JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

The legal argument: Why Trump will triumph in Pennsylvania and win the election

Here’s a video readers will like. Caveat: just because Trump can still win is not a reason to sit back and relax. Right now the battle is big and on. The good guys may have the law, the Supreme Court and some state legislatures and the office of the President. BUT the bad guys control the news channels, and Constitution is just a document, it’s only as good as the people who are willing to fight for it.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. If the nation never hears that the bad guys are in breach of the Constitution and that Biden hasn’t won, and the election is not over, then Biden becomes The Incumbent. Your job, as is mine, is to get around the censors every which way we can. Emails, comments, social media, letters to editor, letters to MP’s, and friends etc. Whatever you can do that spreads information helps the good guys. Information is our friend. Censorship is theirs.

All votes received after 8pm Nov 3 are automatically invalidated

The Penn Supreme Court changed the rules on the PA election on October 28th allowing votes that arrive after 8pm to be included “because Covid”. But the constitution says that only the State Legislature can do that. The Supreme Court rejected the request to speed this up, but not the petition for reviewing this decision

Three US Supreme Court justices have weighed in. Justice Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch have indicated they are ready to overthrow the PA Supreme Court ruling.

The real action starts at 1:14. (Not to take away from the sponsors Noble Gold, but that is a long intro).

I watch youtube at 2 x. If people find these on Bitchute or competitors let me know I will swap out the html.

Sorry, I’ve lost the h/t. Can’t find the link. Thanks, and please speak up!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (52 votes cast)
The legal argument: Why Trump will triumph in Pennsylvania and win the election, 9.4 out of 10 based on 52 ratings

24 comments to The legal argument: Why Trump will triumph in Pennsylvania and win the election

  • #
    PeterS

    The allegations are coming in thick and fast from all over the place. I hope they are not just the results of sore losers but much of it is based on actual voter fraud by the Democrats. I’m not even sure even if voter fraud is rife whether it can be proven in the courts to Trump’s favour. Oh what a headache for them.

    61

    • #

      Biden barely won and on Pennsylvania, the most corrupted voting state of the lot. He was 34,000 “ahead”. At the moment his win depends on PA. This is good for the Trump camp.

      In the latest batch of results from the Keystone State, Biden expanded his lead over Trump, which is now up to more than 34,000.

      Biden leads Trump by more than 22,000 votes in Nevada and is ahead by more than 7,000 in Georgia. Trump is cutting the Democrat’s lead in Arizona, which is down to 20,573 votes with 97% reported, but it is not clear whether his margins are sufficiently wide to overtake his rival in the state with 235,000 votes still to be counted.

      72

      • #

        There is nothing tangible, that I have seen, to litigate and recounts seldom overturn elections when the margin is close (like in the hundreds), let alone when you’re looking at several states.

        As much as I hate this from the perspective of climate change, there is NO path to victory for President Trump.

        I am exhausted from watching all of the returns. I see nothing to give me hope of overturning this.

        Winter IS coming.

        52

        • #
          Orson

          Game plan is simple. Alito signalled keeping out late ballots. If a recount scores win in Pennsylvania, then turning one other state wins It for Trump.

          Alternatives? If large vote steal and vote fraud is shown, then either courts or state legislators can Oder a new weeklong “snap election” or revote.

          30

        • #
          Orson

          Game plan is simple. Alito signalled keeping out late ballots. If a recount scores win in Pennsylvania, then turning one other state wins It for Trump.

          Alternatives? If large vote steal and vote fraud is shown, then either courts or state legislators can Oder a new weeklong “snap election” or revote.

          00

  • #
    Mike Jonas

    I think I am right in saying that US courts have been very very reluctant in the past to overturn an election result. Correct me if I am wrong. But if so, then it may be unwise to think something is different this time. Let’s suppose that the court does disqualify all the late votes: are we sure that it would change the result? I’m conscious of the fact that the Dems went hard for early/mail voting while the GOP went for voting on the day. Maybe the late botes were Republican? Or were the late votes the boxes of Dem-only votes?

    70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      While it’s hard sometimes to get a definitive “yes” , the fact there was a campaign of keeping the ballot reading a secret which is shown on a few videos as the case so where there’s smoke there’s fire .

      161

  • #
    Brad Done

    I got locked out of Twitter for trying to share this article.

    Wow – the media’s gaslighting of Biden’s win is real!!!

    [Email coming your way - Jo]

    70

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    The Australian Bolshevik Collective is spinning it heavily to make anyone who questiosn the clear cheating…as…well….you know….a lunatic…..said with teenager eye roll and emojis

    It really says a lot when what appears to be pathological lying, becomes mainstream.

    Its actually a really good demonstration of why conservatism matters – the “progessives” only progress morally downward.

    And yes, morals do matter…..without them we are no better than base animals. Last time I looked, no monkey had invented space travel.

    71

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    After watching the video….that put a spring in my step….

    Bye bye sleepy joe….

    90

  • #
  • #
    Deano

    Amazing that the COVID delayed postal votes were almost all for Biden, given that in those critical seats the regular polling booth votes for Biden or Trump were in almost 1:1 ratio.

    And that’s not the only Biden miracle. He’s already cured and banished COVID-19! Today, we see vast crowds of his supporters – presumably the same ones who didn’t turn out to his rallies and had to post their votes in – all dancing and hugging each other around the White House mostly without masks.

    60

  • #

    There is a flaw in your logic.
    Let’s assume the Supreme Court was to rule against the lower court.
    *** This does NOT mean, throw out all votes received after election day. ***

    Act 77 states that a violation would render the ENTIRE LAW INVALID!
    Act 77 permitted “all voter” mail in ballots.

    #1. There were people who were on the MAIL IN roll BEFORE this happened. You would have to separate them out. Their votes still count.

    #2. Then, throw out ALL the other MAIL IN votes, not just the ones received after election day.

    21

  • #
  • #
  • #
    DonS

    Hi Jo

    The US Supreme court had the opportunity to rule on the PA shenanigans weeks ago and decided to kick it down the road. Well here we are down the road and the court is now in a position it would not have wanted to be in. Ironically the conservative majority on the court now makes it less likely that they will be willing to make a ruling that would be seen as effectively deciding the election.

    The point of putting conservative judges on the court was to prevent the politicisation of the court. I’m just warning everyone not to expect this court to make a ruling that we might want. It is more likely that the justices will regard the long term integrity of the court more important than keeping Trump in the White House.

    20

    • #
      The Depraved and MOST Deplorable (and still asleep) Vlad the Impaler

      Greetings, Don (or ‘DonS’ as your handle says):

      I would like to respond to your statement, ” It is more likely that the justices will regard the long term integrity of the court more important than keeping Trump in the White House. ”

      Your statement is basically true. The justices may take the integrity of the court into consideration, but I think the issue it much larger than that.

      As of right now, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there were some fairly serious shenanigans that went on, in several places, if not many. As of right now, the integrity of the election process itself is under scrutiny.

      If, as has been alleged, there was rampant vote manipulation on the part of one political party, this would effectively mean that the party that did this manipulation can, and most likely will, do it almost anywhere or anytime it chooses to do it. Once you control how any and all votes are counted, you can, at your discretion, affect the outcome of any election, to suit your needs at the time. In effect, there is no integrity in the election process, and elections become the same type of affair as what took place in the FSU, where 99% of all the ‘ballots’ cast were for the General Secretary of the Party (e.g., Gorbachov).

      I agree the justices might pass on this one, but if they do, then we have a de facto sanction for vote manipulation, and elections become little more than political theatre.

      I welcome your comments, with all due Regards,

      Vlad

      30

  • #
    The Quiet Farmer

    Interesting, I got two errors (500 I think) Before the site opened on the third try over a 20 min period.
    I take it SCOTUS would only be ruling on the constitutional aspects of the mail in ballots which appears to state quite clearly – no ballots after Election Day. By my clock 4am is after polling day!
    Then it goes back to the legislature.

    10

  • #
    NigelW

    It goes something like this-

    Vote Counters ” We can’t tell which votes arrived after 8pm, we didn’t track that”

    Courts ” Ah well, count stands as is then, nothing to see here, move along”

    00

    • #
      Kneel

      Courts ” Ah well, count stands as is then, nothing to see here, move along”
      Courts: “We told you to do that before election day – your contempt of the court gives us no choice but to invalidate the entire thing.
      You can hold another election if you like, but it must be completed, counted and certified by the federal constitutional deadline.
      As to the matter of the observers, this is also unconstitutional – you must allow observers to have meaningful access.
      Thank you, come again.”

      40

  • #
    CHRIS

    Pennsylvania….SO WHAT?? Even if there was some shenanigans in the voting system…SO WHAT?? The Donald has to prove fraud in other states like Michigan and Wisconsin before he has any chance of becoming President. This proves one thing…the US electoral system is a big fat joke. If you’ve got 50 states going their own way with voting procedures, then that’s a recipe for disaster. Until there is some sort of consistency between the states (like we have in Australia), then future US elections will be a laughing stock

    30

    • #

      Our constitution assigns the responsibility for conducting elections to the state legislatures. The only way that can be altered is through an amendment to the constitution (there have been 27 of those ratified in the 231 years since the Constitution was enacted).

      Short of that, the legislatures might be influenced by tying election reform and standardization to federal funding, but, in these times, I doubt there would be many who would pursue something like that.

      00

  • #
    Kneel

    “Until there is some sort of consistency between the states …”

    It’s both an advantage and a disadvantage – for the exact same reason.
    A single system makes sure everyone is treated the same, but allows for a single weakness to be exploited everywhere.

    20