Georgia Gov. Kemp Calls For ‘Signature Audit’ After Ballot Stuffing Video Released

[GDL]

Know so!

Note that hair dye was not in my listed interests. That you think this meaningful speaks of other issues.

He's not young and the work he's doing & the schedule he's keeping is not easy. He's on the front line doing what he's been hired to do and I've watched him make some compelling arguments backed by some compelling & credible witnesses who have ended up being respected by some legislators who did not like what they were seeing that had taken place in their states.

 

[cow451]

Note that hair dye was not in my listed interests. That you think this meaningful speaks of other issues.

He's not young and the work he's doing & the schedule he's keeping is not easy. He's on the front line doing what he's been hired to do and I've watched him make some compelling arguments backed by some compelling & credible witnesses who have ended up being respected by some legislators who did not like what they were seeing that had taken place in their states.

Why would such a brilliant legal mind pedal dubious legal actions with only “some” compelling witnesses?

 

[GDL]

The issue is whether a legislature can, post election and certification, act contrary to its own valid election laws for appointing electors and choose electors inconsistent with the existing law. My answer is no, this would violate due process.

The issue seems a bit different according to Giuliani in the first 10 min here. It seems more about the state legislatures constitutionally and per Supreme Court decision taking back all authority because others, including other authorities, acted against it's election laws & delegated authorities. Thoughts?:

The ANSWER Exists In CONSTITUTION | Rudy Giuliani | Ep. 91 - YouTube

 

[cow451]

The issue seems a bit different according to Giuliani in the first 10 min here. It seems more about the state legislatures constitutionally and per Supreme Court decision taking back all authority because others, including other authorities, acted against it's election laws & delegated authorities. Thoughts?:

The ANSWER Exists In CONSTITUTION | Rudy Giuliani | Ep. 91 - YouTube

Other than Mr. Giuliani being wrong, it sounds nice.

 

[GDL]

Why would such a brilliant legal mind pedal dubious legal actions with only “some” compelling witnesses?

Why would one who thinks hair dye is important be suggesting I think there is a brilliant legal mind in play here? I've really not said anything one way or another about this.

To elaborate on "some": Some witnesses had interesting testimony, but were not great witnesses IMO; Giuliani has files of hundreds of sworn affidavits from witnesses and the hearings could only allow for some to actually speak; some of the testimony was not compelling IMO. It didn't seem (not sure) that Giuliani had control over who would speak - he certainly had not been able to do the normal processing of witnesses - it's not the court case, but public hearings held by state legislatures.

 

[GDL]

Other than Mr. Giuliani being wrong, it sounds nice

Maybe, but your authority is suspect & your legal opinion includes hair dye evidence. Not compelling.

 

[cow451]

Why would one who thinks hair dye is important be suggesting I think there is a brilliant legal mind in play here? I've really not said anything one way or another about this.

To elaborate on "some": Some witnesses had interesting testimony, but were not great witnesses IMO; Giuliani has files of hundreds of sworn affidavits from witnesses and the hearings could only allow for some to actually speak; some of the testimony was not compelling IMO. It didn't seem (not sure) that Giuliani had control over who would speak - he certainly had not been able to do the normal processing of witnesses - it's not the court case, but public hearings held by state legislatures.

Being consigliere for the President may be more than he can handle.

 

[cow451]

Maybe, but your authority is suspect & your legal opinion includes hair dye evidence. Not compelling.

The judges seem to be making my argument more eloquently than I can.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Governor Kemp is doing the work of Satan along with legions of Republicans involved in the election process in Georgia?

Deflect from the suitcases

 

[GDL]

The judges seem to be making my argument more eloquently than I can.

As they say, Amen to that.

 

[cow451]

Deflect from the suitcases

So, the Governor and other elected and appointed officials are not doing the will of Satan? These same officials have watched ALL the footage and determined nothing was improper.
Now, who are you saying is doing the work of Satan?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

So, the Governor and other elected and appointed officials are not doing the will of Satan? These same officials have watched ALL the footage and determined nothing was improper.
Now, who are you saying is doing the work of Satan?

explain the suit cases then are they proper election ballot boxes?

 

[GDL]

explain the suit cases then are they proper election ballot boxes?

Did you see Rudy's hair dye! Can you imagine that Rudy has a video site called Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense!? Rudy's lost 45 lawsuits already!!!

Suit cases, indeed. Nothing to see here. Pfft...

 

[lasthero]

explain the suit cases then are they proper election ballot boxes?

Yes, actually.

But the supposed “suitcases” were typical ballot containers used to secure ballots, Georgia’s Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs told us in a phone interview. Likewise, Matthew Mashburn, the state Senate’s appointee to the state election board, told us the video showed “standard secure containers that are ubiquitous in tabulation in Georgia.”

Video Doesn't Show 'Suitcases' of Illegal Ballots in Georgia - FactCheck.org

 

[cow451]

explain the suit cases then are they proper election ballot boxes?

Courtesy Newsmax.
The National Report (clip): AIR.TV

 

[NotreDame]

The issue seems a bit different according to Giuliani in the first 10 min here. It seems more about the state legislatures constitutionally and per Supreme Court decision taking back all authority because others, including other authorities, acted against it's election laws & delegated authorities. Thoughts?:

The ANSWER Exists In CONSTITUTION | Rudy Giuliani | Ep. 91 - YouTube

He is overlooking the Constitutional provisions giving Congress the authority to set dates when the States must have chosen their electors.

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
Article II, Section 1, 3.

Has Congress exercised this power granted to them by the Constitution? Yes.

3 U.S. Code, section 1. “The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”

The date of choosing electors has come and gone. The legislatures cannot today, or any time after today, choose their electors for this presidential election. To do so would implicate Congress’ constitutionally exercised power of setting the date when the electors are to be chosen.

 

[GDL]

3 U.S. Code, section 1. “The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”

The date of choosing electors has come and gone. The legislatures cannot today, or any time after today, choose their electors for this presidential election. To do so would implicate Congress’ constitutionally exercised power of setting the date when the electors are to be chosen.

I did read the USC and noted the same thing. In Giuliani's presentation he references legal decisions re: states legislatures' right to take back at any time the power to appoint electors.

I haven't delved any more than that for days now and don't recall anything about getting past the date issue you've referenced.

 

[NotreDame]

I did read the USC and noted the same thing. In Giuliani's presentation he references legal decisions re: states legislatures' right to take back at any time the power to appoint electors.

I haven't delved any more than that for days now and don't recall anything about getting past the date issue you've referenced.

He would be incorrect. The Constitution is clear. The date by which electors are to be set can be established by Congress and once established by Congress, only Congress can alter the date.

Reading the provisions together, the State legislatures may choose their electors by a date and time set by Congress to do so.