From American Greatness:
“Everything is at stake in this election cycle, the republic is at stake,” State Senator Doug Mastriano said during a forceful opening statement Wednesday afternoon. “We’ve got a lot of problems . . . it opened the door to a lot of the shenanigans and abuses and folly that we’re dealing with in this state.” (Mastriano is a retired U.S. Army colonel with a doctorate in history and four masters degrees.) The first-term state legislator said the committee had heard from “tens of thousands” of Pennsylvanians demanding action.
Several witnesses told the senate majority policy committee about widespread malfeasance including unsecure counting facilities, secret pre-canvassing of votes, massive and sudden vote dumps for Joe Biden, ballots scanned more than once, and “armloads of ballots” arriving out of nowhere without a chain-of-custody paper trail. Poll watchers were harassed, called racists, and kept far away from the vote-counting process; one longtime processing facility in Delaware County was moved from a courthouse to a parking lot near a loading dock with open access.
“There was no cooperation, complete resistance from election night and every day after,” Leah Hoops, a Republican poll watcher, told the committee.
After an injunction forced county election officials to permit observers into the facility, they were only allowed in for five minutes every two hours and kept “20 feet away from any physical ballot,” Hoops testified. “We have been intimidated, threatened, bullied, spent countless hours away from our families, friends and jobs. We have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury.”
Another poll watcher, a data scientist working with Hoops, testified that voters who were supposed to receive provisional ballots instead received regular ballots and that approximately 70,000 mail-in ballots were abandoned and untabulated. (Read more.)
From The Epoch Times:
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.”
Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly said in a statement, “A number of compromises of Pennsylvania’s election laws took place during the 2020 General Election. The documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing have undermined our elector process and as a result we cannot accept certification of the results in statewide races.”
They added, “We believe this moment is pivotal and important enough that the General Assembly needs to take extraordinary measures to answer these extraordinary questions. We also believe our representative oversight duty as Pennsylvania’s legislative branch of government demands us to re-assume our constitutional authority and take immediate action.”
The proposed text lists three steps taken by the judicial and executive branches to change the rule of the election.
First, on Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “unlawfully and unilaterally” extended the deadline by which mail ballots could be received, mandated that ballots without a postmark would be treated as timely, and allowed for ballots without a verified voted signature to be accepted, the resolution says.
Second, on Oct. 23, upon a petition from the secretary of the commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that signatures on mail-in ballots need not be authenticated.
And third, on Nov. 2, the secretary of the commonwealth “encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects,” the resolution says.
All of the changes are contrary to the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires mail-in ballots to be received at 8 p.m. on Election Day, mandates that signatures on the mail-in ballots be authenticated, and forbids the counting of defective mail-in ballots.
The resolution also lists a variety of election irregularities and potential fraud, including the issues brought up by witnesses during the hearing before the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee on Nov. 25.
“On November 24, 2020, the Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation,” the resolution states.
“The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately.”
Pennsylvania State Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, said Friday that the GOP-controlled state legislature will make a bid to reclaim its power to appoint the state’s electors to the Electoral College, saying they could start the process on Nov. 30. (Read more.)
Also from The Epoch Times:
In Pennsylvania, a judge ruling may clear a narrow path for a Trump victory in the Keystone state.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough wrote in an opinion (pdf) on Friday that the Republican argument that the mail-in voting conducted in the recent general election was unconstitutional may win the case, according to Act 77. She wrote to explain her rationale for her injunction blocking the certification of Pennsylvania’s election results.
McCullough suggested that because having the legislature to appoint the electors—an “untenable” option “if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method”—was not the only “equitable remedy” for the state to uphold “a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election,” she would grant to injunction.
But her ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which is the appeal court in the state, on Saturday. The case is now very likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Another possible path for Trump’s reelection goes through the state legislature.
The GOP state lawmakers in Pennsylvania announced on the same day that they will introduce a resolution to request the United States Congress to declare that the results of the 2020 election in the Commonwealth are in dispute, The Epoch Times reported.
State senator Doug Mastriano, a Republican, told Steve Bannon’s War Room on Friday that the GOP-controlled state legislature was going to make a bid to reclaim its power to appoint the state’s electors to the Electoral College.
The Pennsylvania Republicans took those actions after a public hearing organized by the Senate Republicans on Nov. 25. Giuliani, several poll watchers, and experts testified during the hearing.
Similar hearings have been scheduled in Arizona for Monday and in Michigan on Dec. 1.
Trump on Saturday praised state lawmakers for defending the U.S. Constitution.
“So much credit to all of the brave men and women in state houses who are defending our great Constitution. Thank you!” the president wrote in a Twitter post. (Read more.)
From Revolver:
A thorough and damning new analysis just published calls the legitimacy of this critical period into question and shows just how completely ridiculous and far-fetched the core of Joe Biden’s comeback really was in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. It flags four individual vote dumps critical to Joe Biden’s “victory” in these states and shows, convincingly, that their ratios of Biden votes to Trump votes were profoundly anomalous when compared to other dumps in those states and virtually every other vote dump across the country.
The report is written in dry and academic language, filled with graphs, footnotes, and various hedges, but its implications could not be more obvious. Indeed, if the authors were less tepid, they might have fairly titled it:
Joe Biden’s Victory Was Not Legitimate. And Now We Can Prove it.
Because that’s exactly what the report does. It looks at election data and shows what many would expect: the states and cities that had the most suspicious circumstances on election night and into the next day are precisely where the analysis flags extreme anomalies.
Summary and Background of the Report
It starts out with the background on Michigan and Wisconsin — the famous “vote spikes” that were plainly ridiculous and fundamentally changed both the electoral reality and the narrative. The report reminds us of the infamous vote spikes in Michigan and Wisconsin. (Read more.)
From Big League Politics:
Michigan whistleblowers who have signed sworn affidavits attesting to grotesque electoral fraud by Democrats are demanding to be heard in a legislative hearing similar to what took place in Pennsylvania earlier this week.
“Media says they see no evidence of fraud. Legislative leadership says, “We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan.” Hundreds of poll challengers who witnessed fraud such as myself beg to differ. We believe that the truth about election needs to finally be heard without a media censorship filter,” former state senator Patrick Colbeck said in a press release.
“The people of Michigan deserve fair, open, transparent elections, and this year, for the first time in decades, their trust in our elections was shattered. If lawmakers fail in this most basic duty to hear the testimony of dozens of not hundreds of eyewitnesses, Michiganders at large will lose faith not only in their electoral process but in their Legislature as well,” said poll worker Adam de Angeli of Milan. (Read more.)
From UncoverDC:
Earlier this evening, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a brief, three-page order dismissing an election lawsuit brought by Sean Parnell and several other qualified Pennsylvania voters challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s recently-enacted state law governing mail-in voting. In doing so, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also vacated a lower court judge’s preliminary injunction preventing the Pennsylvania Secretary of State from certifying the results of the 2020 General Election pending resolution of the lawsuit.
In dismissing the lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did so on the narrowest of grounds: that Parnell and the other voters waited too long to file it. By styling their decision thus, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court avoided having to decide the case on the actual merits: Is the Pennsylvania mail-in voting law unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania state constitution? As we shall see below, the answer is most likely “yes.”
The Pennsylvania constitution allows absentee voting under five situations: (1) work; (2) illness; (3) physical disability; (4) the election occurring on a religious holiday; or (5) a person’s election-day duties themselves preventing the person from voting in person. No other justifications are allowed for absentee voting under the Pennsylvania constitution.
Towards the end of 2019, a majority of both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the relevant mail-in voting legislation at issue here. As I discussed in my previous two articles, this legislation expanded voting by mail beyond the above-five situations under the Pennsylvania constitution to include any situation. In other words, the law purported to allow voting by mail for any reason whatsoever.
But while the General Assembly passed the legislation, this was not, in and of itself, sufficient to amend the Pennsylvania constitution and expand voting by mail beyond the above-five circumstances. To amount to a constitutional amendment, the Pennsylvania constitution requires that the law be passed a second time by a majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly in the next legislative assembly. Once that is done, a majority of Pennsylvania voters then have to approve the mail-in voting legislation in a statewide election.
The above process has not taken place. Indeed, the Pennsylvania General Assembly itself appears to have recognized that such an expansion of mail-in voting would have to come about via a constitutional amendment, as the law itself was originally presented as a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Read more.)
More HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment