Pages

Saturday, November 28, 2020

MAJORLY UPDATED: Highly Recommended Election Fraud Videos

You can find a series of these videos at TGP. They require a bit of an eagle eye--you need to watch the running totals at the top/bottom of the screen and there's only minimal explanation. See what you think--I thought the first example in PA was particularly striking (Trump -20K, Biden +20K in the blink of an eye), as well as the final one in WI (a question of percentages):


Four Videos – Four States Where Votes Were Switched Live on TV Away from President Trump to Biden


As is, unfortunately, not unusual with TGP, the title doesn't necessarily match up exactly with the substance. But it's still worth checking out.

UPDATE: This is important for anyone who isn't familiar with Matt Braynard's work on this post-election. I've mentioned Braynard repeatedly, and his work is being used in many of the challenges. Epoch Times has a big article that will get you up to speed on his methodology, which focuses on the variations of voter fraud using absentee ballots and mail-in ballots:


Election Findings Could ‘Easily’ Overturn 3 States, Data Analyst Concludes


Here are some excerpts that focus on his conclusions:


WASHINGTON—The former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign says he has found enough evidence to suggest the election results could be “easily” turned to favor the current president.

“I have no confidence that Joe Biden is the deserved winner of this election, based on our findings, ...”

...

Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.


The group initially identified 1.25 million voter issues and followed up on them through phone calls and by cross-checking data against other databases.Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.

The group initially identified 1.25 million voter issues and followed up on them through phone calls and by cross-checking data against other databases.

...

One of Braynard’s biggest findings involved voters who had submitted a National Change of Address form to the post office, indicating they had moved out of state, yet appeared to have voted in 2020 in the state they moved from.

In Georgia, the team found 138,221 such people, which represents a much larger number than the state’s current vote differential (12,670) in the presidential race.

In Michigan, there were 51,302 such people; Wisconsin had 26,673, Nevada had 27,271, Arizona had 19,997, and Pennsylvania had 13,671.

...

In the five states that required a requested [mail-in] ballot, Braynard’s team found a significant number of people whom the state marked as having requested a ballot but not having returned it. Upon contacting those people, Braynard said many of them told his call team that they hadn’t requested a ballot at all. Others said they had requested and returned the ballot, but it hadn’t been marked as received or counted.

In Arizona, 44 percent of the people reached by phone said they hadn’t requested a mail-in ballot, despite the state receiving a completed ballot in their name.

In Michigan, that number was 24 percent; in Pennsylvania, 32 percent; and in Wisconsin and Georgia, 18 percent.

“Those are pretty startling numbers, ..."


That seems fair to say, doesn't it? So while the MSM tries to convince you that there's nothing to see? There's LOTS to see, and it's being dragged out into the light of day.


76 comments:

  1. Meanwhile from Pennsylvania:

    Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit
    The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to not certify the results of the 2020 election wrote in an opinion on Friday that the Republicans who filed the related lawsuit will likely win the case.

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough made the assessment as part of an opinion explaining her rationale for blocking Pennsylvania’s election certification. (Snip)
    “Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” McCullough wrote.

    When ruling on an emergency injunction, judges have to consider whether the party which requested the injunction is likely to win the case or “succeed on the merits.” McCullough opined that the “petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene” the plain language of the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution which deals with absentee voting.


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-republicans-will-likely-win-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit_3596477.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-28-1

    ReplyDelete
  2. The separate post on TGP on Dane County, WI pertaining to absentee ballots for the “indefinitely confined,” is noteworthy, too.

    Aletheia

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pennsylvania Republicans Introduce Resolution Disputing Election Results
    Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania on Friday announced a resolution they will soon be introducing to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

    The text of the resolution, released in a memo on Nov. 27, states that the executive and judicial branches of the Keystone State’s government usurped the legislature’s constitutional power to set the rules of the election.

    The resolution “declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this commonwealth is in dispute” and “urges the secretary of the commonwealth and the governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 general election.”

    It also “urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.”


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/pennsylvania-republicans-to-introduce-resolution-disputing-election-results_3596434.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-28-1

    ReplyDelete
  4. Totally OT...but related to 'Fraud' through consideration of the question of 'Honesty'.

    I live in a very Red state. The chances of it ever voting Democratic are zero. At least during my lifetime...which is how I define 'ever'.

    I often sit at my desk and wonder what motivated members of the Elite to try to steal the election. As I have wondered why their friends and colleagues (most of them already far richer and certainly more powerful than I will ever be) were motivated to lie and cheat about Russian Collusion, Flynn's phone call, Trump's phone call to Ukraine, Kavanaugh's nomination...and many other events.

    So...here's a little story.

    Yesterday a computer repair technician, a native of my Western Red State, came to my house to repair my (still warrantied) laptop. We got to talking and I asked him how he came to be a computer tech. He told me he had had a much better job...as a long distance truck driver...but he slipped on some ice and hurt his back and could no longer drive long distances. He said he wished he could, because the driving job paid really well...$80,000 a year. The tech job was not nearly as good money he said.

    He repaired my laptop and I offered him some extra cash. He turned me down. I said, "No. Really. Take it." He said, "I really can't. I'm on salary and our company rules prohibit it."

    Of course there was no way he would ever get caught (unless I was working for his employer). But rules are rules and he was going to live by the rules. In other words, he is an honest man.

    Would Joe Biden do the same thing? Would any of our holier-than-thou Elites have done the same thing? What about all the folks who had to cooperate to defraud the American electorate?

    And they want to be our leaders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've wondered about that, too, lately. My conclusion is that one of--perhaps the top--motivating factors was fear. Fear of Barr/Durham. Fear of Trump on steroids with the type of win that he appeared to be headed for (and probably achieved in reality). You'll notice that so many of Biden's putative appointments are going to conspirators. Coverup and damage control of past misdeeds will be the top priority.

      Delete
    2. Cassander, from everything you have posted on Mark’s site, it is clear that you are too intelligent not to know the answer to the question “why did they try to steal the election?” Power, greed, pride, and, yes, as Mark writes below, fear. Our “natural aristoi “ have turned out to be anything but wise and virtuous, which Trump made abundantly clear.
      How fortunate for you that you live in a Red State. I have lived in nothing but blue states.
      But I had the same experience as you with your computer tech guy.
      Sometime early in the pandemic I offered my regular checkout lady at the local supermarket a generous tip that she politely declined, citing company rules. These people are indeed the salt of the earth.
      Aletheia

      Delete
    3. @Cassander; I'm glad you proposed that thought. I've been thinking about this too. Then I thought about the recent Jon Voight video. Integrity and politics do NOT go hand-in-hand unfortunately. For the sake of the Republic you'd think Biden or the other Dem's would want to protect the integrity of the Republic. They probably thought they were doing this back in 2016 protecting HRC's emails, Russia/Spy gate, etc. Goes without saying that there are 2 types of Democrats.

      1) The rich, powerful, know what's best for us Democrat.
      and
      2) those willing to be controlled by the rich, powerful, know what's best for us Democrat.

      Delete
    4. I think Sundance has always had the best answer to that question... There are trillions and trillions of dollars at stake.

      Delete
    5. Cassander,
      They worry about themselves and don't see the American future, only their own. I also second some other posters - hubris, greed, etc. Humankind. Can't live with em, can't throw em by the side of the road when you'r done with em either.

      Delete
  5. Since the GA numbers already exceed Biden's margin, and Wisconsin had 26,673 (vs. Biden's margin of 21K+), and Arizona had 19,997 (vs. Biden's margin of 10K+), just the swing (by *only this* measure) of these 3 states, would mean a loss of 37 EVs from Biden, leaving him (tied w/ DJT)at 269!

    As Nevada had 27,271 (vs. Bidens' margin of 33K+), it'd take another DJT gain of only 6K+ votes from elsewhere, to get him NVs 6 EVs, and thus a victorious 275!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Reading local news in PA today suggests the PA State Supreme court will throw out the Commonwealth courts ruling due to "Lack of Jurisdiction". Apparently, the jurisdiction is the PA State Supreme Court for all things Supreme in PA. Get a load of the ego on those 7 folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nevertheless, I believe this issue makes it to the SCOTUS. Unless the fraud becomes too overwhelming first.

      Delete
    2. The thing is, it would seem to a legal neophyte such as myself, that the opinion is written and published. It might be determined to be invalid on a technicality, but can't be erased soon. It is clearly written and legally sound, or it would be being appealed on merit. Millions are taking notice.

      I read once, and I can't vouch for the exact accuracy, that Pete Seeger, being a good cadre, wrote and recorded an album of songs promoting isolationism in Europe in 1941. Literally the day of its release Germany invaded the USSR. Seeger immediately demanded the withdrawal from sale and destruction of every copy and burned the sheet music. He was successful even though he had to go to several homes and personally retrieve some copies that had been sold already. Books will be written about this and the Dem's will not be as successful as Seeger in making it disappear.

      Harris/Biden may be installed, but everyone will know it was an installation, not an election.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    3. The PA Sup Ct participated in the disenfranchisement of PA voters by eliminating barriers to election fraud.

      The US Sup Ct probably won't approve of the PA Sup Ct actions that helped corrupt the national election.

      Delete
  7. SWC has just posted his analysis of the Pa. case, making clear that McCullough’s temporary pause is no longer operative. What she wrote was only a memorandum outlining her reasoning. But it’s now over to the Pa. Supreme Court, which is likely to do nothing before the safe harbor date.
    Aletheia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and he seems to believe that issues that came out of the PA Supreme Court will get considered by the SCOTUS, by one means or another (he suggests from statements by the 3rd Circuit).

      Delete
    2. So can the SCOTUS leapfrog the PA Supreme court? If the PA court just does nothing until the 14th how does the Act 77 question get to them?

      Delete
    3. It should come up through the 3rd Circuit without anything further on the State level--that's what SWC is saying.

      Delete
    4. I'm surprised the PA SC went ahead so quickly and just rejected the Act 77 suit as being "too late" instead of sitting on it. Seems to me that this is a good thing and can get the SCOTUS involved sooner. Since when is there a time-limit on challenging the constitutionality of an action so important?

      Delete
    5. Quick is definitely good. Trump remarked: Time is against us but the facts are on our side, so quick action helps.

      Delete
  8. Re the TGP videos. Some, where the exact amount of votes switch from Trump to Biden are compelling. (E.g., the first example in PA.). But others show votes deducted from both candidates (the 2nd and 3rd PA examples). Not sure what they show. I feel like we need to know more about how they are reported and whether their might be instances where, say, a batch is determined to have an issue and cancelled and recounted? Don’t know. Just saying that jumping to the conclusion we desire may not be warranted and that caution should be exercised. Andy S.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This site has some interesting analysis. https://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/11/28/one-person-one-vote-means-each-person-votes-only-once/
    The link is to part 3 and the guy has a spreadsheet of 160,000 names that, if I understand it correctly represents people who voted in both PA and MI alone. Quick perusal shows some individuals repeated with the same address in the left side but multiple different addresses on the right side. Don’t know if that means that they voted multiple times from these other addresses in this election. But let’s assume that he only has a 25% accuracy rate. Still enough to make a huge difference in both elections. (Down ballot too for James in MI.). Parts 1 and 2 are just dead people who voted in a single county (Part 1) and voting district (part 2) in PA. Seems very well sourced. Not huge numbers—but multiply that across every county or voting district . . . Andy S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with those who maintain that this has been going on for a very long time. Modern databases are making it easier to discover, but you still have to wonder why so little was done up to now.

      Delete
    2. We all need to try to wrap our minds around the very possibile reality that we have not lived in a truly representative republic for...quite some time. Like many many things, the Donald Trump era has revealed the rottenness and collusion of the Establishment. So, why so little done up to now? Occams Razor dictates that it suited the Establishment to keep the game rigged with fake elections. Like two mafia families, the D and Rs carved up the territory and agreed to certain rules of their corrupt game. All was well until two events: 1) the Ds decided they wanted the whole pie not just a slice and 2) Donald Trump. Everything we are seeing fits neatly into this rationale.

      Delete
    3. Some have been referring to the Uniparty for decades. History doesn't begin when an individual is red-pilled.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    4. @Tom S.
      "Some have been referring to the Uniparty for decades."

      Yes, but if not exactly benign, who knew before Trump arrived and began to expose the Swamp...that it was so disgustingly malignant?

      Delete
    5. @ Cassandar

      "Yes, but if not exactly benign, who knew before Trump arrived and began to expose the Swamp...that it was so disgustingly malignant?"

      I'm raising my hand REALLY REALLY high right now!!!

      I contend that we've only slightly skimmed the scum on the surface and we'll never actually get into the bog underneath.

      Delete
    6. "I'm with those who maintain that this has been going on for a very long time. Modern databases are making it easier to discover, but you still have to wonder why so little was done up to now."

      Probably since the dawn of mankind... people have always sought to rule others, when peaceful means don't work, then by force.

      The only reason we all know about the corrupt elections now is because of the internet and computers.

      I think it's always been the case that a few rich men have manipulated and bought elections. Before that a few rich men bought kings and armies.

      Frank

      Delete
  10. I can't believe the bastards tried to steal the election. They must truly believe nothing will happen to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon... If history is any indicator more than likely nothing will happen to anyone involved.

      Those types of charges seem to only ever been minor state level hits and misses here and there for double voting or minor registration schemes.

      People have gotten very comfortable commiting mass felonies in the name of political parties.

      Delete
    2. Maybe nothing official....

      Delete
  11. How does this affect the John James Senate race in Michigan? On election night, his totals were equal to or slightly higher than Trumps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He conceded, for reasons that totally escape me. I don't know what happens if it can later be shown that he won.

      Delete
    2. John James is dead to me. He may be welcomed back as a foot soldier but he has forfeited any position of leadership by conceding. Apparently he also secretly dislikes Trump too, so salt in the wound.

      Delete
    3. James’s conceding made no sense unless it was a Bernie type deal involving expensive real estate in 2016 and whatever incentive Biden’s handlers dragged in front of him this time. We learned what Bernie was - it was just a matter of finding out his price(s).

      Delete
    4. @mark. No reason he cannot un-concede. Pretty sure it has happened before when results look clear and then they end up closer than expected.

      Delete
    5. The most famous example of "unconceding" being Al Gore, of course.

      Delete
    6. @Bebe

      That was my first reaction, too. Somebody got to him and reminded him how nice a career lies ahead if he plays ball.

      I hope I'm wrong.

      Delete
    7. Didn’t Al Gore do that in 2000?

      Delete
    8. A concession has no legal meaning. If it is later found that James actually won the race, he will be the Senator from Michigan. All he did with the concession is to acknowledge that he isn't going to contest the election himself.

      Delete
    9. @yancey

      True enough but by conceding he is walking away from the fight. He is abandoning the line in the very thick of the fight. Would anyone of us want a comrade to fight beside us when they desert like this? Never.

      Delete
  12. https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margolis/2020/11/28/claim-dominion-exec-bragged-that-he-made-sure-trump-is-not-gonna-win-on-conference-call-n1179285

    Eric Coomer.

    According to the article, Snopes won’t brand it True or False. Just Unproven.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been following Braynard since early on. He seemed to be doing the obvious things you need to do to check if there was fraud. It's easy to do, but it is labor intensive. We an't check with every single vote, but we can check a sample of voters and let statistics do the rest. Valid population sampling with the data he has collected can "beyond preponderance" sort of evidence. Now, when we couple this finding with the fact we are finding it everywhere and in such stark numbers, it really does begin to feel like maybe Trump was actually right--he won by a landslide with millions of ballot stolen nation wide. This sort of sampling efforts should be contemplated in EVERY state and every race.

    It may cost a few million dollars to do every race everywhere in the country, but that is such a small price for a free and fair election. In fact, I would advocate every state implementing audits like this in every election from now on in order to reassure the public there were no shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes total sense to me.

      Braynard is not doing this as part of the campaign, so he has had to get private funding. IMO, this should be paid for by the RNC or some similar org.

      Delete
    2. Not clear to me that all elements of the RNC want to get to the bottom of this. SP has warned about following this whichever side is involved.
      Senate intelligence Cmte. has not inspired much confidence.

      Delete
    3. Check out his tweet:

      >> Matt Braynard
      @MattBraynard
      ·
      1h
      Update:

      - The @FBI
      has proactively and directly requested from me the VIP findings that indicates illegal ballots.

      - By Tuesday, we will have delivered to the agency all of our data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. <<

      >> https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1333042159981912067 <<

      If FBI is asking him for his data, it sure sounds like an active investigation of fraudulent ballots is underway.

      Delete
    4. Andrea Widburg at Am Thinker has an article that is either fantastic or frightening.

      Delete
    5. Woah... Yes, must read:

      Flynn in action and leading a private intelligence group examining the servers?

      Soldiers and CIA personnel being killed in a firefight in the raid in Frankfurt?

      Is this believable?

      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/new_reports_about_election_manipulation_read_like_a_tom_clancy_novel.html

      Frank

      Delete
    6. Widburg says she has no idea whether it's true or not.

      Delete
    7. Interview with Gen Flynn and Gen McInerney

      I didn't hear Flynn discuss the raid

      McInerney does discuss the raid, says he can't confirm any deaths, also mentions Kraken...

      https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/wvw-tv-exclusive-lt-general-michael-flynns-first-interview-president-trumps-pardon

      Frank

      Delete
    8. Here's from Widburg's story:

      "Five US Army soldiers were also killed, and they are being explained away as dying in a “helicopter crash” in Egypt.

      Here's the report of the army identifying the 5 soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in Egypt:

      https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/army-identifies-5-americans-killed-helicopter-crash-over-egypt/NDUDFFYYUVEH3MYGHQMLONRD4Y/

      Which one is true?

      Frank

      Delete
  14. It's now official in PA as the State Supreme Court just ordered the earlier Commonwealth court order "vacated".

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/527838-pennsylvania-supreme-court-strikes-down-gop-bid-to-stop-election

    ReplyDelete
  15. And... that's a wrap folks...

    https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/28/pennsylvania-supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-to-mail-in-voting-on-equitable-doctrine-of-laches-n286450

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...as far as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is concerned. (And, BTW, laches is...and will be universally seen as...BS)

      As far as the American People are concerned its still early innings.

      As shipwreckedcrew writes in the redstate article:

      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court knows with this decision “They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind.”

      This is not going away.

      Delete
    2. And, I should add...

      Its kind of humorous that Chief Justice Roberts wouldn't rule on the Pennsylvania case because the case was premature and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the case because it was brought too late.

      That's what you get when the fix is in.

      Delete
    3. They only got away with it earlier (just prior to the election) because Justice Amy wasn't confirmed. There were four solid votes to review the PA court. I have to believe all four now feel totally confirmed in their original view by what has transpired, and I'd be willing to bet that Justice Amy will be on board with them. Where there's a will--and I believe there is--there's a way. Old legal maxim.

      Delete
  16. I have been thinking a lot about the Braynard data. I wish he would break it out by location of the respondants. It is important to know where in Pennsylvania the Republicans who claimed to return the ballot lived. If they show up disproportionately in, lets say, in deep blue counties, then that is evidence itself above and beyond the actual numbers from the survey.

    One way to do fraud here is to simply replace a Trump absentee ballot with a fake Biden ballot. You would do this, though, by opening the ballot early, when it comes in, but before you record the receipt, seeing who the voter voted for, and replacing it with the fake ballot, and then recording the arrival of the fake ballot, and then you trash the Trump ballot.

    Of course, it is entirely possible the Democrats were trashing the Trump ballots without trying to replace them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given the numerous tools the Dem Party and its various arms and collaborators had at their disposal it is incredible (as in not believable) that Mrs Clinton 'lost' in 2016. I wonder how she managed to screw it up?

    No wonder she lost it in her hotel room on election night 2016.

    https://torontosun.com/2016/11/16/clinton-was-in-a-rage-on-election-night-report

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forget who said this but they said the reason she lost was because Scytl (or whoever) in Germany didn't have a backup for the election. They were totally taken by surprise by Trump's turnout but couldn't scramble and improvise like year BECAUSE in 2016 they didn't have the backup like they did this year. Whoever it was who said this said they couldn't (i.e., weren't allowed to) explain how that worked and the listeners would just have to accept it.

      Delete
    2. So they thought they were prepared this year...

      Even so, they failed to anticipate Trump's numbers for a second time and had to improvise...but they weren't going to lose again...

      Delete
    3. Thats an interesting take on Clinton and certainly could be part of the meltdown. I think Clinton losing it after 2016 was also driven by the stark realization she and the other conspirators had gotten sloppy during their illegal spying on Trump. The paper trail left through the final months of Spygate potentially meant criminal indictments.

      When Rogers found out about the abuse of 702s, and the subsequent audit, everything the conspirators did adter that was meant to make the illegal, legal.

      Trump gets elected and...panic ensued.

      Or it could simply be she is just Lucifer in a pants suit. ;0)

      Delete
    4. I think Lucifer would take offense at the comparison.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  18. All this focus on the ground level evidence of fraud is no doubt important, but Sidney and I believe Trump and team have been crystal clear that a massive fraud has been perpetrated, their assertions have not been merely the vague attempts at a justification of a losing candidate, on the contrary, they have been bracing all too specific accusations of actual fraud. Nationwide and digitally. If the PA SC thinks they're going to keep a lid on this I have news for them. They have no idea how BIG this is going to blow up before it is over. None of us do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This.

      It is well past time to start thinking outside the comfortable contours of our assumptions. There is of course the tactical aspect of 'ground level evidence' as you put it that is necessary for the immediate fight. But there is the mich broader, strategic view that must be fleshed out and recognized, i.e., that we are at a juncture in American history where a cabal of enemies is trying to seize power. The Democrat party is now, indisputably revealed to be a criminal enterprise with backing from foreign entities hostile to America. How, then, does President Trump proceed? What can the Constitution inform under such assaults? Is this a Rubicon moment? Can Constitutional norms be observed when the Demokratzia has abandoned any fealty to it themselves? (In other words, is Team A compelled to abide by the rules of the game when Team B does not? When Mark talks about how big this could blow up, it is a reordering of norms and institutions that will necessarily require steps tantamount to war. We may not be comfortable with it but the Left has already launched the first waves of attack. Even if SCOTUS should declare that Trump is the legitimate winner, the Left will simply move to its next attack plan and it will involve open rebellion. There are only two ways out now: surrender or fight. The only question in my mind is whether the military will jump in on both sides or only one. Will Trump have the will to see it through? Is he a Lincoln or a Hayes?

      Delete
    2. If* Trump rightfully keeps his position of POTUS, this will likely trigger full scale insurrection by the Left. At that point, Trump would be well within his authority to invoke the Insurrection Act. At that point, I am also confident those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution - in the form of LOE, ex Military and trained civilians will make very, very quick work of the soy boys.

      I sure hope it doesn't come to it, but the Left isn't going anywhere unless carried out feet first or escorted.

      Dave

      Delete
    3. @ dave

      What is your view of military loyalties? Are there units who would side with the Democrats in the event that the Insurrection Act is invoked and Biden et al purport to issue orders to arrest Trump (after, perhaps, railroading through a lightning impeachment and Senate conviction/removal)? My sense is that Obama has many loyalists in the upper echelons of command but not lower ranks and non coms. Would the military split sides, do you think? Are we at the point already where active military are having whispered conversations about whose orders will be obeyed?

      Delete
  19. O/T

    Wherein I offer some Sunday morning reading of possible interest here.

    Where you can learn a hell of a lot more than you will watching Meet the Press or Face the Nation.

    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/rep-ilhan-omars-misguided-defense?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzQ4OTgsInBvc3RfaWQiOjIwNjMxNDYyLCJfIjoiUUFmUkIiLCJpYXQiOjE2MDY1OTYzNzQsImV4cCI6MTYwNjU5OTk3NCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTEyODY2MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.D-Qsn04Whm2PDoPjv5BhwuO8o962P1B2E6D4bQcGwcQ

    Greenwald raises numerous issues worth thinking about during this Time of Trump...you don't need to come from Greenwald's side of the political spectrum to find the issues he raises to be of great interest...Here are just a few.

    1. Ilan Omar's new-found appreciation for the Logan Act is just the organizational premise for this article. What the article is really about, in my judgment, is the gross hypocrisy of the Left, which we are seeing play out today as the party which has regularly expressed concern over the reliability of our elections now circles the wagons to claim the 2020 election was the fairest in our country's history.

    2. Regarding the Logan Act, far from being a dead letter, as it is often described, the Act has been and is regularly used by the 'Government' to repress dissent. Just because indictments are not brought doesn't mean it hasn't been and isn't being actively used.

    3. Joe Biden didn't just wake up one morning in January 2017 with a vague memory from law school that there is a law on the books that would criminalize conversations between a Trump transition official and a representative of another government. As recently as 2015, Democrats suggested that Republican Senators who disagreed with Obama's deal with Iran were violating the Logan Act. It is and has been part of their playbook.

    4. John Brennan's hypocrisy and duplicity are so astounding and so utterly evident that it is amazing that anybody takes this man seriously. First of all, lets agree that the man is a spy. Accordingly, he has spent his entire career lying about things, that is when he was not undermining foreign governments, meddling in their elections or ordering the assassination of their officials. Even if you believe that we somehow need people like John Brennan in our government to protect us from our enemies and assure American-led global peace and prosperity, you surely can't believe John Brennan's tweets come straight from the heart. Greenwald makes this crystal clear.

    5. Greenwald calls out an NBC reporter named Glenn Kirschner who has publicly called for 'Judge' Sullivan to ignore Trump's pardon of Flynn and sentence Flynn any way. Think about this. A representative of one of the United States' largest communications companies and a foundational member of the MSM, part of a corporate conglomerate with over $100 billion in revenue and a market capitalization in excess of $230 billion, actually believesa presidential pardon is not enforceable in a court of law. This stupidity would be shocking if it were not a perfect example of the kind of reporting the MSM does every day of the week.

    I'm sure that others will find much more interesting grist in Greenwald's mill. Highly recommended...while we wait for Clarence Thomas and friends to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, at his best (which is more and more frequent), GG is a stud.

      Delete
  20. "CNN: "So, the outcome would be to re-elect Donald Trump. Trump doesn't need to do anything other than to simply accept this outcome, which is Constitutional."

    Liberals get a dose of reality: Trump doesn't need to do anything... to get his second term. It's all in motion already...

    https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1332499247346888704

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Frank

      Right. Trump will have to do nothing.

      But, assuming the alleged frauds can be proven, major courage will have to be shown by the Supreme Court, several state legislatures, and the House of Representatives.

      Do you think they are up to it?

      Delete
    2. My feeling is yes.

      Does it really need to be proven? Because of all the evidence coming out, most Republican voters now know the election was stolen. The Leg. of those voters know their voters know this, so they need to follow along and decline their certification.

      Then, I think, the House will send their electors, and since there are more R's...

      just my .02... could be way off...

      Frank

      Delete
  21. Courage, the first of the virtues, upon which the others depend, is always in short supply. It took courage for AG Barr to re-enter the political fray, and it would be enormously inspiriting to see him set an example once again. I am not a lawyer (as should be obvious), so I’ll defer to the lawyers here to consider what actions he might take to en-courage others to act. It would have to be something more dramatic than the steps Mark has outlined. But what?
    On a different topic, I have been fascinated by a poster on other websites some of us here read, who uses birds as a metaphor for his larger political points. Today at PLB he posted a photo of the trumpeter swan, the largest of the North American water fowls, and noted that it takes a very long water “runway” to get airborne. But it does! Corraggio.
    Aletheia

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just heard a clip from a Fox Show on which Dana Perino said that she would be surprised if Dominion didn't sue the Trump Administration. I was beyond flabbergasted! I was stunned! Is this woman really that stupid? Evidently she is!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any place were we can make book on such theories?

      Delete