As Someone Who Still Believes There Was Massive Electoral Fraud?

Upload and start working with your PDF documents.
No downloads required

How To Erase PDF Online?

Upload & Edit Your PDF Document
Save, Download, Print, and Share
Sign & Make It Legally Binding

As someone who still believes there was massive electoral fraud, what will it take for you to agree that this is not true?

First and foremost, I am sick and tired of all these non-attorneys bitching about no evidence. There is a very big difference between having no evidence and having no remedy that the court can provide. To all you smart asses that think there is no evidence—first, tell me what the remedy is, even if I have all the evidence! There are many reasons that the evidence, as strong as it may be, can’t change the outcome. For example, what if I came forward right now with all the evidence in the world — let’s say, I reviewed all the ballot envelopes in Pennsylvania and found that 200,000 of the signatures on the envelopes were simply missing. Normally, the signature is compared to the one on file to prove it really is the voter who is voting. If I have the evidence right now, it’s considered moot and untimely because the electoral college must vote in December on the date prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. So there is no current remedy because Jan 6th was the last opportunity to raise objections. That date settled all doubts, regardless of any fraud—nothing can be done now. But wait—what if I were more timely? According to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, election officials no longer have authority to reject ballots based on signature comparison issues. Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons. But what if we found the same thing in Michigan where the Law is not as screwed up by recent changes? The 200,000 invalid ballots are already mixed in and there is now no way to distinguish the invalid ballots from the valid ones. So the judge says, “There is no way to determine who received the invalid votes from the fraudulent ballots; so it would require a new election. But this would disenfranchise the entire state because the electoral college must vote next month and there is not enough time.” Yes, that’s right, it’s total BS for election integrity. What? You don’t think a bunch of people took advantage of that new loophole in Pennsylvania to stuff ballots for Bidon? Ok, let’s say you’re right, and you feel no need to push for the reforms that Republicans are calling for. Look Out! —- I guarantee Republicans are going to be taking every damn advantage to commit election fraud in this next election if you Democrats leave this loophole open! You don’t think so? Perhaps you say Republicans have normal American standards of morality just like Democrats, therefore, you can’t believe t would lower themselves to that level. Are you sure the moral inhibition against voter fraud is intact with Republicans? The vast majority of Republicans believe Democrats drew first blood in this election—and that is after four years of nonstop hoaxes and witch hunts against Trump and literally comparing Trump to Hitler over and over and over again in the mainstream media by Democrat ideologs. Remember, it does not matter what the “truth” is anymore. It is what each side believes that forms the basis for their inhibitions. I’m going to be writing articles on how to commit voter fraud—that’s right, I will teach how to defraud the voting system with the least amount of risk of getting caught. This will be my free speech, as political speech, which is the most highly favored speech that there is, to show exactly how the current laws are insufficient and how to commit voter fraud. I’m not saying that I will commit fraud—-I’m just going to show everyone how to do it with the least likelihood of getting caught. I’m saying my purpose is to show the holes in the system that need to be fixed. But don’t think for a second that Republicans feel moral-bound to follow the rules anymore after t believe Democrats drew first blood in that regard! In other words, THAT’S IT! You want to see voter fraud, let’s see if we can get over 100% voter turnout with Republicans “helping.” Look! Aside from a few Republicans like Mitt Romney that have their eyes shut, most Republicans believe the voter fraud occurred because t know Republican poll watchers were not allowed to see signature comparisons in the five largest cities in the five swing states Trump complained about. Democrats blame the physical restrictions on Covid’s social distancing requirements. But Republicans call BS because t were kept away from the action, usually over 100 feet from most of the action, watching people with Biden hats, shirts, and pins doing all the counting and processing. When Democrat election officials in Philadelphia need to hire extra temporary help for counting ballots—where do t go to find the temps—the Biden Campaign! How does that look to Republicans? Looks like fraud, of course. But sure, that’s not proof, but it’s dirty as hell and should be replaced with teams that include at least one Democrat and one Republican for each ballot counting station. There are plenty of easy fixes like this for most of the Republican complaints — but I have no faith anyone is going to change anything except to make it worse. And I guarantee, if you don’t fix it, , Republicans already believe t have the moral high ground because of Democrat cheating—so Republicans now feel free to cheat. I’m counting on it because it needs to happen if Democrats don’t fix the rules by closing the loopholes. One last thing about remedies. A judge will not take a case if he can rule that it would not make a difference in the outcome. And these decisions are made in state courts, where the court’s jurisdiction is limited to the state it is in. This is important because Trump lost by more than one state’s worth of electoral votes—practically making the voter fraud immune based on this principle (that the court’s decision could not change the outcome of who won). Again, this is because the state court can’t consider evidence of voter fraud outside its jurisdiction. In other words, none of the states, by themselves, could ever change the results in a presidential election where the loss is greater than that state’s share of electoral votes. Therefore, the court can turn down the case because, by itself, the remedy sought could not change the presidential election’s outcome—until there is another state that takes a case that brings the election within the threshold of being able to win at the electoral college. But since all state judicial systems buy into this same principle, judges can avoid the spotlight and headache — because nobody wants to or has to be first as t could all use the same excuse that there is not enough fraud to change the outcome of the election (NOR COULD THERE BE ENOUGH FRAUD TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME — even if every voter stole their neighbor’s ballot, BECAUSE the election was lost by more electoral votes than the entire state has—do you get it yet?!). So there are lots of reasons in this context that real evidence can’t make a difference in court. By the way, there was not even enough time for Trump’s lawyers to enforce a discovery order from a state judge. But in that case, the election official evaded service of process by hiding. Keep in mind that most civil cases usually require nine months to two years of discovery. Also keep in mind that the election officials in each county have all the hard evidence (the ballots, the signature envelopes, and voter’s comparison signatures as well as lists of temporary employees hired to help with the election). Trump’s attorneys did what t could do in a couple months—which is nothing. And in four years, the Democrats will not know what hit them because two months is not enough to change the outcome no matter how much fraud there is—as long as there is enough to win by more than two state’s worth of electoral votes. Follow me, and in the months to come, I will teach all who are interested — how to commit voter fraud under the current law with the least likelihood of getting caught. Of course, I know that some of you will use what I teach to actually commit voter fraud if these laws are not changed by election time. I expect it, and I’m counting on it because I believe Democrats will not take it seriously enough to fix until t believe it creates a disadvantage for them. Nevertheless, my official admonition is that no one should commit election fraud! That’s for all you Democrat FBI agents. But my less formal admonition is to the legislature. You should treat Election Law like Murphy’s Law—If anyone can get away with voter fraud, t will! So take it seriously and pay attention because I will be teaching (err, exercising my absolute right to free speech on political issues by teaching intricately how to perform each and every act necessary to get away with voter fraud under the current laws) exactly how the legislature got the law wrong. And I expect Democrats, Republicans, and others will walk through the gates you leave unlocked. Making it illegal is not good enough. You must greatly increase the likelihood that people will get caught and prosecuted when t violate the law! Otherwise, you will not discourage all the Republicans that are following me to learn how to steal the next election . . . . Is stealing from thieves really stealing? Also, before you FBI agents try to get a warrant, Is is illegal when the First Amendment clearly protects it, as there is no evidence of imminent harm or threat of imminent harm? Since no elections are imminent, the harm can’t be imminent because there is plenty of time to change election laws to close any loopholes that I reveal. Thus my teachings on how to get away with voter fraud under the current law can be construed as nothing more than political advocacy for change in election laws. And if the legislature leaves the laws unchanged and millions of people get away with voter fraud— that’s on you, for leaving the door wide open; it’s not on me for telling people where the door is.

Customers love our service for intuitive functionality

4.5

satisfied

46 votes

What Our Customers Say

Deborah W.
Deborah W.
I corrected a mistake in my form and replaced it with the right information. It took a few minutes only! Thanks a lot!
James S.
James S.
The process of PDF correction has never been so easy. I’ve managed to create a new document faster than ever before!
William G.
William G.
It was really easy to fill out my PDF document and add a signature to it! This is a great service! I recommend it to you!
Denis B.
Denis B.
I edited the document with my mobile phone. It was fast and, as a result, I’ve got a professional-looking document.

Supporting Forms

Submit important papers on the go with the number one online document management solution. Use our web-based app to edit your PDFs without effort. We provide our customers with an array of up-to-date tools accessible from any Internet-connected device. Upload your PDF document to the editor. Browse for a file on your device or add it from an online location. Insert text, images, fillable fields, add or remove pages, sign your PDFs electronically, all without leaving your desk.