DOJ To Sue Georgia Over Voting Law That’s Less Restrictive Than Delaware

Why is the DOJ suing? Didn’t they get the memo that Democrats are now supporting voter ID? Also, there’s that whole Constitution thing, which empowers states to set their own conditions for voting and limits Los Federales (say, when is the DOJ going after states which allow illegal aliens to vote?)

In Suing Georgia, Justice Department Says State’s New Voting Law Targets Black Voters

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that the U.S. Justice Department is suing the state of Georgia over its new voting law, saying that the controversial measure is intended to restrict ballot access to Black voters.

“Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia’s election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Garland said at a news conference.

Ah, so playing the Race Card. I guess that’s Garland’s only argument

Georgia AG: DOJ lawsuit against new election law is a ‘campaign flier’ and ‘blatantly political’

Illegitimate President Joe BidenGeorgia Attorney General Chris Carr defended his state’s new voting rights law on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” pointing to what he called the politicization of the Justice Department under U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.

The law, signed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, requires voters to present identification to request and/or file an absentee ballot, replacing the signature matching processes.

It also requires ballot drop boxes in each county, while mandating they are physically secure, and stiffens penalties on electioneering at polling stations — the subsection of the bill decried by Democrats as purportedly preventing voters in line from being given bottled water.

The passage of the law caused President Biden to declare it “Jim Crow on steroids,” and Major League Baseball to pull its All-Star Game out of the Atlanta area and move it to Denver.

Proponents of the law point to the fact it makes Georgia a proverbially freer state election-law wise than the president’s home state of Delaware and the similarly deep blue stronghold of New York – where the MLB is based.

For instance, Georgia will formally have 17 days of early voting, while Delaware will have just 10, starting in 2022. Georgia has no-excuse mail in voting; Delaware doesn’t. Delaware does require a voter to prove their identification. Most states, including Delaware, do not allow people to randomly wander around and give people in line food and drink, because there is no electioneering with a certain distance, and it is almost considered a bribe.

Carr called the lawsuit a “campaign flier,” telling host Tucker Carlson the DOJ “is playing politics.”

“They are not upholding the rule of law and this blatantly political lawsuit is legally, factually, and constitutionally wrong. Anybody who looks at our law can see it improve security and access, improves transparency in Georgia’s law,” he said.

Well, yeah. But, Democrats do not want to actually read the Georgia law. They just want to trot out their hater talking points.

Carlson pointed to the DOJ official spearheading the lawsuit, Biden appointee Kristen Clarke.

Carlson called Clarke a “bigot” – in reference to her previous writings about Black people being a superior race due to higher levels of melanin, a claim that Clarke told Congress during her confirmation hearing was a satirical collegiate exercise.

So, a Race Card lawsuit with a bigot spearheading it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

72 Responses to “DOJ To Sue Georgia Over Voting Law That’s Less Restrictive Than Delaware”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: there’s that whole Constitution thing, which empowers states to set their own conditions for voting and limits Los Federales

    Congress has the power to regulate federal elections. See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1; also Amendments Fourteen and Fifteen.

    William Teach: (say, when is the DOJ going after states which allow illegal aliens to vote?)

    Non-citizens can’t vote in federal elections.

    • Conservative Beaner says:

      They can’t but they probably do. With states like California that have motor/voter registration that allows illegals to be registered to vote automatically.

      Then they are told with a wink they are not not allowed to vote but who is checking their citizenship status at the polling booth.

      • Zachriel says:

        Conservative Beaner: With states like California that have motor/voter registration that allows illegals to be registered to vote automatically.

        The person would have to both illegally register, and then illegally vote. There is little to be gained, and a lot to lose. We await your evidence of how prevalent this might.

        • Kye says:

          It doesn’t need to be “prevalent” just possible to steal votes from the rightful voters. that’s where you Nazi’s start your bullshit lies. You only care about winning. Power at any expense is how you stole the election, ignore the obvious, deny the truth and have toppled the American Republic in favor of an eternal majority of “select” Nazi followers (or commie, take your pick).

          You refused to investigate the election, whitewashed the lawsuits, murdered unarmed Patriots protesting the theft of their votes, imprisoned with neither trial nor bail other Patriots in solitary and find no problem with it. You have all become traitors and neonazi’s.

          You are the exact opposite of American.

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: It doesn’t need to be “prevalent” just possible to steal votes from the rightful voters.

            A Trump voter just pleaded guilty in Minnesota.
            https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-politics-d34effeea6c341d6c44146931127caff

            To make a coherent argument, you would have to show the level of prevalence necessary to plausibly affect the outcome of the election.

            Kye: You refused to investigate the election

            The elections were audited, a complete hand recount was conducted in Georgia. Irregularities were investigated and adjudicated.

            Kye: whitewashed the lawsuits,

            The Trump campaign had every opportunity to take any evidence they had to court. There was just no there there.

            Kye: murdered unarmed Patriots protesting the theft of their votes

            Ashli Babbitt was at the head of an armed mob that were threatening members of Congress.

            Kye: imprisoned with neither trial nor bail other Patriots in solitary and find no problem with it.

            Each person arrested was brought before the court. Most were released on bail. Please provide a specific example of what you consider unreasonable detention.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Gee whiz, KiddieZ.

            Ashli Babbitt was at the head of an armed mob that were threatening members of Congress.

            Pathetic.

            #MakingItUpAgain
            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • est1950 says:

      @WikiZach TLDR:The feds have made few laws regarding states voting rights, choosing instead to move on PACS, Citizens United etc. and term limits and warnings on ballots rather than the placement of lockboxes, Voter ID and other things in the GA. Election law which any reasonable judge would consider restrictive or abridge the rights of voters.

      but the Congress may at any time by ***************Law*************** make or alter such Regulations,

      The DOJ cannot willy nilly sue a state over its voter legislation. IF the FEDS don’t like it they must pass a law to fix it.

      But I’m sorry, that means they need 60 votes in the senate. Sorry.

      Your Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States………..

      ABRIDGE….to reduce the effect of a law, privilege or power. TO ABRIDGE, practice. To make shorter in words, so as to retain the sense or substance. In law it signifies particularly the making of a declaration or count shorter, by taking or severing away some of the substance from it.

      But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State

      additionally the 14th amendment only addresses the rights of MALES which would render this portion of the 14th amendment immediately null and void in the SC.

      Your Fifteenth Amendment:The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

      Section 2.
      The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      ONCE AGAIN……….by appropriate legislation and NOT DOJ INTERFERENCE MAKING LAW.

      Additionally this is one of the most misogynistic amendments to the constitution totally ignoring the rights of its citizens…….IE WOMEN. In fact women rebelled but enough states voted to ratify this that women were continued to be suppressed for several more decades.

      THE GEORGIA LAW EXPANDED THE ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE. It does not in anyway abridge their right to vote. It simply ensures honest elections by people that are legal residents of the USA or of that state.

      Again the DOJ is making law. The courts are making law. That is the job of the legislature.

      There are very few federal laws on the books. However the DOJ is using an assumptive condition to sue Georgia.

      Written to me by a Lawyer friend:

      Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the fundamental right to vote, barring states from needlessly imposing substantial burdens on the right. When a law specifies that a person must satisfy certain requirements or follow certain procedures in order to vote, a court must determine whether it is a reasonable regulation of the electoral process under the Elections Clause, or instead undermines the right to vote. Laws requiring people to register to vote in advance of elections or mandating that they vote at their assigned polling places are exactly the types of restrictions that the Elections Clause permits.

      Even though GA actually made it easier to vote the presumptive DOJ move is that GA law is restrictive and will appeal it to liberal courts. The Lefts mantra is sue, sue and sue again and all you need to do is WIN ONCE….and its game over.

      This suggests that the right use the same tactics against the left. Sue, sue and sue again until you WIN ONCE.

      • Zachriel says:

        est1950: ONCE AGAIN……….by appropriate legislation and NOT DOJ INTERFERENCE MAKING LAW.

        Oh gee whiz. The Department of Justice is suing Georgia under the Civil Rights Act, which was passed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.

        • est1950 says:

          Oh gee whiz. Show me where Georgia abridges the rights of any citizen to vote?

          See Zach you offer nothing to any conversation other than canned responses.

          The DOJ is suing Georgia because (Biden and the democrats) do not like the law, not because it has abridged anyone’s civil rights. If this is so then A dozen other blue states have violated the civil rights of its citizens for decades because their laws are much more restrictive than is the law in Georgia.

          Alexander Hamilton actually wrote in the federalist papers imagine if the federal government was to take over the management of elections and he basically said we would all object. Well, that’s what’s happening now in Congress they are trying to essentially federalize elections and I think they are going to have a serious pushback on this lawsuit.”

          So what is in the GA Law that violates their civil rights? As the OP stated and constitutional scholars have stated, IF the DOJ wins this case then it has serious repercussions for several Blue states including WI, MI, PA along with AZ and NV. I actually welcome the lawsuit because it will tell us what we already know.

          It is the states who determine elections and as long as they are not abridging the right to vote in some way it is perfectly within their rights to run their own state wide election as they see fit.

          HOWEVER ZACH remember this. The constitution declares that only CITIZENS can vote and we all know that non citizens vote. If the DOJ wins this vote then allowing people to use their motor vehicle registration to vote will crush many blue states because election law across the land will be forced to change….By the GOP sue, sue and suing again until they win.

          Biden and the Democrats just need to find new ways to cheat. The old ways after 2020 are now obsolete.

          • david7134 says:

            1950,
            Like I said, the Zs are a bunch of high school kids in debate, you are doing their homework for them.

          • Zachriel says:

            est1950: Show me where Georgia abridges the rights of any citizen to vote?

            Your complaint was that the Department of Justice was “MAKING LAW.” That was incorrect. They are working to enforce an existing law. The Department of Justice claims that Georgia has a history of voter suppression, that Blacks have increased their participation through absentee voting, drop boxes, and other methods of voting; and that the law was enacted because of the well-publicized increase in Black participation, false claims of voter fraud, and the law was tailored to reduce Black participation by limiting these same methods.

            The claims will be adjudicated by the courts.

            est1950: It is the states who determine elections and as long as they are not abridging the right to vote in some way it is perfectly within their rights to run their own state wide election as they see fit.

            Subject to federal regulation. See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1; also Amendments Fourteen and Fifteen.

            est1950: The constitution declares that only CITIZENS can vote and we all know that non citizens vote.

            That only applies to federal elections. Do you have evidence of substantial numbers of non-citizens voting in federal elections?

    • Kye says:

      “Non-citizens can’t vote in federal elections.”

      Bullshit. If unknown people can vote without ID Martians can vote. Are you that stupid? Hell, demofascists have had dead people voting since the Civil War.

  2. Zachriel says:

    Kye: If unknown people can vote without ID Martians can vote.

    Voters have to be registered. Voters have to present some form of identification to register and vote, the form depending on the jurisdiction. The problem is that Republicans pass identification laws that seem tailored to reduce minority participation.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The problem is that Republicans pass identification laws that seem tailored to reduce minority participation.

      How so if the laws apply to everyone?

      Go away Kiddiez.

      #MakingItUpAsUsual
      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • david7134 says:

      Z,
      Child, the Dems have been cheating on elections since Noah. It is a fact that Kennedy was elected fraudulently. Fortunately he was taken out but not before he brought us to the brink of nuclear war and started Vietnam.

      It is now very apparent that the Dems took power in 2020 by fraud, just wait a month before getting your panties up your crack.

      In my state of Louisiana they have voter fraud down to an art form. Many kinds of fraud are used and multiple voting and inappropriate registration are prominent.

      Go do whatever adolescent children are up to now, I suggest playing in the street.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: It is now very apparent that the Dems took power in 2020 by fraud

        The Republicans filed sixty lawsuits, none of which showed any evidence of widespread fraud.

  3. est1950 says:

    If only you would take the time to read what I wrote you would not be posting nonsense.

    Subject to federal regulation. See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1; also Amendments Fourteen and Fifteen.

    Wherein I addressed this obvious pathway you would follow with:

    Written to me by a Lawyer friend:

    Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the fundamental right to vote, barring states from needlessly imposing substantial burdens on the right. When a law specifies that a person must satisfy certain requirements or follow certain procedures in order to vote, a court must determine whether it is a reasonable regulation of the electoral process under the Elections Clause, or instead undermines the right to vote. Laws requiring people to register to vote in advance of elections or mandating that they vote at their assigned polling places are exactly the types of restrictions that the Elections Clause permits.

    read and you will be educated.

    ONCE AGAIN: Laws requiring people to register to vote in advance of elections or mandating that they vote at their assigned polling places *****are exactly the types of restrictions that the Elections Clause permits.******

    The Feds have passed few if any laws directly dictating HOW to conduct elections. They only address generalities such as you cannot have a poll tax or things of this nature. Not that you cannot have less than 12,439 drop boxes or that you MUST use Dominion voting machines.

    The federalist papers warned us of an out of control FED conducting our elections and it is why the Federal government has stayed out of elections until 2021 when Joe Biden’s WEAPONIZED DOJ is now going after a state for its constitutional right to conduct a fair election that does not abridge anyone’s right to vote.

    Quite simply the DOJ’s case is Bullshit. You know it. I know it and the FEDS know it.

  4. Zachriel says:

    Z: Subject to federal regulation. See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1; also Amendments Fourteen and Fifteen.

    est1950: If only you would take the time to read what I wrote you would not be posting nonsense.

    Didn’t know the U.S. Constitution was “nonsense.”

    est1950: Laws requiring people to register to vote in advance of elections or mandating that they vote at their assigned polling places *****are exactly the types of restrictions that the Elections Clause permits.******

    That’s right.

    You had said, “It is the states who determine elections and as long as they are not abridging the right to vote in some way it is perfectly within their rights to run their own state wide election as they see fit.” But the Constitution clearly grants power to the U.S. Congress to regulate how states run their elections. It’s is not purely a state power, but a shared responsibility under federalism.

    est1950: The federalist papers warned us of an out of control FED conducting our elections and it is why the Federal government has stayed out of elections until 2021

    That’s obviously false. The Voting Rights Act is an obvious example.

    • est1950 says:

      52 U.S. Code § 10101 – Voting rights
      U.S. Code

      Or for WikiZach this is the Voting rights act in the US CODE.
      (a)Race, color, or previous condition not to affect right to vote; uniform standards for voting qualifications; errors or omissions from papers; literacy tests; agreements between Attorney General and State or local authorities; definitions
      (1)All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.
      (2)No person acting under color of law shall—
      (A)in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;
      (B)deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or
      (C)employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing, and (ii) a certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty-five days of the submission of his request made within the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 [52 U.S.C. 20701 et seq.]: Provided, however, That the Attorney General may enter into agreements with appropriate State or local authorities that preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests in accordance with the provisions of applicable State or local law, including such special provisions as are necessary in the preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests for persons who are blind or otherwise physically handicapped, meet the purposes of this subparagraph and constitute compliance therewith.

      again my dear friend the voting rights act does not tell a state HOW TO CONDUCT an election it merely ensures that LEGAL CITIZENS OF THE USA shall not have their right to vote ABRIDGED IN ANY WAY.

      You continue to say the federal government has passed all these laws about voting and yet you are arguing Apples and I am arguing oranges.

      Georgia law does not ABRIDGE ANYONES RIGHT TO VOTE but in fact expands the ability and makes it easier to vote honestly. Sorry that it’s now going to be harder to cheat in Georgia for democrats and republicans…Remember Stacy Abrams claimed Fraud after losing 2018 Governors race.

      Georgia is using its constitutional duty to conduct elections keeping as a standard any voting rights ACTS passed by the fed and the constitution to NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF ANY TRUE REAL LIFE AMERICAN CITIZEN.

      The law allows for the state to determine the eligibility of voters. IE……in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election;

      Implied rights are considered, identified and outlined by the High Court, in cases where the court is required to interpret the Constitution. While express rights are entrenched and can only be changed by altering the Constitution, implied rights are more flexible because they can be revisited, re-examined, changed or overruled by the High Court. An example of this is some states allow felons to vote while others do not. This was upheld by the SC in

      As I said. Democrats will just need to find new ways to cheat in Georgia if they want to remain relevant and if the GOP led state had any brains thewould immediately get rid of the 100’s of millions of dollars of dominion machines they bought 8 months prior to the Georgia election and return to the traditional paper ballot, non hackable, non internet connected machines.

      • est1950 says:

        A classic example of states wanting to change voting that were met with Supreme Court Decisions is the effort by four states to allow felons to vote.

        The case in Florida eventually ended up in the SC which left in place the Appellate courts decision to not allow felons to vote.

        Dissenting from the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in the case on Thursday were three of the court’s liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

        Writing for the three, Sotomayor noted that the 11th Circuit “not only failed to defer to the District Court’s factual findings, but it also appears to contradict its [own] prior view” in this case.

        PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS TIDBIT OF WISDOM BY THE LEFTIST DESCENT.

        Equally important, she said, “is that the Eleventh Circuit has created the very ‘confusion’ and voter chill” that the Supreme Court counseled against in 2006 when it told the lower courts not to make sudden changes in rules close to an election.

        SUDDEN CHANGES!! Cautioned against by the SC in 2006 and ignored in the 2020 election by numerous states which led to national fraud, anarchy and apoplexy by both the left and right.

        Careful what you wish for in the DOJ case against GA. I have said it before a can of worms is waiting to be opened in blue states if the DOJ wins a case before the SC.

        • Zachriel says:

          est1950: A classic example of states wanting to change voting that were met with Supreme Court Decisions is the effort by four states to allow felons to vote.

          Not sure the relevance. Most states already allow felons to vote. You seem to be arguing that the courts broke their own admonition and ignored the factual findings of the lower court.

          • est1950 says:

            So your going to deflect your weak argument with the simple fact that FELONS in all 50 states HAVE DIFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING.

            Investigate the truth Zach. Felons can vote in all 50 states with differing sets of circumstances. Something that is not constitutional for legal citizens.

            So you don’t have to look it up.

            In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

            In 20 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.

            In 17 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.

            In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table

            I am arguing a simple thing using Felons as an example. The FED has not stepped in and passed a law that says all states must allow felons to vote. Why? Most likely because the SC has ruled on this several times and would find the law unconstitutional. Just the rest of the law passed by Georgia is not illegal and does not abridge the rights of voters but expands those rights even if the poor voters cannot be enticed to the polls by free food, pizza and soda’s now.

          • Zachriel says:

            est1950: I am arguing a simple thing using Felons as an example.

            The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the power to Congress to regulate federal elections. That Congress hasn’t exercised this power with regards to felons does not mean Congress does not have the power. That power has to be consistent with other constitutional provisions, of course, such as equal protection. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

      • Zachriel says:

        est1950: the voting rights act does not tell a state HOW TO CONDUCT an election it merely ensures that LEGAL CITIZENS OF THE USA shall not have their right to vote ABRIDGED IN ANY WAY.

        Which is telling the state how to conduct an election. Indeed, states with a history of discriminatory behavior were required to pre-clear changes to their voting procedure with the federal government.

        You might argue the wisdom of federal regulation, but that power is clearly in the U.S. Constitution.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    In how many elections this century have the GOPhers garnered a majority of the popular vote?

    2000? no
    2004? YES!
    2008? no
    2012? no
    2016? no
    2020? no

    Yet, far-right, anti-democracy neoNazis bitch and moan constantly, blaming their unpopularity on others.

    Because you’ve been losing elections; because the national demographics are not in your favor, you want to destroy democratic ideals. Your only hope is to stop traditionally Democratic voters from voting. This is not a new tactic.

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    tRump’s AG and devoted loyalist called tRump’s claim of a fraudulent election to be “bull***t”.

    Former attorney general William Barr reportedly said that he knew all along that former President Trump’s claims of election fraud were “bulls**t”.

    Barr discussed his decision to give prosecutors the go-ahead to investigate the fraud allegations and to launch his own unofficial probe into the claims.

    “My attitude was: It was put-up or shut-up time,” Barr said.

    “If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it. But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bulls**t,” Barr added.

    Barr also debunked claims that voting machines nationwide were rigged to switch votes from Trump to now-president Biden.

    “We realized from the beginning it was just bulls**t,” Barr said.

    “It’s a counting machine, and they save everything that was counted. So you just reconcile the two. There had been no discrepancy reported anywhere, and I’m still not aware of any discrepancy,” he added.

    He said the Justice Department investigated an allegation that ballots were being wheeled into a central precinct in Wayne County, Mich., and found that in every other county, they count the ballots at the precinct, but in Wayne County they bring them into one central counting place.

    “So the boxes are coming in all night,” he said. “The fact that boxes are coming in—well, that’s what they do.”

    The former attorney general also said that the lawyers who led Trump’s legal fights related to the 2020 election results were a “clown show.”

    Barr also said then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) repeatedly called on the attorney general to speak out against Trump’s claims of election fraud.

    McConnell reportedly told Barr that the claims were damaging to the country and the Republican party and hurt the GOP’s efforts in the two Georgia Senate runoff races.

    “Look, we need the president in Georgia,” McConnell told Barr. “And so we cannot be frontally attacking him right now. But you’re in a better position to inject some reality into this situation. You are really the only one who can do it.”

    “I understand that,” Barr reportedly said. “And I’m going to do it at the appropriate time.”

    Trump blasted Barr for his comment, asking him “How the f*** could you do this to me? Why did you say it?”

    “Because it’s true,” Barr replied.

    Trump said, “You must hate Trump. You must hate Trump.”

    • est1950 says:

      Despite the fact that Bill Barr said there was no evidence. The courts said there was no evidence and the left and MSM said there was no evidence.

      YET: Rudi Guilllani said Rudy Giuliani on Trump election fight: We have ‘1,000 affidavits from witnesses in 6 different states’ December 12, 2020, 7:08 AM

      Affidavit is an admissible evidence, however some courts may need you to testify the affidavit or they may consider it as hearsay evidence. Since hearsay is not admissible as an evidence, the affidavit may not be used for evidence if anyone objects to it unless it is testified.

      Dozens of interviews of witnesses said they would testify. In a murder trial if you see the suspect shoot someone it is considered admissible. IF you see someone performing voter fraud it is admissible.

      Bill Barr is the one full of Bullshit, Elwood. But given the temperature of the country he probably saved a civil war by NOT looking into 1000 pieces of evidence on voter fraud that would have set the country burning.

      • Zachriel says:

        est1950: Affidavit is an admissible evidence, however some courts may need you to testify the affidavit or they may consider it as hearsay evidence.

        They say they have a thousand affidavits, but not one witness.

        • david7134 says:

          So little child, provide evidence.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: provide evidence.

            In Georgia, election authorities audited the results of the election. When people questioned the result and blamed the machine counters, they hand counted every ballot, verifying the machine count to high precision. When people question signatures, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation audited signature matching, again, verifying the process to a high precision.

  7. Kye says:

    The left and their accomplices in the media have deliberately obfuscated, ignored, and lied about literally thousands of pieces of legitimate evidence of massive voter fraud all because they are so full of hate for Trump and his supporters they have morphed into Nazis. They saw the windows being covered over during counting just like we did but choose to ignore it. They watched the videos of boxes of ballots taken from under desks after the Republican poll watchers were ejected from polling places just like we did and turned a blind eye. They saw unfolded yet “mailed” ballots, thousands of ballots with only “Biden” marked and zero down votes and statistically impossible ballot “dumps” in the wee hours of the morning. All these things are in the open, and fraud and all perfectly acceptable to liars like Elwood and his communist/fascist bosses.

    These improprieties are in addition to the usual voter fraud perpetrated by the fascist/commies and the Elwoods under “normal” voting protocol. You know, dead people, aliens, illegals, felons, under age and incarcerated operatives of the Elwood evil.

    Then to show they’re serious the Elwoods and other Nazi/commies shoot down unarmed innocent mothers who protester then call all Trump supporters “insurrectionists” and throw them into solitary without a hearing, lawyer or even felonious charges just to bankrupt them and get them fired.

    The Elwoods and his Nazi/commie comrades are thugs, murderers, sadists white supremacists and anti American traitors and need to be punished accordingly.

    Why is Washington, DC STILL held by armed soldiers? Where are these supposed White supremacist attacks all over America? “When the United States says you are the most dangerous threat it faces, your life is about to change for the worse. The Biden [Junta] has just told conservative Americans they are that threat.” Max Morton.

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: The left and their accomplices in the media have deliberately obfuscated, ignored, and lied about literally thousands of pieces of legitimate evidence of massive voter fraud

      But for some reason, they couldn’t provide evidence to the courts, where such matters are adjudicated.

      • Kye says:

        Sure they could and still can but the cabal of leftist Harvard judges won’t allow them to admit the evidence. They disallow the suits before they even get to court. Besides, we weren’t even allowed to INVESTIGATE the stolen election since any mention was called treason by you commies.

        But that’s not my whole point. Did you or did you not see fishy shit going on in polling places like I mentioned on the TV? Or did you only watch CNNMSNBCCBS which had a blackout on the shenanigans? Why is it easier for nazi fanatics like yourself to believe we are all seeing things than to just investigate to find the truth? What are you afraid of?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          trump tried to steal the election by treachery but needed evidence instead of lies.

          Kye: the cabal of leftist Harvard judges won’t allow them to admit the evidence

          This is where the accuser would supply evidence that leftist Harvard judges misapplied the law. We can wait…

          All the current SC justices, save Barrett (Notre Dame) came from Harvard or Yale Law. Is it claimed that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are just not reactionary enough?

          We appreciate the fervor of right-wing beliefs on this issue, but enthusiasm does not replace facts and reason.

          There were counts and recounts. Republican officials in state after state certified the results. trump’s own DOJ found insufficient evidence (i.e., none) of vote fraud. trump’s own DHS found insufficient evidence of vote fraud. It’s trump against the world, isn’t it?

          FOX “News” is no longer extreme enough for the far-right, who now gather all their “factoids” and “truthiness” from the Gateway Pudendum, NewsMax, InfoWars, ONAN and the Daily Stormer.

        • Zachriel says:

          Kye: Sure they could and still can but the cabal of leftist Harvard judges won’t allow them to admit the evidence.

          That is incorrect. The Trump campaign had ample opportunity to provide evidence. For instance, in Nevada in Candidates for presidential electors on behalf of Donald J. Trump v. Candidates for presidential electors on behalf of Joseph R. Biden Jr:

          Having reviewed the full evidentiary record submitted by Contestants and Defendants, and having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the Court as well as the parties’ written and oral argument, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

          {177 findings of fact and conclusions of law}

          177. The Contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in NRS 293.410 to contest the November 3, 2020 General Election.

          Therefore, based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made by this Court, after trial, and good cause appearing, the following Judgment is entered by the Court:

          IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Contestants’ contest is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        Yes, hard to present evidence when a judge, liberal, will not here the case. Oh, your little wiki thing shows that Trump lost only 6 cases.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Yes, hard to present evidence when a judge, liberal, will not here the case.

          We provided two examples of evidentiary trials; one in Nevada and one in Pennsylvania.

          • Kye says:

            Two out of two thousand. How fukin generous of “we”. Did you see those videos or are you just ignoring 100 million Americans with questions? If so why? Afraid of the answers?

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: Two out of two thousand.

            The claim was that the Trump campaign did not have an opportunity to provide evidence to the courts. That claim was false.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          Several hundred suits were filed. You have evidence that 6 were against Trump. The fact is that for those completed, Trump prevails. Then the two that you mention are the most corrupt of justice departments. Then you go on and on about Georgia, again, very corrupt and their counts are meaningless. Arizona is coming up, let’s see what that shows, but the Dems are spending a ton of money to suppress the results, why.

          If you are representative of the future generations, we likely do have 82 million idiots in the US.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Several hundred suits were filed. You have evidence that 6 were against Trump.

            The Trump campaign filed over sixty lawsuits, winning one on a minor issue. They had ample opportunity to provide evidence.

            david7134: Then you go on and on about Georgia, again, very corrupt and their counts are meaningless.

            Republicans control the state government.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye: The Elwoods and his Nazi/commie comrades are thugs, murderers, sadists white supremacists and anti American traitors and need to be punished accordingly.

      How would you suggest I be “punished accordingly”, Pol Pot? Sounds almost threatening.

      • Kye says:

        Are you threatened, my little flower? Have I once again “triggered” your petty self interest to the point of panic? What has a leftist like Pol Pot to do with punishing you accordingly? Is that how you envision justice? Is that how you envision America? Just because you commies send out your people to murder unarmed mothers and Patriots does not mean we would. Just because you commies imprison Americans protesting for their right to vote doesn’t mean we would. Just because you commies send out your armies of feral black “victims” to Burn-Loot and Murder people does not mean we would.

        Pointing out the immoral crimes of people who believe like you do, communists, does not bolster your case. Why Pol Pot? Why not other leftist murderers like Stalin, Hitler or Mao?

        Why do you hate White people?
        Why do you hate Christians?
        Why do you hate Jews?
        Why do you hate America?

        You do realize you are a walking, talking example of CRT don’t you? You’re a racist, a hater and a potential mass murderer like your comrades. A million dead White people is just a statistic to you.

        • Professor Hale says:

          Oh come on, man. I’m sure Jeff doesn’t care what color his victims are. All good communists only care about being the first and loudest to repeat the party line, whatever it may be today. When you murder tens of millions at a time, there just isn’t time or resources to be picky about skin color.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The Nutty Perfesser (like all good fascists like his mentor, Porter) projects his own desires on others. It was people like him who attacked the US Capitol Building hoping to intimidate elected Republicans into handing the election to the loser DJT. The far-right has made their intentions clear if they are able to conquer America.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Kye hides in his house beseeching others to do his dirty work. Like Pol Pot, Adolf, Stalin, Amin and Mao, you wish to exterminate those who disagree with your perverse politics.

          Again, how do you wish to “punish accordingly” those who see things differently than you? Death squads? Cross burnings? Outlawing free speech?

          I was in beautiful Philadelphia last week and toured both N and S Philly (since I-95 was a mess), probably places you’re afraid to go. Perhaps the next time I’m in town we can meet up and you can “punish” me “accordingly”.

          • Kye says:

            I would love to but you need to tell me when you’re here not after you leave, coward. BTW, there is no place in Philly I’m “afraid to go”. Had you really been in bad areas you would not be commenting you’d be convalescing. Stop lying.

            Why do you hate white people?

  8. Professor Hale says:

    “The left and their accomplices in the media have deliberately obfuscated, ignored, and lied about literally thousands of pieces of legitimate evidence…”

    You got that right. Even today, they continue it. They cannot say “Trump claims there was voter fraud” without adding, “even though it isn’t true”. They NEVER say that about any other topic not involving Trump. They simply print the various claims and let the reader decide if something is true.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      pH: They cannot say “Trump claims there was voter fraud” without adding, “even though it isn’t true”.

      Right. Anyone discussing trump’s accusations of voter fraud should instead say “even though there is no evidence to support the claim”.

      • davd7134 says:

        Yep, keep your eyes and ears shut and there is no evidence of fraud at all.

      • Kye says:

        So you ignorantly didn’t see the videos nor read any reports of fraud or see any stories of affidavits? Really? You are a fukin liar.

      • Professor hale says:

        You see, Jeff, that is the point. An activist would spin the story just as you illustrate. An unbiased reporter would use words like, “has not been proven in court”. One is true. The other is spin. There is always election fraud. Always. To claim there is no evidence is just party activism. A truthful person would instead make the argument that “not enough fraud to change the outcome” or even “Trump cheated too, but we cheated better (the old Johnson argument). And this is why you are clearly a party activist, just repeating the party talking points, with no original thoughts of your own. You black people are so dependable once you are properly trained.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          The Nutty Perfesser, just like his mentor, Porter, admits the charges have not been proven in court. Or anywhere, for that matter. Sure, a jury of the Perfesser, Kye, Porter, puppykiller, Doogie Hoser et al would no doubt “vote” that there was fraud, but DJT and his dream team of suspended Rudy, Nutty Lincoln Wood and Big Syd Powell were not able to persuade even one judge of the charges. Failing that, DJT urged his gullible supporters to storm the capitol in hopes of disrupting the Constitutional process of certifying the election. That didn’t work either. The weak-minded DJT has since waged a disinformation campaign to salvage his reputation, such as it is, to raise money (his central dogma) and importantly, hoping to stay out of prison.

          No offense, but only kooks, quacks, QAnoners, grifters and seditionists seriously believe (or pretend to believe, like Porter) that Don won the election.

          • Professor Hale says:

            Great job missing the point again. You really had to work at it this time. But you did manage to get in 10 democratic party talking points in only 7 sentences. You are so reliable. Good dog.

    • Zachriel says:

      Pennsylvania High Court
      Donald J. Trump for President, et al v. Secretary Commonwealth of P

      Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

      Pennsylvania Supreme Court: They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted.

  9. Kye says:

    “The claim was that the Trump campaign did not have an opportunity to provide evidence to the courts. That claim was false.”

    No, the claim is that regardless of the volumes of complaints and video as well as other evidence to the courts those courts in unison like the movement of a flock of birds refused to even hera the charges.

    Closed minded and hateful corrupt politicians and judges do not make for a Free Republic.

    Just out of the volume of complaints alone I would figure a person with such a high opinion of himself for being honest and fair as you have would DEMAND the election be looed into. Just on the sheer amount of reported shenanigans alone, but you didn’t and even with around 100 million Americans believing something fishy happened still don’t. That’s either being insanely closed minded or being strictly a partisan hack and corrupt anti American. Take your pick.

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: No, the claim is that regardless of the volumes of complaints and video as well as other evidence to the courts those courts in unison like the movement of a flock of birds refused to even hera the charges.

      You said, “Sure they could and still can but the cabal of leftist Harvard judges won’t allow them to admit the evidence.” That was false.

      As to your revised claim, among the various courts that heard the evidence, they found, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here;” and the Trump campaign “failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds”. Not sure how much more clear we can be.

      (Note we provided specifics, while you wave your hands.)

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: you have would DEMAND the election be looed into.

      The campaign was looked into. There were audits, recounts, investigations, and lawsuits. The most recent investigation by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee, chaired by a Republican and comprised of a GOP majority, found “no evidence of widespread or systemic fraud in Michigan’s prosecution of the 2020 election.”

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        No, there has not been a proper assessment of the 2020 election. For some reason, you like to lie about this. Why don’t you demand proper evaluation of the election, or do you prefer civil war.

        • Kye says:

          He’s gotten into the habit of perpetual lying like Hairy and Reds (and most all leftists from Stalin to AOC).

          There has NOT been a proper national investigation of the shenanigans of 11/3. NONE. And we know that because if there had been you commies would have blasted it from the rooftops for a month (at least).

          Ashli Babbitt was UNARMED as were all the demonstrators on 1/6. We know because NONE have been prosecuted by you commies for the felony of carrying guns onto a federal facility. There was ONE guy who had a retractable metal baton and they raised hell about that for two weeks. So when you deliberately LIE and state that a demonstration by UNARMED citizens seeking redress of their grievances which is their RIGHT you demean yourself (if that is further possible)’
          Furthermore, Mrs. Babbitt was herself unarmed, not “threatening” anyone since she was at least 15 feet from anyone. She was murdered and you should be demanding to know who her murderer was just as if you would had she been a black, Nazi Antifa demonstrator robbing, looting and setting fire to our cities during an OBVIOUS attempt at revolution.

          Stop the baloney Z. You’re turning into another left wing Jewish-Nazi like your leader Soros.

          • david7134 says:

            Kye,
            I am not sure this z is a male. Something about the voice suggest female, especially when all reason and logic escapes his/her mental capacity.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: No, there has not been a proper assessment of the 2020 election.

        Kye: There has NOT been a proper national investigation of the shenanigans of 11/3.

        Notably, we provide citations to audits, recounts, investigations, and court cases. You wave your hands. You could start with Donald J. Trump for President, et al v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

        Kye: We know because NONE have been prosecuted by you commies for the felony of carrying guns onto a federal facility.

        More than 20 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault, including several gun violations.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          No, we have eye witness testimony, and all the necessary information for fraud. Your so called audits are worthless, and the only court cases won are 6 by your material provided. You sit and drool over the same arguments while protecting your excessively demented fraud of a president. You clearly don’t have the mental capacity to understand the issue. Oh, in addition, your great fraud of a president actually admitted to fraud.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: No, we have eye witness testimony, and all the necessary information for fraud.

            And were these witnesses brought to court? Where? When?

            david7134: Your so called audits are worthless

            Audits are a standard procedure to help ensure integrity to the process. Many states require audits, even when there is no evidence of a problem with the count.

            Notably, we have provided specifics, while you wave your hands.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Conspiracy tale after conspiracy tale, with no relevant evidence. Rudy Giuliani (now suspended from the bar) trotted out his most valuable witness, Michigan’s Melissa Carone, was not believable. Hearsay is not evidence.

            Would you support a Congressional investigation of the Trump/Jan 6 insurrection in exchange for an investigation of the election?

            https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election-idUSKBN2AF1G1

            The Post analysis found that 38 judges appointed by Republicans were among the 86 judges who had rejected lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three Trump-appointed justices, rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to election results in four states.

            Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, said in dismissing one Pennsylvania challenge: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

            Do trumpists suggest that the Republican judges nominated by Trump and confirmed by Congress have become radical libs?? It’s over 230 judges. Nearly half the judges hearing the Trump election cases were Republicans.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            “We have neither here.”

            Yet.

            #RussianCollusion
            #BelieveTheLie
            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 9927 access attempts in the last 7 days.