Report: Fulton County, GA -- Home of Fanny Willis and Darrius "Sweetdick" Honeycum, Esq. -- Had 25,000 MoreAbsentee Votes in 2020 Than Absentee Voters

Whoops!

Whoopsie!

Cleta Mitchell @CletaMitchell

And here's the REAL kicker about the 2020 Fulton County absentee ballots:

148,319 absentee ballots were counted in the 2020 General Election from Fulton County...

but only 125,784 voters are recorded as casting an absentee ballot.

There are 25,534 more ballots counted than there are voters recorded as having voted by absentee ballot in Fulton County in 2020.

Remember: the margin between President Trump and Joe Biden was 11,779 votes...and that was the THIRD certified number and didn't match either of the first two counts....the counties could not get their numbers to match from the first count to the second to the third.....@GaSecofState

Brad Raffensperger has NEVER explained that...

The full report can be accessed here: @KevinMoncla
https://x.com/KevinMoncla/status/2016989656307367970?s=20

@EIwatchdogs @BasedMikeLee @chiproytx @gc22gc

The full report is here.

Roger Kimball at the Spectator: We're approaching the real endgame of the 2020 election.

In the 2020 election, Donald Trump was ahead in Georgia by some 100,000 votes until, vesto-presto, there were mysterious leaks with no water and, by George, Biden pulled ahead by some 11,000 votes. We all remember the allegations of election workers raising the alarm over the low count for Biden or apparently doing their utmost to increase his vote share, as well as the accounts of curiously pristine mail-in ballots.

The FBI has a lot of sifting and sorting to accomplish in the weeks and months ahead. An ongoing court case claims that 150,000 mail-in ballots in Fulton County were suspicious (my cautious word for "fake") because they weren't creased and didn't look like they were marked by hand. Officially, Sleepy Joe was the first Democrat to gain more than 70 percent of the vote in Fulton since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. The FBI analysis of mail-in ballots might show him to be as popular in Fulton as Castro was in Cuba or Stalin was in the Soviet Union.

There are also hard drives to be inspected and electronic voting machines to be vetted. Remember the allegations that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems had been hacked? Dominion (now "Liberty Vote") collected some $787 million in damages from Fox News over the story. It will be interesting to see what sort of follow-up there is to those allegations.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have not been idle. New York Representative Dan Goldman has filed an amendment to prevent the Trump administration from investigating election records, ballot boxes, and voting machines across the country. Yes, really. Been there, done that. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" as Hillary Clinton famously put it, on the matter of Benghazi.

...

Commenting on the tsunami of news crashing out from Georgia, the great Cleta Mitchell, who advised President Trump when he contested the Georgia election results, noted that on the morning of election day, November 4, 2020, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Trump led by 103K votes with only 94K ballots left. "Four days later," Mitchell noted:

[T]here were 300K more ballots, including 148K absentee ballots from Fulton County. That's 25,535 more ballots than voters, more than double Biden's margin. Over 133K ballot images were deleted. Zero of 148 Fulton County tabulators had the required tapes. Nearly 7K fictitious ballots remain certified, and no one investigated.

Then there is the news about Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. Grand jury testimony that was just unsealed revealed that Kemp told the chief of Georgia Bureau of Investigation not to investigation allegations of fraud in the 2020 election, Saying he was a "team player," the official dropped the case.

The mask is being ripped off as I write. A Gestalt shift in The Narrative is underway.

As you know, 99% of the lawsuits filed to contest the rigged 2020 election were tossed out due to the judges deciding that the candidates in the races did not have "standing" -- a recognizable legal interest -- to challenge the rules which determine the outcome of the races.

This was absurd then and it's absurd now. (And it was also very dishonest for the partisan Democrat media to bleat that judges had examined all of these allegations and found them meritless. No -- it dismissed the lawsuits without ever examining the allegations.)

Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court injected some sanity back into election contests, determining that, yes, the actual candidates in elections do have legal standing to challenge election rules.

Like whether or not you verify signatures or not.

n a surprisingly sweeping opinion issued Wednesday, a five-justice majority in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections held that a federal congressional candidate had a legal right to sue, known as standing, in federal court to challenge an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted as many as 14 days later. Reversing lower federal court rulings that denied Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) standing to sue, the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts adopted a categorical rule upholding candidate standing based on a candidate's inherent interest in "the integrity of the election" and the "democratic process."

The vote was 7-2 in favor of Bost, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreeing with the result that the majority reached but not its reasoning. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, would have affirmed the lower courts' denial of standing.

Under the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs in federal court only have standing to sue if they properly allege that the challenged action or law causes them "concrete and particularized injury in fact." The Supreme Court has generally interpreted that rule to deny standing based merely on some category that the plaintiff falls into, such as "citizen standing" or "taxpayer standing." Instead, the court has usually required plaintiffs to allege that that they have suffered some kind of judicially cognizable real-world harm that sets them apart from the broad run of society.

Adopting the principal argument advanced by Bost, the majority stated, "Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns." That candidate interest in protecting the integrity and fairness of the electoral process "is in no sense 'common to all members of the public,'" Roberts asserted. Although the public also has an interest in the integrity of elections, the candidate's interest "differs in kind." An unfair election "plainly affects those who compete for the support of the people in a different way than it affects the people who lend their support," Roberts stated.

...

The majority may have been influenced by remedial concerns similar to those voiced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh during oral argument. There, Kavanaugh had remarked that an undesirable effect of denying candidates standing to challenge vote-counting rules before Election Day would put courts on the spot afterward, when someone already appeared to have won and others to have lost.

In his opinion for the court, Roberts criticized the dissent's argument that candidates should not be deemed to have standing unless they properly alleged that the challenged rule likely made the difference between winning and losing. The problem, he said, is that a court probably can't tell whether a rule affected the ultimate result until after the votes are counted pursuant to that rule. Roberts quoted from an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia while concurring in the grant of a stay during Bush v. Gore in 2000: "Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

Votes in 2020 Than Absentee Voters&bodytext=Whoops! Whoopsie! Cleta Mitchell @CletaMitchell And here's the REAL kicker about the 2020 Fulton County absentee ballots: 148,319 absentee ballots were counted in the 2020 General Election from Fulton County... but only 125,784 voters are recorded as casting an absentee...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 03:57 PM

| Access Comments