedes state law. Federal laws and treaties pursuant to the Constitution supersede state law. But the oft ignored Tenth Amendment also says the federal government only has those powers specifically designated to it by the Constitution. All other powers not forbidden by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

Just being honest, I didn't read the rest of your post to see the point you were trying to make. I just get tired of people seeing the federal government itself (not the Constitution as it was ratified by each state) as the "Supreme Power" when it was never intended to be so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,289
#1,289
NCFisher said:
1) That's not accurate; SOLE authority for the selection resides in the state legislature, who can substitute their own electors anytime up to the presentation of President and VP to Congress. Yes, Dec. 14th is the date electors cast their vote for president but again, the legislature can wipe those votes if deciding the election is so plagued that it does not represent - in their opinion - the will of the people express through a valid vote tally. They have PLENARY power in selecting electors, vested by the federal constitution; they ALLOW state electors in the assumption the will of the voters is exercised. If they do NOT think the election exerts the will of the voters, they may substitute a slate of electors before or on Jan 6 prior to the Congress joint session at 1:00PM. That's when the die, constitutionally, is cast. Plenary power is plenary power and there are no exclusions simply because it deviates from the norm (the broad assumption of valid election).

Strictly on the basis of usurpation of that plenary power by courts, governors, SoS, election boards, attorneys general, could state legislatures have - and should have - exercised that power in the face of blatant fraud, aside from questions of voting systems fraud, the End. Aside even from violations of state constitution, all states that did so acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

SCOTUS entirely abandoned their duty of defending the Constitution and is compromised beyond redemption with the current composition of justices, none more derelict than John Roberts. Primarily, it is his cowardice - or ideology - that has relegated the court, laughably referred to as a 'conservatively packed court', to a PAC.

2) As you note, Short is Pence's CoS, not Trump; he's not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. So, how does an opinion contrary to his make the opposing opinion a lie? Your logic stinks.

But here, I'll help because I'd like to see you get a win for a change. Sekulow, who is obviously Trump's lawyer, advised the VP doesn't have that unilateral authority. So, whether other advisors were contradicting Sekulow (I don't know and you don't either), to be a lie, Trump has to know it's untrue. That mean accepting the advice as true, but taking the opposite position. Again, I don't know that and neither do you. You harangue on things repeatedly that are demonstrably false; are you lying or just watching MSNBC ALL the damned time?

I've done all I can do to help you. It's up to you to you, as you said, to prove "an intent to deceive" and not actually believing it to be true. Godspeed, Bowl.
Click to expand...
(1) It is true that the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to choose electors for the Electoral College, but it is false to suggest that state legislatures retain this authority after a popular vote on election day. A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act dictates that changing the slate of electors after election day is a violation of federal law. Last July, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states can require members of the Electoral College to vote for the winner of the popular vote. It upheld laws in 32 states by doing so. Finally, on January 6th, there was no means by which these state legislatures could have reversed or overturned electoral votes which had already been cast on December 14th. You are wrong on every count.

This is such a strange hill to die on... it looks more like you can't admit when you are wrong... and you must also stubbornly get the last word in. It's annoying.


(2) The bottom line is Trump knew damn well that Pence did not have the authority to reject electoral votes on January 6th. However, Trump told his supporters otherwise during the rally and on Twitter... therefore, Trump was lying. You argue for the sheer hell of getting the last word in. Annoying.
 
#1,290
#1,290
Weezer said:
Not completely accurate if you take it as it is written. The Constitution supersedes state law. Federal laws and treaties pursuant to the Constitution supersede state law. But the oft ignored Tenth Amendment also says the federal government only has those powers specifically designated to it by the Constitution. All other powers not forbidden by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

Just being honest, I didn't read the rest of your post to see the point you were trying to make. I just get tired of people seeing the federal government itself (not the Constitution as it was ratified by each state) as the "Supreme Power" when it was never intended to be so.
Click to expand...
Good lord. Any more hair fibers you wanna split?
 
#1,292
#1,292
Weezer said:
Are you suggesting the Constitution doesn't say this? Maybe we're not reading the same document? Do the Dems have a King Roosevelt Edition or something?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that all you did was repeat the same damn thing I said... but you gave a longer explanation... and then stuck your damn nose up in the air as though I had said something wrong. Get a life.
 
#1,293
#1,293
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm saying that all you did was repeat the same damn thing I said... but you gave a longer explanation... and then stuck your damn nose up in the air as though I had said something wrong. Get a life.
Click to expand...


9298e0b94fba9aa47b0332cf7f203ff6.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!, NCFisher and AM64
#1,295
#1,295
BowlBrother85 said:
Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state law.

If the United States Department of Justice has evidence that election records are not being safe-guarded and preserved by a contractor (Cyber Ninjas Inc.) hired to conduct an audit, as required by federal law, then they have the right to investigate the matter.
Click to expand...

The DOJ couldn't be bothered when people told them companies like Dominion and also the election commissions themselves were diddling with stuff; why should this bother them now - unless they are afraid somebody will find faults in what they refused to investigate. And, no, whitewash isn't investigating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#1,296
#1,296
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes. They are not qualified to conduct this audit. Their findings mean nothing... and their findings will change nothing.
Click to expand...

Funny that you say that because when you watch video of the people running an election, you really should be saying they aren't qualified to count votes.
 
#1,297
#1,297
NCFisher said:
Since NO ONE thinks Trump is going to be installed as president while Biden is ushered out the back door, that's not the point. Why belabor a point not existing outside your own mind is a mystery.
Reassuring Americans elections are secure and representative, is the point. In spite of a host of banana republic machinations by the left breaking those laws; a tall order, now.
Click to expand...
PTDS
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#1,299
#1,299
NCFisher said:
Since NO ONE thinks Trump is going to be installed as president while Biden is ushered out the back door, that's not the point. Why belabor a point not existing outside your own mind is a mystery.
Reassuring Americans elections are secure and representative, is the point. In spite of a host of banana republic machinations by the left breaking those laws; a tall order, now.
Click to expand...
If this was true, then the company known as "Cyber Ninjas Inc." wouldn't be among those conducting the audit. Their owner, Doug Logan, has a conflict of interest (in his relationship with 2020 Trump Campaign Attorney, Sidney Powell. Logan has posted provably false allegations against Dominion Voting Systems on her website. These include allegations for which Powell is now being sued for.) and he has publicly expressed a conclusive determination that the election was rigged before the audit even began, while also expressing an interest in the outcome itself. Cyber Ninjas Inc. has no experience auditing an election of any kind... but they are qualified to conduct an audit into the results of a presidential election? They are really going to reassure a lot of people aren't they? Sure thing, buddy.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top