Indeed, she rips them a couple extra orifi during her testimony, as they try and browbeat her. She isn’t having any. If she isn’t telling the truth, she needs to get a special Oscar from the Academy and a long-term contract. She’s the best actress alive.

She needs to be given a medal.

Indeed, this is one of my chief concerns with the notion of “fixing” things via a Convention of the States, as some on the right have argued for. The problem is, shall we say, “The Wikipedia Problem”.

People on the left have an obsessive behavior pattern, and will spend insanely inordinate amounts of time overseeing and shepherding something to the end they want — vis-a-vis … ANY “hot button” subject page in Wikipedia.

People on the right have jobs. We have lives. We have better things to do than constantly supervise anything to death.

The end result of any Convention of the States is that the left will swarm it and control it to get what they want, and ignore the purpose of getting the USA **back** on track, instead getting it onto **their** track. And if we DO spend the time and focus, we’ll get something down exactly as we want it, and then we’ll stop paying attention… and behind our backs, the left will then shift, obfuscate, nullify, and otherwise negate everything that we spent time Getting Correct.

Because that’s What They Do.

” .. plenty of people I know ramble and add irrelevant information while they talk, so what.”

So, it makes them appear to have less organized minds and thus be less credible when it comes to inferences they might have drawn. Not necessarily as to the specific actions which they have observed.

” Nothing in your comments invalidates those facts.”

My aim was not to rebut her account. Nor do I contend that her statements were false. My contention is that her dragging in irrelevant material, makes sorting through what she said of value, more work.

A good example of a more coherent presentation is currently ongoing as Republican poll watchers recount the obstacles they encountered and the ballot irregularities they observed in the TCF Center in Detroit.

By NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrV_QPTtrk

I lived on the South Side of Chicago in the 1970s. Old friends wouldn’t visit me there because of the danger, I had to meet them on the North side. Detroit is a dangerous place, I understand exactly what’s going on with her mother.

The first three items in the list are simple statements of fact, no votes for Trump, illegal ballot counting, and the presence of the chief of Dominion and his second.

She isn’t a great speaker, plenty of people I know ramble and add irrelevant information while they talk, so what. Nothing in your comments invalidates those facts.

You write:

There are many ways laws have been interpreted through the years and, yes, there is bias but it is clearly on both sides. You know this.

Again with the silly strawman arguments. Why, there is bias on both sides! Who would have thought it! Did you actually read what I wrote, or even try to understand it? Let’s repeat what I wrote:

And no, there is no “on the one hand, on the other hand” about judge bias being equal on two sides.

Get it? Of course now and then there is bias on the right, but it is not EQUAL on both sides.

I added:

That is because the judicial philosophy underpinning each side is quite different and it leads to different results. Simply put, the judges on the right have a tendency to stick to the law even if they’re not all that keen on the result, because they have a narrow judicial philosophy of how to interpret law and how to apply it.

Get that? Conservative justices have a tendency to stick to the law even if it leads to results they don’t like. Obviously, they don’t always do so. But they do so many many many times more than a liberal judge ever would because – as I said in my next sentence:

Liberal/left judges have an elastic concept of the law and interpret it with great flexibility to get the result they want.

Others have addressed your errors on “fairness” and the Founders, so I won’t get into that.

But I will add that you have no idea what an ex post facto law is if you think it applies to the PA voting situation. An ex post facto law is a criminal law:

…any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.

The term applies to a statute (passed by a legislature) that criminalizes behavior committed prior to the passage of the law. There is zero applicability to the current situation.

Her accusations if true, should be astonishing, but given Tarver’s previous testimony, they are not.

One problem she has as a witness is her apparent inability to separate out “her story” , from the simple facts of what she witnessed, when exactly, and where.

The shock she felt, the danger her mother perceived in the parking arrangements, the petty slights she felt , the broken promises, are all fodder for her conversation with peers over coffee, but not helpful overall … unless they can later be tied convincingly into a pattern of deception and manipulation fearing discovery.

It might be human nature, or female nature, or the signs of the times [answer: 1&3] but people cannot seem to relate simple facts in a straightforward manner without repeated prompting and guidance.

“The facts M’am, just the facts please”

In 27 hours she did not see one ballot for Trump.

The election workers would cycle the same stack of ballots through the tabulating machines multiple times to “fix” a bad ballot.

The head of Dominion and his number two were there with laptops working on the vote.

Her final assessment was that the vote tabulation was “one hundred percent fraud”

https://youtu.be/uOwbJqPlXHI

Which founders and writers of the Constitution said that “fairness” was a large part of what they envisioned when they wrote the Constitution?

Do you have any cites to this effect by the founders and Constitutional authors concerning the scope and extent of this supposed concern? Because in years of classroom study – albeit decades ago – centering on the founding and early days of the republic, I cannot call to mind even one famous essay on “fairness” as a guiding constructive principle in the formulation of the document.

So, apart, perhaps, from a tortuous attempt to explain Senate representation in terms of an equity inducement for independent states to join the plan of union, or the enumeration of inhabitants provision [which was a practical bargain not a point of equity] it is difficult to think of any provisions that could not be more properly and precisely described in terms of a framework of fundamental rights, powers, and lawful process.

Thomas Sowell in the passage referenced is at pains to explain with his extreme example of ex post facto applications, just how rampant judicial discretion, or in the instant case lawless law-making which recursively ignores the fundamental purposes of law, makes the law unknowable; and thus undercuts its promulgation: defeating an essential characteristic of any valid or non-nonsensical law, and rendering it meaningless in terms of anything but as an act of unrestrained will.

And as Tarver nade clear in her presentation, the approach of numerous Democrat controlled municipalities in the face of the clear and unambiguous law which has provided them, have been to simply ignore the law wholesale, and to then defended their practices on the basis that to enforce honest, uniform, and transparent standards would be itself unfair.

This is precisely what apparently occurred in Wayne County where 71 percent of the reporting precinct’s tallies could not be reconciled and should not therefore have been certified. And they would not have been, if the weak Republican canvassers had not been momentarily browbeaten by unfounded charges of racism and by physical threats and menace, into a certification which they then attempted to recind.

To pretend that such a ridiculous political arrangement bears any resemblance to a functional Democracy where the impartial application of the law rules, or that such people as advocate such a corrupt parody are fit citizens of a real republic, is just self-delusional and destructive insanity.

Of course some men seem to enjoy being cheated out of their lives and even seem to get a quasi-sexual thrill out of it. They won’t hold the violators to account, or even break relations, so cowardly and perverse are they. There is a rude name for that that has arisen recently. But usually we just call them modern liberals.

Citations please from the Federalist Papers for instance regarding what the founders “envisioned” when they wrote the Constitution. It is ironic or moronic that you have any concerns for what the authors of the Constitution envisioned; that living breathing “thing” and those old dead white men “thing,” you know?

Not a big check it appears. Is he a free lance worker or part of the CA Union of Nominal Trolls?

There are many ways laws have been interpreted through the years and, yes, there is bias but it is clearly on both sides. You know this.

But sometimes even the narrow philosophy is not really that narrow. For instance, the 14th Amendment was meant to protect blacks from discrimination. But the Supreme Court has also interpreted it to prohibit discrimination against women. An interesting take on it since women weren’t even allowed to vote at the time it was ratified. Justice Scalia actually agreed with the court on that. Not so strict construction.

Thomas Sowell’s view is interesting. He writes that ‘fair’ and ‘compassion’ and ‘social justice’ should not play a part but no doubt it has in many instances. Especially fairness.

But he does write something that interestingly speaks to the PA voting case. He writes: The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids ex post facto laws so that citizens cannot be punished or held liable for actions which were not illegal when those actions took place.

Replace the word citizens with ‘voters in PA’ and the word ‘actions’ for ‘mail-in voting’. It’s not about being compassionate to allow the mail-in votes to stand. But to some degree it is about fairness But fairness is a large part of what the founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.