March 21, 2021
Systemic Failure to Protect the Vote
This from Jerry McGuire
Gregory Enrique Sandoval's detailed response to my post about the book "#DeepRig" by Patrick Byrne (former CEO of Overstock dot com) which relates how a group of cyber-experts witnessed 2020's election fraud unfolding.
https://shop.aer.io/DeepCapture/p/The_Deep_RigHow_Election_Fraud_Cost_Donald_J_Trump/9780578861838-11241
Key take-away:
"The writers of the Constitution certainly did not say, "Hey, if you can make it through the gauntlet by cheating like hell, then any illegitimacy you committed along the way is nullified by your having cheated your way through the process.â€
"He describes how his team of "cyber-ninjas†unraveled it while they worked against the clock of Constitutional processes...â€
There is no clock in the sense that if you can’t prove fraud within that time period the one committing the fraud has it converted by "the Constitutional processes†into a legitimate win.
The Constitutional processes are there to ensure that things be done in an orderly fashion through a series of stages in order to ensure a legitimate outcome, but they do not confer legitimacy.
They presuppose that certain things will have happened from the local to the state to the national level to ensure a legitimate outcome.
They presuppose that the election laws of each state were produced by that state’s legislature in conformity with the US Constitution and the state’s constitution.
They presuppose that elections officials will act in accordance with those laws.
They presuppose that violations of those laws at the polling place level will have been dealt with at the precinct level; the precinct level, at the county level; and the county level at the state level before the Secretary of State certifies the vote and, in the case of a presidential election, assigns electors.
They presuppose that, at every stage up to that point, if vote counts are not in by the deadline, any hanky-panky that resulted in the missed deadline will have resulted in those votes being invalidated.
They presuppose that processes set by each state’s legislature to ensure a legitimate voting process, an accurate count of legitimate votes, the proper monitoring of the vote count and ballot handling, and any challenges of those things will be handled properly in conformity with those state laws and regulations.
They presuppose that the Secretary of State in certifying the vote will be working with honest and accurate vote totals.
The presuppose that the electors assigned to vote in the electoral college are reflections of a legitimate vote.
But even then, those who created those processes recognized that they may not have been sufficient and provided an opportunity to challenge those electors AFTER they had already cast their vote in the electoral college.
Why?
Because they recognized that the mere keeping in step with the timetable of processes did not confer legitimacy but only presupposed it and that fraud at any previous level vitiated everything at every succeeding level.
But in the 2020 election, at every level from the local polling place to the voting precinct to the county level to the state level, a sufficiently large group of those in charge of elections, most of them Democrats, not only refused to hear challenges about the integrity of the vote, they were part of the cause of its lack of integrity. The same happened much more often than not in state and federal courts and finally in the US Supreme Court where judges simply refused to hear the challenges.
So, while those who originally created the timetable of "Constitutional processes†to make sure there was plenty of time to determine the legitimate vote believed that would be sufficient to weed out most problems, they didn’t create a system capable of withstanding deliberate, premeditated, concerted, and widespread efforts both to undermine election law and to block challenges to those efforts at every step of the way.
They had created a multistep process to ensure a legitimate outcome. But the Democrats in 2020 created a multistep process to foil that at every step of the way.
The writers of the Constitution certainly did not say, "Hey, if you can make it through the gauntlet by cheating like hell, then any illegitimacy you committed along the way is nullified by your having cheated your way through the process.â€
Really, according to those who created the process, if that blatant usurpation cannot be corrected by a convention of states as provided for in the Constitution as a last step, then the people’s only choices are to acquiesce to the usurpation or, individually and through state-organized military, end it by force.
Tim adds:
Very eloquently stated. The system was designed for good-faith behavior, and even for balance between different levels of the system to circumvent any dishonesty at one level. It was never designed for dishonesty at all levels - precisely what we saw in this last election. The Founders couldn't believe it could happen because there was no way to cover it up back then. They couldn't conceive of an electronic media which would choose sides and protect the corrupt in so dramatic a fashion.
Gregory Enrique Sandoval's detailed response to my post about the book "#DeepRig" by Patrick Byrne (former CEO of Overstock dot com) which relates how a group of cyber-experts witnessed 2020's election fraud unfolding.
https://shop.aer.io/DeepCapture/p/The_Deep_RigHow_Election_Fraud_Cost_Donald_J_Trump/9780578861838-11241
Key take-away:
"The writers of the Constitution certainly did not say, "Hey, if you can make it through the gauntlet by cheating like hell, then any illegitimacy you committed along the way is nullified by your having cheated your way through the process.â€
"He describes how his team of "cyber-ninjas†unraveled it while they worked against the clock of Constitutional processes...â€
There is no clock in the sense that if you can’t prove fraud within that time period the one committing the fraud has it converted by "the Constitutional processes†into a legitimate win.
The Constitutional processes are there to ensure that things be done in an orderly fashion through a series of stages in order to ensure a legitimate outcome, but they do not confer legitimacy.
They presuppose that certain things will have happened from the local to the state to the national level to ensure a legitimate outcome.
They presuppose that the election laws of each state were produced by that state’s legislature in conformity with the US Constitution and the state’s constitution.
They presuppose that elections officials will act in accordance with those laws.
They presuppose that violations of those laws at the polling place level will have been dealt with at the precinct level; the precinct level, at the county level; and the county level at the state level before the Secretary of State certifies the vote and, in the case of a presidential election, assigns electors.
They presuppose that, at every stage up to that point, if vote counts are not in by the deadline, any hanky-panky that resulted in the missed deadline will have resulted in those votes being invalidated.
They presuppose that processes set by each state’s legislature to ensure a legitimate voting process, an accurate count of legitimate votes, the proper monitoring of the vote count and ballot handling, and any challenges of those things will be handled properly in conformity with those state laws and regulations.
They presuppose that the Secretary of State in certifying the vote will be working with honest and accurate vote totals.
The presuppose that the electors assigned to vote in the electoral college are reflections of a legitimate vote.
But even then, those who created those processes recognized that they may not have been sufficient and provided an opportunity to challenge those electors AFTER they had already cast their vote in the electoral college.
Why?
Because they recognized that the mere keeping in step with the timetable of processes did not confer legitimacy but only presupposed it and that fraud at any previous level vitiated everything at every succeeding level.
But in the 2020 election, at every level from the local polling place to the voting precinct to the county level to the state level, a sufficiently large group of those in charge of elections, most of them Democrats, not only refused to hear challenges about the integrity of the vote, they were part of the cause of its lack of integrity. The same happened much more often than not in state and federal courts and finally in the US Supreme Court where judges simply refused to hear the challenges.
So, while those who originally created the timetable of "Constitutional processes†to make sure there was plenty of time to determine the legitimate vote believed that would be sufficient to weed out most problems, they didn’t create a system capable of withstanding deliberate, premeditated, concerted, and widespread efforts both to undermine election law and to block challenges to those efforts at every step of the way.
They had created a multistep process to ensure a legitimate outcome. But the Democrats in 2020 created a multistep process to foil that at every step of the way.
The writers of the Constitution certainly did not say, "Hey, if you can make it through the gauntlet by cheating like hell, then any illegitimacy you committed along the way is nullified by your having cheated your way through the process.â€
Really, according to those who created the process, if that blatant usurpation cannot be corrected by a convention of states as provided for in the Constitution as a last step, then the people’s only choices are to acquiesce to the usurpation or, individually and through state-organized military, end it by force.
Tim adds:
Very eloquently stated. The system was designed for good-faith behavior, and even for balance between different levels of the system to circumvent any dishonesty at one level. It was never designed for dishonesty at all levels - precisely what we saw in this last election. The Founders couldn't believe it could happen because there was no way to cover it up back then. They couldn't conceive of an electronic media which would choose sides and protect the corrupt in so dramatic a fashion.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:33 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 840 words, total size 6 kb.
1
That's so true, Tim. The Founders believed, totally, that nobody would want to cheat, that everybody (or almost everybody) would want to toe the line and make sure everything was above board, because everybody would remember why we had just fought a bitter war against the British Empire to secure our independence. True, many were not on board with that, but those people stood to gain nothing by cheating; there were no factions trying to re-attach us to the Empire.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at March 21, 2021 03:56 PM (vgsMo)
2
And they believed that cheaters would be restrained by the checks and balances put in place. They also couldn't conceive of the kind of coordination that would lead to something like this. At that time it would have been very difficult to do, trying to coordinate efforts in multiple states using the mail service.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 22, 2021 06:14 AM (ztiAl)
27kb generated in CPU 0.0787, elapsed 0.2251 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2142 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2142 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
