The roe v wade leak . Is it meant to distract us from 2000 MULES??

[Damocles]

It doesn’t matter 70% of Americans support privacy and freedom of choice.

Then they will have no problem convincing their legislatures to keep abortion legal in their respective states.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Nah, this is meant to drive women to the polls. They will also say really insane things like "LBGTQ+ folks will be affected the most!" to try to get them out to vote too.

Trouble with that argument is it's still 6 months till election. Good chance the leak will be ancient history by then.

 

[Walt]

That depends on what and how things were investigated.

It has been a year and a half of hundreds of different investigations...

So basically, you are claiming that millions of illegal votes are easily catchable, but for some reason the Republicans are covering them up?

 

[Damocles]

Trouble with that argument is it's still 6 months till election. Good chance the leak will be ancient history by then.

The decision will have dropped as well, it was only 2 months away approximately. I think they jumped the gun on this one and someone is going to lose their job over something that may not even happen. If you remember, Roberts changed his opinion just like a day before the Obamacare announcement.

This basically tries to get the crazy base jumping...

 

[BartenderElite]

The decision will have dropped as well, it was only 2 months away approximately. I think they jumped the gun on this one and someone is going to lose their job over something that may not even happen. If you remember, Roberts changed his opinion just like a day before the Obamacare announcement.

This basically tries to get the crazy base jumping...

Or, it just alerts not only the base, but everyone, that the court is no longer close to an impartial body. Americans should be aware that while they've been focused on pandemics & wars, 1 of our government's 3 branches has become a radical right-wing, activist entity, that will change their lives and restrict their freedoms in all kinds of ways.

And yeah - that's a big election issue, in any year.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It has been a year and a half of hundreds of different investigations...

So basically, you are claiming that millions of illegal votes are easily catchable, but for some reason the Republicans are covering them up?

No, I'd claim that mass mail-in ballot fraud is very difficult to detect. This is why:

The ballots for most of their existence are out of sight and control of election officials. Therefore, it is impossible for all intents to know who actually did what with a ballot.
Then the ballots are mailed in and when received the only control on that is a signature on the envelope that is separated from the ballot after being scanned to verify the signature. But that too is problematic. Many states in 2020 set controls on matching the signatures very low. Set high, the rejection rate is high and most election officials found that unacceptable. Set low, like many states did, there isn't any control on the ballot again. Almost any scribble in the signature line / box is accepted.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/07/upshot/mail-voting-ballots-signature-matching.html

In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court essentially tossed out the signature matching requirement altogether. If there was something on the signature line it got accepted.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-supreme-court-tosses-ballot-signature-matching-rule

Since the envelope and ballot would now be separated, there was no way to go back and verify anything.

When you add in legal ballot harvesting--clearly done on a mass scale in some states--you have a legal situation where a paid operative of a political party could go to individual voters or locations where large numbers of ballots would be mailed, like a nursing home or apartment complex, and have a good to excellent chance of collecting numerous ballots in some condition from marked, signed, and sealed, to just handed over for the harvester to do whatever they want with it.

Add in that the balloting period was weeks long, and the harvesters have plenty of time to work on collection and doing what they want with those ballots--all unseen.

Drop boxes add another dimension of uncertainty in that a harvester can now legally drop off masses of ballots without any real verification of their having done so.

All of this is incredibly hard to monitor or detect. Thus, an all mail-in ballot election is just rife with the means to commit mass voter fraud undetected and there is no way to really fix any of this other than stop doing it altogether.

 

[Airstrip One]

I hadn't thought of this angle but yeah, they need something to stop discussion of this new documentary on the stolen election. That's also why pelosi sent in her goons on Jan 6 to turn a protest into a riot and give her an excuse to cancel the congresssional hearings into the election scheduled for later that day.

No, it's just so progs can start issuing death threats.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

When you add in legal ballot harvesting--clearly done on a mass scale in some states--you have a legal situation where a paid operative of a political party could go to individual voters or locations where large numbers of ballots would be mailed, like a nursing home or apartment complex, and have a good to excellent chance of collecting numerous ballots in some condition from marked, signed, and sealed, to just handed over for the harvester to do whatever they want with it.

Of course. Most mail-in ballot are simply sold to the DNC and then they fill it out!!! It's insane and there should be zero mail-in ballots.

 

[Walt]

The decision will have dropped as well, it was only 2 months away approximately. I think they jumped the gun on this one and someone is going to lose their job over something that may not even happen. If you remember, Roberts changed his opinion just like a day before the Obamacare announcement.

Republican justices were going to run the draft by the political advisors, who would have told them this would be a disaster for Republicans, and probably they would have switched to just weakening Roe v. Wade. But someone wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, so leaked it. I do not think they can go back now.

Given Thomas' history, it may have been him. In that case, he cannot lose his job easily.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

One thing in all this: If we continue to have heavily mail-in elections, ballot harvesting, drop boxes, and nothing changes and no one is charged or investigated, then 2000 Mules is simply a critique that the fraudsters will study to become even more adept at hiding their actions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Republican justices were going to run the draft by the political advisors, who would have told them this would be a disaster for Republicans, and probably they would have switched to just weakening Roe v. Wade. But someone wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, so leaked it. I do not think they can go back now.

Given Thomas' history, it may have been him. In that case, he cannot lose his job easily.

You have this backwards. The Left thinks abortion is THE issue that can swing the election in their favor. They think that it will hurt Republicans big time if Roe is overturned. It's they that have reason to leak this draft. The two problems with this are:

1. It's too early to affect the election.
2. Abortion isn't the issue they think it is.

The other possibility it was leaked for was to intimidate the Conservative Justices into changing their position and retaining Roe. Given the Left's actions after the leak, I'd say this is a very good possibility.

 

[AProudLefty]

You have this backwards. The Left thinks abortion is THE issue that can swing the election in their favor. They think that it will hurt Republicans big time if Roe is overturned. It's they that have reason to leak this draft. The two problems with this are:

1. It's too early to affect the election.
2. Abortion isn't the issue they think it is.

The other possibility it was leaked for was to intimidate the Conservative Justices into changing their position and retaining Roe. Given the Left's actions after the leak, I'd say this is a very good possibility.

LOL

 

[Lightbringer]

The roe v wade leak . Is it meant to distract us from 2000 MULES??

No, it's meant to make you forget about fucking trannies you deviant POS.

 

[Walt]

You have this backwards. The Left thinks abortion is THE issue that can swing the election in their favor.

No, both sides political advisors think that overturning Roe v. Wade will swing elections in the Democrats favor, which is why Roe v. Wade was probably not going to be overturned. They wrote a draft saying it was, and were running it by the political advisors. The political advisors were going to tell the Republican justices to just clip back Roe v. Wade, like previous times, but do not overturn it.

Someone got tired of writing drafts and then having them rewritten not to overturn Roe v. Wade, so leaked the draft. This has forced the Republican justices to go ahead and overturn Roe v. Wade. We are looking for someone who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

They think that it will hurt Republicans big time if Roe is overturned. It's they that have reason to leak this draft.

There are two possible reasons to leak it and force the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most believable is the leaker wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. The less believable is the leaker wanted to trap the Republicans into overturning Roe v. Wade as part of some sort of complex political trap. I believe the first simpler explanation.

The two problems with this are: 1. It's too early to affect the election.

This is going to effect elections for decades to come. There is no such thing as too early.

2. Abortion isn't the issue they think it is.

Abortion is not an issue anyone outside a few anti-abortionists think about, because Roe v. Wade meant they did not need to think about it. Roe v. Wade is gone, because the draft was leaked, so that means everyone has to make decisions based on it.

The other possibility it was leaked for was to intimidate the Conservative Justices into changing their position and retaining Roe.

No, that does not make sense. Once the draft is leaked, the Republican justices are trapped into it. The leaker would have known that.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Concart]

I think it was an attempt to influence the court. If it had been an attempt to influence the November election it would have been better to wait until the court issued its opinion in late June or early July.

Correct. I think lt's VERY likely that the court has now decided not to overturn Roe. If so, the source of the leak is some nutter on Thomas's staff.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I'd claim that mass mail-in ballot fraud is very difficult to detect. This is why:

The ballots for most of their existence are out of sight and control of election officials. Therefore, it is impossible for all intents to know who actually did what with a ballot.
Then the ballots are mailed in and when received the only control on that is a signature on the envelope that is separated from the ballot after being scanned to verify the signature. But that too is problematic. Many states in 2020 set controls on matching the signatures very low. Set high, the rejection rate is high and most election officials found that unacceptable. Set low, like many states did, there isn't any control on the ballot again. Almost any scribble in the signature line / box is accepted.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/07/upshot/mail-voting-ballots-signature-matching.html

In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court essentially tossed out the signature matching requirement altogether. If there was something on the signature line it got accepted.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-supreme-court-tosses-ballot-signature-matching-rule

Since the envelope and ballot would now be separated, there was no way to go back and verify anything.

When you add in legal ballot harvesting--clearly done on a mass scale in some states--you have a legal situation where a paid operative of a political party could go to individual voters or locations where large numbers of ballots would be mailed, like a nursing home or apartment complex, and have a good to excellent chance of collecting numerous ballots in some condition from marked, signed, and sealed, to just handed over for the harvester to do whatever they want with it.

Add in that the balloting period was weeks long, and the harvesters have plenty of time to work on collection and doing what they want with those ballots--all unseen.

Drop boxes add another dimension of uncertainty in that a harvester can now legally drop off masses of ballots without any real verification of their having done so.

All of this is incredibly hard to monitor or detect. Thus, an all mail-in ballot election is just rife with the means to commit mass voter fraud undetected and there is no way to really fix any of this other than stop doing it altogether.

Wow, you do like to get things wrong.
The only control is the signature? Wrong. In Pennsylvania, there are several controls that the state lists.
https://campaignlegal.org/sites/def...entee and Mail-In Ballot Return Envelopes.pdf
The controls include: recording when and how the ballot was received, scanning the envelope bar code, confirming the barcode has not been received already and refusing to accept any duplicates, prior to processing confirming the voter hasn't died just to name some of them. Finally, "The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned
absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections."
So it seems you are complaining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed Pennsylvania law.

But perhaps you should read the actual ruling by the PA court instead of FOX news.
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-113-2020mo - 104584871117842321.pdf?cb=1

“the plain language of the Election Code imposes no
requirement for signature comparison for mail-in and absentee ballots and applications.”

In Judge Ranjan’s
view, the county board of elections is required under this statutory provision to verify only
the proof of the voter’s identification by examining the voter’s driver’s license number, the
last four digits of his or her social security number, or other specifically approved form of
identification which is required by Section 2602(z.5) of the Election Code.1

But you claimed there were no other controls? It seems you are once again talking out of your ass without any actual facts.


Your specious arguments made without knowing the process or looking at the actual facts are why the courts rejected over 60 lawsuits about the election. It is also why Sidney Powell and Lin Wood were referred to the Bar for investigation since they didn't bother to check the "facts" they presented to the courts.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Judges are not allowed to write laws and that's what they did in roe v wade. Federal congress is allowed to write laws but not on the issue of abortion. The 10A says it's a state issue.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wow, you do like to get things wrong.
The only control is the signature? Wrong. In Pennsylvania, there are several controls that the state lists.
https://campaignlegal.org/sites/def...entee and Mail-In Ballot Return Envelopes.pdf
The controls include: recording when and how the ballot was received, scanning the envelope bar code, confirming the barcode has not been received already and refusing to accept any duplicates, prior to processing confirming the voter hasn't died just to name some of them. Finally, "The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned
absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections."
So it seems you are complaining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed Pennsylvania law.

But perhaps you should read the actual ruling by the PA court instead of FOX news.
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-113-2020mo - 104584871117842321.pdf?cb=1




But you claimed there were no other controls? It seems you are once again talking out of your ass without any actual facts.


Your specious arguments made without knowing the process or looking at the actual facts are why the courts rejected over 60 lawsuits about the election. It is also why Sidney Powell and Lin Wood were referred to the Bar for investigation since they didn't bother to check the "facts" they presented to the courts.

I'm correct. Everything you list besides the signature is no proof that the envelope or ballot was filled out and signed by the person it was sent to. Only the signature does that. What you posted are controls the government put on those things to prevent duplicate ballots from occurring.

You also state "The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned
absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections."

That's what I said, in Pennsylvania a poor or non-matching signature is no cause for rejection. That means there is no way whatsoever of verifying that the ballot was filled out by the person it was sent to or mailed in by that person. That amounts to zero control on the ballot outside preventing duplicates from existing. So long as the ballot and envelope are original, Pennsylvania had ZERO control over the mail-in election process. Anybody could fill out a legal ballot and submit it no questions asked.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm correct. Everything you list besides the signature is no proof that the envelope or ballot was filled out and signed by the person it was sent to. Only the signature does that. What you posted are controls the government put on those things to prevent duplicate ballots from occurring.

You also state "The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned
absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections."

That's what I said, in Pennsylvania a poor or non-matching signature is no cause for rejection. That means there is no way whatsoever of verifying that the ballot was filled out by the person it was sent to or mailed in by that person. That amounts to zero control on the ballot outside preventing duplicates from existing. So long as the ballot and envelope are original, Pennsylvania had ZERO control over the mail-in election process. Anybody could fill out a legal ballot and submit it no questions asked.

The signature is no more proof they filled out the ballot than any of the other controls. You have no clue what my driver's license number is. You don't have access to the ballot that was sent to my house and had a unique code on it. My signature is easier to fake than it is to steal my mail or find out my driver's license number.