Below is the main way that the Democrats cheated in the 2020 election and continue to do so. Ballot harvesting and ballot box stuffing using absentee ballots. All illegal votes. But this has been the playbook over the last several years -- and everyone working in politics knows this. The Democrats are just the only ones who lie and say it doesn't exist. These cases are more likely to get reported in heavily Democratic regions when a Democrat loses (to another Democrat) as a result of the cheating. When a Republican loses, they claim no evidence and demand to "count every vote". Trump was right... and another "conspiracy theory" is being proven true. Queens man accused of submitting 100+ fake absentee ballot applications in 140-count indictment https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...lications-in-140-count-indictment/ar-AA1lKVpD NEW YORK (1010 WINS) -- A 32-year-old man was arraigned on Tuesday on an 140-count indictment charging him for submitting over 100 fake absentee ballot applications for the Democratic primary election in 2022, Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz announced. Abdul Rahman charged with 20 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree; 20 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, 20 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, 20 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, 20 counts of falsifying business records in the second degree, 20 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree, and 20 counts of illegal voting. According to the charges, on Aug. 23, 2022, Jordan Sandke went to his local polling place in Richmond Hill to vote in the Democratic primary election and was told that he would be unable to cast his ballot in person because an absentee ballot had already been requested in his name. An investigation found Sandke’s absentee ballot application, with his name, address and date of birth, was signed and dated Aug. 1, 2022. The application listed Rahman, as an authorized representative to pick up the ballot. Sandke, however, had not filled out, signed or submitted the application, and said he had never met the defendant or authorized him to pick up an absentee ballot on his behalf. Further investigation further revealed that on Aug. 8, 2022, Rahman visited the Queens County Board of Elections and dropped off 118 absentee ballot applications, all of which designated him as the person authorized to pick up the ballots. Of the 118 applications, 32 were approved and the ballots were picked up by Rahman the next day. Officials interviewed several of the individuals whose names and personal information were listed in the ballot applications and learned that none of them had themselves submitted the form, much less authorized Rahman to pick a ballot up for them. Following the indictment, Rahman surrendered Monday to the Queen’s District Attorney’s Office. He is scheduled to return to court on Jan. 30, 2024. If convicted, Rahman faces up to seven years in prison. "Every vote has to count. Election integrity is the foundation of a viable, working democracy," DA Katz said. "We will vigorously prosecute anyone who threatens in any way to undermine that integrity,"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/opinion/trump-colorado-ballot-ban.html Barring Trump From the Ballot Would Be a Mistake Dec. 22, 2023, 5:03 a.m. ET By Samuel Moyn Mr. Moyn is a professor of law at Yale. When Donald Trump appeals the Colorado decision disqualifying him from the ballot in that state’s Republican primary, the Supreme Court should overturn the ruling unanimously. Like many of my fellow liberals, I would love to live in a country where Americans had never elected Mr. Trump — let alone sided with him by the millions in his claims that he won an election he lost, and that he did nothing wrong afterward. But nobody lives in that America. For all the power the institution has arrogated, the Supreme Court cannot bring that fantasy into being. To bar Mr. Trump from the ballot now would be the wrong way to show him to the exits of the political system, after all these years of strife. Some aspects of American election law are perfectly clear — like the rule that prohibits candidates from becoming president before they turn 35 — but many others are invitations to judges to resolve uncertainty as they see fit, based in part on their own politics. Take Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which blocks insurrectionists from running for office, a provision originally aimed at former Confederates in the wake of the Civil War. There may well be some instances in which the very survival of a democratic regime is at stake if noxious candidates or parties are not banned, as in West Germany after World War II. But in this case, what Section 3 requires is far from straightforward. Keeping Mr. Trump off the ballot could put democracy at more risk rather than less. Part of the danger lies in the fact that what actually happened on Jan. 6 — and especially Mr. Trump’s exact role beyond months of election denial and entreaties to government officials to side with him — is still too broadly contested. The Colorado court deferred to a lower court on the facts, but it was a bench trial, meaning that no jury ever assessed what happened, and that many Americans still believe Mr. Trump did nothing wrong. A Supreme Court that affirms the Colorado ruling would have to succeed in constructing a consensual narrative where others — including armies of journalists, the Jan. 6 commission and recent indictments — have failed. The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on the fate of presidencies before, and its finer moments in this regard have been when it was a force for stability and reflected the will and interests of voters. Almost 50 years ago, the court faced a choice to end a presidency as it deliberated on Richard Nixon’s high crimes and misdemeanors. But by the time the Supreme Court acted in 1974, a special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, had already won indictments of Nixon’s henchmen and named the president himself before a grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator. Public opinion was with Jaworski; the American people agreed that the tapes Nixon was trying to shield from prosecutors were material evidence, and elites in both political parties had reached the same conclusion. In deciding against Nixon, the Supreme Court was only reaffirming the political consensus. As the constitutional law professor Josh Chafetz has observed, even United States v. Nixon was suffused with a rhetoric of judicial aggrandizement. But if the Supreme Court were to exclude Mr. Trump from the ballot, seconding the Colorado court on each legal nicety, when so many people still disagree on the facts, it would have disastrous consequences. For one thing, it would strengthen the hand of a Supreme Court that liberals have rightly complained grabs too much power too routinely. Joe Biden came into office calling for a re-examination of whether the Supreme Court needs reform, and there would be considerable irony if he were re-elected after that very body was seen by millions to pre-empt a democratic choice. Worse, it is not obvious how many would accept a Supreme Court decision that erased Mr. Trump’s name from every ballot in the land. Liberals with bad memories of Bush v. Gore, which threw an election to one candidate rather than counting votes, have often regretted accepting that ruling as supinely as they did. And rejecting Mr. Trump’s candidacy could well invite a repeat of the kind of violence that led to the prohibition on insurrectionists in public life in the first place. The purpose of Section 3 was to stabilize the country after a civil war, not to cause another one. As it unfolds, the effort to disqualify Mr. Trump could make him more popular than ever. As harsh experience since 2016 has taught, legalistic maneuvers haven’t hurt him in the polls. And Democrats do nothing to increase their popularity by setting out to “save democracy” when it looks — if their legal basis for proceeding is too flimsy — as if they are afraid of practicing it. That the approval ratings of the Democratic standard-bearer, Mr. Biden, have cratered as prosecutions of Mr. Trump and now this Colorado ruling have accumulated indicates that trying again is a mistake, both of principle and of strategy. Perhaps the worst outcome of all would be for the Supreme Court to split on ideological lines, as it did in Bush v. Gore, hardly its finest hour. Justices have fretted about the damage to their “legitimacy” when their decisions look like political choices. They often are, as so many recent cases have revealed, but when the stakes are this high, the best political choice for the justices is to avoid final judgment on contested matters of fact and law and to let the people decide. In the Nixon era, the justices were shrewd enough to stand together in delivering their decision: It was handed down 8-0, with one recusal. In our moment, the Supreme Court must do the same. This will require considerable diplomacy from Chief Justice John Roberts, and it will define his stewardship as profoundly as cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which his effort to herd his colleagues into consensus failed. In this situation, unlike that one, it will require him to convince his liberal colleagues who might otherwise dissent. For their part, they ought to be able to anticipate the high and unpredictable costs of presuming that judges can save a nation on the brink of breakdown. The truth is that this country has to be allowed to save itself. The Supreme Court must act, but only to place the burden on Mr. Trump’s political opponents to make their case in the political arena. Not just to criticize him for his turpitude, but to argue that their own policies benefit the disaffected voters who side with a charlatan again and again. Samuel Moyn teaches law and history at Yale.
It’s strange to see a law professor arguing that the SCOTUS should judge based not on the laws but on politics.
That dude is smart. You should vote for him. Glad they are prosecuting this guy. But it is a giant leap to go from this one case to concluding that every absentee ballot is illegally cast. If that were so, there would be a lot more complaints from voters turned away from the polling station because someone harvested their absentee ballot. More likely, there are a couple of one-offs that don't have a statistically significant impact on the outcome.
32 whole ballots? In New York? And he got away with it? Oh, the humanity. This changes everything!! Wait...
That dude is very smart. A giant leap is exactly what you've got here, lol The fact that Sandke cannot vote because someone had already fraudulently voted on his behalf shows that the system worked. TJ might think that this shows a flaw in the system when, in fact, it demonstrates that any mass-scale absentee ballot fraud is going to fail very easily. ps. A common strawman argument is that elections must be without any error, but we all know that's impossible. There are bound to be some errors and some criminal activities, but the question is, are they large enough to change the result? The answer has been a resounding no. The 2020 election is considered the most sound election ever after major challenges have shown it was fine. ps2. A common logical mistake is that elections also must be without any errors, and that any error is proof enough it was 'stolen.' This logic is still pretty widespread among Republicans today.
Considering there have been several cases of voting fraud committed by Republicans this isn’t just a logical mistake but more of rules for thee and not for me.
Ken Paxton's kissing that butt again. Greaseball lawyers like greaseball men, and Trump likes teen girls, but Ken's party will tell you it's those gays that are pedophiles.
It's going be hilarious when the epistein list gets released in January and trumps name will be on the list. I wonder what the dipshit MAGAts will say then @Trader_Jorge
Everyone already knows he hung out with Epstein and has been accused of rape by girls there. Everyone's seen pics of them cuddling with teens at Trump's "pageants" as well. MAGAS don't care. They don't care who he rapes, gropes, bullies, or that he lusted over his daughter, had affairs on all his wives, or anything else. They don't care if he's an insurrectionist, con, sociopathic liar, or whether he has committed numerous felonies. They're brainwashed beyond belief that he tells them the truth, he's got their back, he's wrongly accused of everything he's ever done illegally, and he's chosen by God to run this country like the savior he claims to be. One word: CULT
It's just cruel to keep running this man. He's unwell. https://www.meidastouch.com/news/tr...rend-in-u-s-as-claims-of-putrid-odor-go-viral
I was told by MAGAts @Salvy that trump was crushing biden in every poll and everyone was over biden? It's almost as if voters perception change quickly as the economy picks back up like i predicted @Astrodome .
Imagine worshipping a politician who's done absolutely nothing for you and you still bend over backwards for him. You MAGA cultists are genuinely the most pathetic people alive. I can't imagine bending over backwards and taking up the ass for a billionaire. Genuinely the most pathetic thing one can do. Biden atleast made me rich and helped my business grow while you folks lick trumps ass for nothing. @Space Ghost this is what you call pathetic not whatever bs you accuse me of. MAGATs are a parasite to society
