For months, Democrats and their allies in the media have mocked President Trump and his supporters over judges that have dismissed election fraud cases brought before the courts before Joe Biden’s inauguration.

On December 26, the anti-Trump New York Times wrote:

President Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election over the last seven weeks — the most aggressive promotion of “voter fraud” in American history — failed to get any traction in courts across seven states, or come anywhere close to reversing the loss he suffered to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

After bringing some 60 lawsuits, and even offering financial incentive for information about fraud, Mr. Trump and his allies have failed to prove definitively any case of illegal voting on behalf of their opponent in court — not a single case of an undocumented immigrant casting a ballot, a citizen double voting, nor any credible evidence that legions of the voting dead gave Mr. Biden a victory that wasn’t his.

The dishonest Democratic Party media and Democratic Party leadership have known all along that the fight in the courts isn’t over, yet, they’ve mocked President Trump, his legal team, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell and her team, and Lin Wood, who the GA State Bar is currently trying to discredit as they threaten to strip him of his license unless he undergoes a mental health evaluation.

Trending: Catholic School Students Expelled for Using ‘Racist’ Acne Medication, Sue for $20 Million

The United States Supreme Court has now scheduled the Pennsylvania election case, Sidney Powell’s Michigan election case, and Lin Wood’s Georgia election case for its February 19 conference.

From Citizen Wells 

Pennsylvania election case:

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.,

v

Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, et al

Filed in the US Supreme Court December 20, 2020.

“Article II of the Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint [electors for President and Vice President] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). That power is “plenary,” and the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature in the furtherance of that constitutionally-assigned duty may not be ignored by state election officials or changed by state courts. Bush v. Gore (“Bush II”), 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000).

Yet, during the 2020 presidential election, that is what Pennsylvania Supreme Court did in four cases – three at issue in this Petition, and one already before the Court. Statutory requirements were eliminated regarding signature verification, the right of campaigns to challenge invalid mail ballots mandates that mail voters fill in, date, and sign mail ballot declarations, and even the right of campaigns to observe the mail ballot canvassing process in a meaningful way.

Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by Pennsylvania Legislature. According to public reports, without these protections, the resulting disqualification rate of invalid ballots was anemic—meaning over 110,000 invalid ballots were illegally counted—more than enough to have affected the outcome of the election, where the margin between the two principal candidates for President currently stands at 80,558.

Sidney Powell’s MI election fraud case:

Timothy King et al v Gretchen Whitmer

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Filed December 11, 2020

“The scheme and artifice to defraud illegally and fraudulently manipulate the vote count to manufacture the “election” of Joe Biden as president of the United States. The fraud was executed by many means, but the most fundamentally troubling, insidious, and egregious ploy was the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned “ballot-stuffing.It has now been amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software created and run the vote tabulation by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose. The petition detailed an especially egregious range of conduct in Wayne County and the City of Detroit, though this conduct occurred throughout the State with the cooperation and control of Michigan state election officials, including Respondents.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/163621/20201211163936285_Petition%20Michigan%20.pdf”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/163621/20201211163936285_Petition%20Michigan%20.pdf

PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Filed December 15, 2020.

11. In Michigan, a preliminary report, conducted by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. of Allied Security Operations Group, LLC (“ASOG”), summarizing the results of ASOG’s court-ordered forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems equipment used in Antrim County, Michigan, was released on December 14, 2020. A copy of this report is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.

The report delivers the following preliminary conclusion:

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.

Exh. A, ¶ B(2), p. 1. This Interim Report finds that the Dominion software was updated between the November 3, 2020 election and the subsequent recounts and that the updated software inexplicably produced wildly different results from the election day version. Id. at ¶ B(3), p. 2.

12. The Interim Report finds that the ballot adjudication process is a major avenue for election fraud on the Dominion system. Further, it finds that the adjudication log entries are missing from the system – evidence of tampering, destruction of evidence and a violation of state law. “[T]heir conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software.” Id. at ¶ B(15), p. 3.”

Lin Woods GA election fraud case:

L. LIN WOOD, JR.
Petitioner,
vs.
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al.,

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

“6. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision gave insufficient regard to the Secretary of State’s unlawful and unconstitutional usurpation of the Georgia Legislature’s plenary authority to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for the conduct of presidential and congressional elections. See Art. I, § 4, cl. L Bush v. Palm Beach County. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 77 (2000) (per curiam). That court incorrectly rejected Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the unlawful election procedure, which diluted his vote and violated his rights to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

7. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming the denial of emergency relief has now sanctioned the Secretary of State’s fundamentally and irredeemably flawed procedures concerning the “manner” for the conduct of the presidential and senatorial (federal) elections, in violation of constitutional mandates, which only underscores its error. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).”

“9. Unless this Court grants expedited consideration and relief, requiring that the constitutional deficiencies be remedied almost immediately, it will be impossible to repair the election results tainted by illegally cast ballots before Inauguration Day. Thus, without expedited review, Petitioner’s appellate rights – and this Court’s power to resolve the important constitutional questions presented by this election – will be irrevocably lost. Cf. Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 178 (2013). In other words, the expedited review is, as a practical matter, the only way to protect this Court’s ability to conduct a plenary review of the Eleventh Circuit’s rulings concerning the 2020 Presidential election.1”

See Supreme Court Docket links here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-815.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-845.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-799.html

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


Please note that because of a spike in malicious comments, we are holding all comments for moderation before publishing.