Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

619

Of course, these Republicans "forged documents" and are "fraudulent electors" from the point of view of Globalist-MSNBC, but what is really going one here? We know that Trump won - and bigly. Is it possible that the truthful results and electoral votes WERE certified, or is this an attempt by Dems to falsely frame the Republicans guilty of a crime that they didn't commit?

Full Article:

Republicans in five states created and submitted forged election materials, raising new questions about who organized the scheme.

Originally, the list was limited to one state. In December 2020, Wisconsin electors met for an official ceremony in which the state formally assigned its participants in the electoral college. But as we've discussed, while the actual electors were being assigned inside the state capitol in Madison, a group of Wisconsin Republicans quietly held a separate, fake ceremony — in the same capitol, at the same time — to cast electoral votes for Donald Trump, despite his defeat in the state.

They then proceeded to forge the official paperwork and sent it to, among others, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist, as if the materials were legitimate. They were not.

That was bizarre, but as it turns out, it was not unique.

This week, the list went from one to three, as Politico reported that the National Archives also received forged certificates of ascertainment from Republicans in Michigan and Arizona — two battleground states where President Joe Biden narrowly prevailed, but where groups of Republicans nevertheless created and submitted fraudulent election materials.

That led to three relatively straightforward questions. The first is whether this was legal. On this point, George Conway wrote this morning, "Anyone who prepared or submitted, or aided, abetted or conspired in the preparation or submission of, false electoral-vote certificates, would presumably be guilty of a host of federal and state criminal offenses."

The second question is whether the Republicans who created and submitted fraudulent election materials had any outside help. Stick a pin in that one and we'll get back to it.

And the third question is whether the list will grow beyond Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. The answer, not surprisingly, is yes: Republicans in Nevada and Georgia did the same thing. As Rachel explained on last night's show:

"It's not like they created these documents to hold close to their chest and fantasize that this had been the real outcome. It's not like they created these documents just to keep themselves as a keepsake. They sent them in to the government as if they were real documents. And it's not like they sent them in saying, 'We know they're not the real electors, because Biden won here, but here's our names for posterity. Here's our names for your records.' No, they actually created these fake documents purporting to be the real certifications of them as electors."

Indeed, in the forged election materials, these Republicans literally described themselves as "the duly elected and qualified electors," despite reality.

Complicating matters is the fact that the fake documents match: They have the same formatting, same spacing, same font, and nearly identical phrasing.

It's worth noting that while Arizona's forged materials originally looked a little different, we learned yesterday that there were actually two different sets of Republicans that created fake documents in the Grand Canyon State — both of which were sent to the National Archives as if they were real — and while one was unique, the other matched the materials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia.

Which brings us back to the aforementioned second question: Did the impostors have outside help? The fact that the five states' materials match certainly suggests there was some kind of coordinated effort.

So, who organized the scheme?

Postscript: In an interesting twist, the Pennsylvania Republican Party previously acknowledged in an official statement that Donald Trump's campaign advised the state GOP to approve an alternate slate of electors — even though Trump lost the Keystone State — but Pennsylvania Republicans did not forge any materials. Rather, they created paperwork that said the pro-Trump electors would become actual electors if some court ever issued an order declaring the GOP ticket the winner in the state. That obviously never happened.

Second Postscript: The Detroit News reported this week that Michigan's attorney general's office said it is scrutinizing the bogus election materials as part of an "ongoing" investigation.

Another report by Globalist-controlled AOL: https://www.aol.com/entertainment/michigan-ag-says-scheme-overthrow-090042901.html

What do you think is going on here, Pats?

Of course, these Republicans "forged documents" and are "fraudulent electors" from the point of view of Globalist-MSNBC, but what is really going one here? We know that Trump won - and bigly. Is it possible that the truthful results and electoral votes WERE certified, or is this an attempt by Dems to falsely frame the Republicans guilty of a crime that they didn't commit? Full Article: >Republicans in five states created and submitted forged election materials, raising new questions about who organized the scheme. >Originally, the list was limited to one state. In December 2020, Wisconsin electors met for an official ceremony in which the state formally assigned its participants in the electoral college. But as we've discussed, while the actual electors were being assigned inside the state capitol in Madison, a group of Wisconsin Republicans quietly held a separate, fake ceremony — in the same capitol, at the same time — to cast electoral votes for Donald Trump, despite his defeat in the state. >They then proceeded to forge the official paperwork and sent it to, among others, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist, as if the materials were legitimate. They were not. >That was bizarre, but as it turns out, it was not unique. >This week, the list went from one to three, as Politico reported that the National Archives also received forged certificates of ascertainment from Republicans in Michigan and Arizona — two battleground states where President Joe Biden narrowly prevailed, but where groups of Republicans nevertheless created and submitted fraudulent election materials. >That led to three relatively straightforward questions. The first is whether this was legal. On this point, George Conway wrote this morning, "Anyone who prepared or submitted, or aided, abetted or conspired in the preparation or submission of, false electoral-vote certificates, would presumably be guilty of a host of federal and state criminal offenses." >The second question is whether the Republicans who created and submitted fraudulent election materials had any outside help. Stick a pin in that one and we'll get back to it. >And the third question is whether the list will grow beyond Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. The answer, not surprisingly, is yes: Republicans in Nevada and Georgia did the same thing. As Rachel explained on last night's show: >"It's not like they created these documents to hold close to their chest and fantasize that this had been the real outcome. It's not like they created these documents just to keep themselves as a keepsake. They sent them in to the government as if they were real documents. And it's not like they sent them in saying, 'We know they're not the real electors, because Biden won here, but here's our names for posterity. Here's our names for your records.' No, they actually created these fake documents purporting to be the real certifications of them as electors." >Indeed, in the forged election materials, these Republicans literally described themselves as "the duly elected and qualified electors," despite reality. >Complicating matters is the fact that the fake documents match: They have the same formatting, same spacing, same font, and nearly identical phrasing. >It's worth noting that while Arizona's forged materials originally looked a little different, we learned yesterday that there were actually two different sets of Republicans that created fake documents in the Grand Canyon State — both of which were sent to the National Archives as if they were real — and while one was unique, the other matched the materials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia. >Which brings us back to the aforementioned second question: Did the impostors have outside help? The fact that the five states' materials match certainly suggests there was some kind of coordinated effort. >So, who organized the scheme? >Postscript: In an interesting twist, the Pennsylvania Republican Party previously acknowledged in an official statement that Donald Trump's campaign advised the state GOP to approve an alternate slate of electors — even though Trump lost the Keystone State — but Pennsylvania Republicans did not forge any materials. Rather, they created paperwork that said the pro-Trump electors would become actual electors if some court ever issued an order declaring the GOP ticket the winner in the state. That obviously never happened. >Second Postscript: The Detroit News reported this week that Michigan's attorney general's office said it is scrutinizing the bogus election materials as part of an "ongoing" investigation. Another report by Globalist-controlled AOL: https://www.aol.com/entertainment/michigan-ag-says-scheme-overthrow-090042901.html What do you think is going on here, Pats?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (101).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I HATE what these people are doing but can't help be impressed by it.

I understand why, but I'm still disgusted. Typically the sort of people prone to believing in ends justify means, don't distinguish between ends and means at all. There is a qualitative difference between one who acts upon others without appeal to law or morality, and one who acts, whatever their method, in response to others attempting to tread on them--in the same way there is a qualitative difference between force and violence.

And while morality is indeed an invention of mankind, it is not merely for the disenfranchisement of the powerful, in service of the weak. While I hate stalin, his quote is apt and true "quantity has a quality all its own". The moral arc of history has always, in the long run, been towards greater enfranchisement because, as a civilization reaches its peak, it is already halfway to failure. By definition, the peak is the halfway point of any curve. If you look at the final days of the original chinese government, before mao's coup succeeded, they chose selfishness and self-preservation, over their nation, choosing to cut bait and run. I'm not going off on a tangent here, I'm driving at something: there may or may not have been some consideration for living to fight another day, to return renewed and take back their nation, but I don't think so. Without consideration to the idea of honor, purely pragmatically, it might have rallied their forces and acted as a sort of martyrdom, for the head of the chinese government to stand and fight, even if it meant death. This illustrates a broader idea though: That as a civilization faces its decline, as chaos and disorder increase, and it confronts its own limitations, there must increasingly come a series of decisions, hardly predictable in their interval or arrival, but bound by some law of nature or the universe to arise--and at these junctures, officials and rulers must be tempted to choose between their own political and military survival, versus what is best for their own nation, their territory. Thats what hitting the ceiling of your own merit as a ruler does, it forces you to decide between short term political gains and the long term survival of the broader polity.

The moral arc of history is this and only this: That the selfish, the short-term, will fail, and fall, and fade away. The most effective and longest-lasting rulers and regimes, will on average, become, in time, both the most machavallian, and the most egalitarian, without which the social, economic, and political forces of civilization are not properly balanced, and thus determine, longer or shorter, the ultimate lifespan of that civilization and its various regimes that rise and fall throughout a nations history.

Eventually we will reach not merely a global state, or very near to it (orwells three competing superpowers), but it must, by definition, inevitably fall if it is rotten, and give rise, eventually, to something better.

I do not know, given each magnitude increase in a nations population, if there are ultimate limits to how benevolent it can become, only that the arc of history has shown the worst regimes (the most short-term oriented) have eventually failed and falled, leading to today's world, which despite all the globohomo and 'modernism', is still considered the most peaceful and prosperous periods in human history.

For more, I would listen to

Because war is the most all encompassing metaphor there is for all the various processes in nature and civilization.

I listen to it, almost daily, and its worth it every time.

[–] • 0 pt

Cogent comment. Thanks for the link too.

[–] • 0 pt

Cogent comment. Thanks for the link too.

Always.

[–] • 0 pt

Don't get me wrong - I'm disgusted,, too.

Typically the sort of people prone to believing in ends justify means, don't distinguish between ends and means at all.

Quotable.

Thanks for the link - I will listen.