This Could Get Interesting – Report: McDaniel Will File Legal Challenge On Monday In Mississippi Primary Race

Given the fraud found so far within the district ballots that have been researched – this challenge could very well lead to another vote:

thad cochran - chris mcdaniel

Not sure where this guy Charles Johnson gets his information, but he’s been all over this on twitter 24/7 since the night of the runoff.

You can follow the twitter discussion HERE

This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Election 2014, media bias, Mitch McConnell, propaganda, Tea Party, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to This Could Get Interesting – Report: McDaniel Will File Legal Challenge On Monday In Mississippi Primary Race

  1. TrickleUpPolitics says:

    WOOHOO! With his talk of whether or not he would support Cochran in Nov I was afraid he had given up on pursuing a legal challenge to the fraud. Whenever Dems are voting you can be sure there is fraud. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Like

  2. Daniel says:

    I kind of thought that’s what all the black voter fraud investigation was about.

    Like

  3. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    This is the expected response (by McDaniel) to the questionable election result. But it doesn’t guarantee a new run off, or even the disqualification of any particular votes.

    I will be waiting to see what the courts rule, though.

    Like

    • chiavarm says:

      I think your concern is warranted. The courts are fill with governor appointees, so they may not be all that friendly towards McDaniel.

      Like

  4. czarowniczy says:

    Oh yeah, he’s going to file a court challenge in the most crookedest state in the US (no poop, it out-crookedest Louisiana last year) challenging a crooked election. OOooooookay – maybe they could ask for a change of venue to Chicago?

    Like

  5. benzy says:

    As I see it, the major obstacle his challenge faces is… even IF he can prove that there were 10,000 Democrats who voted illegally in the Republican run-off, he has no way to prove who they voted for on each of their secret ballots. We can assume they voted for Cochran, but assumptions aren’t good enough for a legal challenge to an election result.

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Cochran’s supporters are already making the argument that many of the dems who might have voted illegally in the run-off could have voted for McDaniel (yeah, like there’s any chance of that…)

      This, I believe,will be the reasoning excuse of the courts when they resoundingly refuse to rule in McDaniel’s favor.

      Like

      • taqiyyologist says:

        Lawyers and sitting Judges are overwhelmingly Progressives. Which is to say, “evil and loving every minute of it”.

        The “camps” of which we sometimes speak? They will be Fully Legal, and they probably have it all gamed out already. These are Mao-loving, Stalin-worshipping, Hitler-emulating progs, people. There will be no more Legal Victories for the free.

        They’ve had since 1934 to get it right.

        Maranatha! because there ain’t gonna be no Jesus F. Cruz. No human savior.

        We’re beyond “legal”, now.

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          Marantha? As in one word, or two? 🙂

          Like

          • taqiyyologist says:

            מרנא תא

            Come, oh Lord.

            Two words, I guess. I’ve always used it that way, but for some reason never delved into the whole etymology.

            The one-word version means “The Lord Has Come”, and is also interesting in this context provided by Wikipedia:

            The 1985 New Jerusalem Bible translates 1 Cor 16:22, “If there is anyone who does not love the Lord, a curse on such a one. Maran atha.” In the context of First Corinthians, understanding the Greek “maranatha” as Aramaic “Maran atha” in the preterite sense would provide substantiation for the preceding anathema. That is, one who does not love the Lord is accursed because our Lord has ascended and come unto his throne (e.g., Dan 7:13) and wields power to implement such a curse. It would also substantiate the following prayer for grace from the ascended Lord Jesus, who has come to his throne and then sends the Holy Spirit

            A lot to chew on for someone who has always used “Maranatha!” to say “Please, God! Before what Progs tend to do happens YET AGAIN! Come BACK TO US!”

            All I know is I’m gettin’ back to Him. Swimming for the boat and waving my arms.

            Like

      • justafly says:

        The NSA will know who voted for whom!

        Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        I don’t understand why a challenger would have to prove how secret-ballot voters voted, in order to prove that there was sufficient fraud to impact the election. If the margin of victory was 7,000 votes, and the challenger can show documented evidence of more than 7,000 fraudulent voters, that result should be sufficient to invalidate the election results.

        If you need to corroborate the fraud, just look at the total and net votes, by county, as compared to the documented fraudulent votes by county.

        I’m assuming this is a preponderance-of-evidence type of decision?

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “If either (1) enough illegal votes were cast for the contestee to change the election result or (2) the amount of votes disqualified is substantial enough that it is impossible to discern the will of the voters, a special election is required.”

      http://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1994/92-ca-57-2.html

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        “…if enough illegal votes were cast for the contestee…”

        How many of the illegal votes can be proved to have been cast for Cochran, or McDaniel? Doesn’t the casting of secret ballots prevent any determination?

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          No, because clause (2) applies in the alternative.

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            I’m sure that the Cochran camp will argue vehemently that the voters have expressed their will and that it remains to be proved whether any of their votes can be disqualified.

            Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        I should have read a bit farther; John Galt already answered it, with source cited.

        So, yeah, confirmed: if # of documented fraudulent votes > margin of victory, the election is invalidated.

        Like

  6. taqiyyologist says:

    Burn it down, for the win.

    UKIP?

    USIP.

    Like

  7. Yes. At least McDaniel didn’t cave like Boehner & company would do. It appears he has principles and is morally outraged, as am I, that Boss Hogg can STEAL an election for his own gain. They haven’t even tried to hid what they are doing. And they are doing it with the explicit approval of the establishment GOP including McConnell. Everything has been 100% out in the open as though they have some kind of Congressional Amnesty. So maybe the left’s primary amnesty project is Congressional and amnesty for illegal immigrants is the secondary objective.

    At this point it appears that McDaniel is willing to stand up and put himself on the line for his belief in how the system should work. How many people (myself included) feel anger and post on line but do not stand up and do nothing?

    One last thought. Why is Senator Ted Cruz taking such a “hands off” position? I’ve already given up on so many who are willing to compromise their moral compass to stay in the good graces of the establishment – Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc. If you see corruption and you give it a pass, are you really standing up for the people? Or are you beginning to work both sides of the Republican isle like everyone?

    Sorry for the rant. It was a long, stressful weekend at work with a major software implementation and very little sleep. All dictated by our current government and to be in step with ObamaCare. Gag! Rant off.

    Like

  8. John Galt says:

    vote buying for $15 per vote and other stuff

    starting at 1:15

    Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      Hopefully Charles will get his hands on the email that will be the smoking gun. It’s not hard to figure out what senator they are talking about.

      Like

  9. someoneinnorthms says:

    The law in Mississippi is plain. If the number of illegal votes is greater than the number of votes between the two competitors, then a new election is granted.

    Like

  10. radiopatriot says:

    http://charlescjohnson.com

    Charles C. Johnson is an investigative journalist and author. He is a contributor to the Daily Caller. Most recently, he is author of Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America’s Most Underrated President (Encounter Books).

    He has written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New Criterion, The American Spectator, The Claremont Review of Books, City Journal, Reason.com, National Review Online, Tablet Magazine, The Weekly Standard, Powerline, and The New York Sun.

    His work has been featured on Real Clear Politics, the Drudge Report, Hotair.com, The Blaze, Breitbart.com, Rush Limbaugh’s Show, and the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web. He has been on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs and numerous radio programs, including Larry Elder, John Batchelor, Rusty Humphries, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Mark Levin, and Larry Kudlow.

    To date, he is the only person to have won both the Robert F. Bartley Fellowship and the Eric Breindel Collegiate Journalism Award, which came with a $10,000 prize and an internship at the Wall Street Journal after he exposed a pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas professor at his alma mater. He has also won the Robert F. Novak Special Alumni Fellowship from the Phillips Foundation and the Publius Fellowship at the Claremont Institute.

    Charles has worked for Alan M. Dershowitz at Harvard Law School, Seth Lipsky at the New York Sun, Carl Schramm at the Kauffman Foundation, and Charles Kesler at the Claremont Review of Books.

    Fluent in French and proficient in Spanish, Charles lives in Los Angeles.

    Like

    • nyetneetot says:

      (Blink… Blink…) Is this like a dating profile?
      Charles also only drink white wine from France and has been known to consume an entire family sized pizza in a single sitting.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “he exposed a pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas professor at his alma mater”

      I think they list that right on their CV these days.

      Like

      • taqiyyologist says:

        Indeed. Right there alongside “NAMBLA supporter”, “Feminist Male”, and “Opposer of White Cis-Male Patriarchal Hegemony”.

        I’m SO glad I never went to college. I never thought I’d say that, until I witnessed the last ten years of prog insanity, marching through our institutions with jackboots on.

        Like

  11. Sentient says:

    So what’s the over/under on whether McDaniel has proof of enough illegal votes exceeding the margin of his “loss”?

    Like

  12. P.Spinach says:

    Hmmm – 85%?

    THAT’S ENOUGH TO START A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL PAAARTY! Whaaat are we waiting for???

    Results of McDaniel’s appeal. OK. May God guide this Party.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s