Before and after the 2020 Election, the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania made several rulings that many believe weren’t based on the Constitution but went against free and fair elections.
Will they do it again?
Before the 2020 Election in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court there ruled that absentee ballots could be received and counted up to three days after Election day. This went against common sense and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
By allowing this, the court allowed the Democrats to determine how many votes were needed to steal the election and then send in these ballots during the three days after the election.
This case was referred to the US Supreme Court and was kept in place because new judge Amy Coney Barret refused to get involved. Justice Barret claimed she was too new to the court. Judge Alito ordered the state to keep track of all ballots that came in after Election Day.
President Trump was up by around 700,000 votes on Election Night. Somehow the Democrats made up this difference and gave the state to Joe Biden. There was no tally of absentee ballots on Election Night so we have no idea how many ballots were in-house on election night and how many were received or manufactured after Election Night. The state eventually claimed on 14,000 ballots came in after Election night and gave Biden the lead by 80,000 ballots. The election was stolen.
After the election, the Pennsylvania Supreme court rejected President Trump’s claim that election observers were unconstitutionally prevented access to vote counting centers.
The actions by Democrats to prevent Republicans from observing election counting were reprehensible and invalidated the election. The court ignored this in their ruling.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also ruled after the 2020 Election that mailed-in ballots with no dates or handwritten names could be counted. Who knows where these ballots came from.
Now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is hearing a case where a small county (Fulton County) would like to investigate their voting machines and the state and Dominion claim that the county can’t do it. Dominion is acting like a used car salesman who claims he can tell the owner of a car he sold where the car can be driven. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State is claiming that the county’s voting machines should not be investigated because the investigators are not who the SoS wants to perform the investigation and they aren’t professional enough, which is not true.
This decision may be the last election audit in the US. Dominion knows it and is all-in. The Democrats do too. This is why they’ve produced around 1,000 pages of legalese to make their non-sensical arguments, all paid for by the PA taxpayer.
We’ll see what the PA Supreme Court does.
Overall, as a former auditor, I’ve performed hundreds of audits around the globe. I never had anyone refuse an audit. I certainly never was sued to prevent an audit. The fact the state and Dominion are doing this says it all.