SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1300752)5/17/2021 12:10:48 PM
From: i-node2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Mick Mørmøny
Winfastorlose

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580455
 
No, it doesn't make it "legal". It means a particular court turned a blind eye to it and decided to let it happen. One court, one judge, one carefully chosen judge. Now, it DID allow you to steal the election. But it didn't make it "legal". It just made it so you can get away with it. But more information is coming in about what actually happened, and it looks pretty bad.

For example:

Now, in a report at the Thomas More Society, Erick Kaardal, a special counsel with the project, said documents that have been obtained confirm “election officials from the five largest Wisconsin cities – Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine and Kenosha … adopted and implemented private corporate conditions, including direct corporate and corporate employee engagement in the administration of the general election.

“Moreover, the mayors of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay agreed in private meetings to place the same corporate conditions on their election administration. These are the five largest cities in Wisconsin. The private corporations through engaging in these five cities’ election administration hoped to conduct outreach and target certain neighborhoods and communities for extra voting information, to register more voters and to obtain more votes and absentee votes,” he reported.

================

If you simply read the above that is clearly unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause. But it is graft by any metric. Why should Arnold and Zuck be able to buy the ability to control how many Democrats vote versus Republicans?

This is how you stole the election.