Erection Fraud

Fulton County Election Board Votes To Fire Election Director After 2020 ‘Dysfunction’

Fulton County was the center of several nationally scrutinized errors and unfortunate events during the election, leading to allegations of election manipulation. The county has historically had trouble running smooth elections, prompting the state and county to agree that in 2020, Fulton County’s ballot canvassing on election day would be independently monitored by a state-appointed supervisor.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fult...ook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
 
This was how the election was stolen.

Supreme Court turns away Pennsylvania election-related disputes

In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court has the opportunity to address the issue of "nonlegislative officials" changing election rules well before the next election and called the court's refusal to hear the disputes "befuddling."

"We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections," Thomas wrote. "The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us."

Alito filed a separate dissent, in which he said he agreed the cases should be heard, and was joined by Gorsuch.

"A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election," Alito wrote. "But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections."

In addition to declining to take up the two cases involving Pennsylvania's deadline for mail-in ballots, the Supreme Court also rejected election-related disputes from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin with no noted dissents.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-2020-election-disputes/

Clarence Thomas dissents from Supreme Court decision not to hear cases on Pennsylvania election fraud

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. Art. § 4, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cl 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example,” wrote Thomas.

“The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day,” Thomas continued. “Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence--such as a postmark--that the ballots were mailed by election day.”

“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election,” he added. “But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

"We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections," Thomas wrote in his dissent. "The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us."
 
Meanwhile the SCOTUS ruled trump taxes turn over to the Manhattan DA office.

Still waiting to see true proof of true election fraud that would overturn. Furthermore republican created that state law in Pa n failed to fix it before election. Democrat gov signed it into law. When will them repubs learn?? Never??
 
Our Supreme Court Goes Full Nicaragua in PA Election Case

What the Supreme Court codified yesterday, and what it started with the Texas rejection, is that election laws and procedures cannot be challenged beyond a state court, at any time, regardless of how badly those states shred the United States Constitution, and regardless of the major consequences to the other 49 states as a result. They don’t ever say that per se, but the results of what those two rulings have done are just that. Period.

Those trying to challenge Pennsylvania’s obviously corrupt and rigged election system have been told that they cannot challenge the laws ahead of the election, because there is not yet a victim. They’ve been told that fellow Americans impacted by Pennsylvania’s corrupt system cannot challenge, because of standing. Now they’ve been told that they cannot challenge after the election, because it’s after the election - and therefore moot.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

For the record, the broad strokes of the Pennsylvania case revolve around the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed election laws at the last minute to expand unchecked mail in voting. The Constitution, that once relevant but now apparently irrelevant document, makes it clear that the state legislatures are in charge of state elections. In Pennsylvania, as in many states, the legislature is controlled by Republicans - while Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is controlled by radical leftists. One lesson the late, great Rush Limbaugh helped teach us is that the left always uses the courts to get stuff done that they could never accomplish through the ballot box.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._goes_full_nicaragua_in_pa_election_case.html