Wisconsin's Racine County Sheriff is partially just restating what we already knew from the Time Magazine article: several states violated their own laws in the 2020 elections. It is news, however, that officials ordered citizens to go along with violating the laws. Nursing homes across the state, for example, were ordered to comply with the election law violations.
The US Constitution says that states or Congress shall set the laws governing the conduct of elections; instead, such laws were violated in favor of the edicts of bureaucrats and governors. The election was consequently illegitimate, root and branch, in all such states. There appears to be no remedy for this.
UPDATE: The Sheriff says that the state Attorney General has rejected calls for an investigation at the state level. No charges are being brought at this time by prosecutors.
UPDATE: This is a slam-dunk case with hard evidence.
The investigation focused on abuse of voters confined to nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Investigators discovered that Wisconsin Election Officials expressly discussed that their proposed conduct for the 2020 election would violate state law, and yet they decided to do it anyway. They memorialized their decision in a letter they wrote and disseminated to every single county clerk’s office in Wisconsin.
Sheriff Schamling stated that officials indicated that they “needed the flexibility to violate the law,” and that they needed to “instruct county clerks to break the law.” Despite the blatant absurdity of the statements, the express illegality of their activities, and the fact that they were all being recorded on their Zoom meeting, election officials went ahead and violated the law anyway. The sheriff’s office played the video from the Zoom meeting of the commissioners discussing their need to break the law and instruct others to do the same.
Emphasis added. They estimate somewhere between fifty and a hundred thousand fraudulent votes from this activity alone, in a state Biden allegedly won by only twenty thousand.
8 comments:
The US Constitution says that states or Congress shall set the laws governing the conduct of elections....
No, the US Constitution says that Sate legislatures shall set the regulations governing elections; no other branch or agency of a State government has anything to say on the matter. It's that Critical Item that makes so many of the States' deviations from their own election regulations so illegal.
It's also established law (in the Scalia manner) that Congress can only modify existing State legislature-set regulations.
Eric Hines
Specifically it says the legislature, yes, but Congress is also permitted.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_rynxGDB.6u1JXbsTsHiCuxu.bgHGVmor3qDW_bt_UiU-1635460990-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQfR
Only god can hold satans accountable even as satan holds humanity to account.
Happened here in Harris County as well. Democrat judges acknowledged that County officials can't make election law as they go along, even during a pandemic, but those couple hundred thousand votes were still going to be counted because "fairness".
Specifically it says the legislature, yes, but Congress is also permitted.
Yes, and with that second phrase of what Congress is permitted to do, when the Progressive-Democrats pass their Federalization of elections law, the clash in court between that phrase and the Scalia doctrine will be dangerous and interesting.
Eric Hines
Well, Stalin was right.
I know people are often hot for voter id but I'm starting to think that's just another GOPe failure theater proposal. Does it really matter if you positively link a person to a vote that got harvested by an activist? They're not even trying to hid the fact they want to use universal mail voting to flood the country with ballots that can't be audited.
We've already seen what happened to a potentially winnable race in California. Virginia and New Jersey will be next. There might be some hope for Virginia as Fox, a very McAuliffe-friendly poll, just came out with Younkin ahead beyond the margin of error. That could be a tactical move to scare Democrat leaners and make Republican voters complacent. If McAuliffe somehow pulls out a narrow win from the usual late-night ballot batches then the fight over voting is going to get even uglier, and I'm not entirely sure how we vote our way through it.
I don't see how not doing voter ID would make things better. It may not be sufficient, but it is surely necessary.
When I read stories like this one of election officials blatantly disregarding the law I have to assume that they have a reason for believing that there will be no consequences, and it's likely that the reason is that they've been violating election laws for a long time with no consequences.
I'm leaning towards it being nice but not necessary for two reasons. One is that the Democrats are correct in saying the fundamental problem is not voting in place of a legal registered voters. The fundamental problem is the generation of ballots that appear to come from legal registered voters but do not. If we continue to allow lax ballot security, early voting, vote-by-mail, ballot curing, no excuse absentee voting, then presenting all the id in the world isn't going to solve the doubts many people rightly have about the integrity of election results. My second reason is that I fully expect that if we continue to have doubts about integrity after implementing voter id, then the response of the GOPe is gonna be shrugged shoulders and "we tried."
Post a Comment