DEMS HAD A LAW IN PLACE THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO BE AUDITED. IT HAS BEEN LIFTED! (GreatAwakening)

submitted ago by srayzie

THERE WAS A 36 YEAR LAW IN PLACE BANNING THE AUDITING OF ELECTION THEFT. IT HAS BEEN LIFTED.

Dems had a law in place that made it illegal for elections to be audited. The law was so stark that even the RNC could be brought up on criminal charges for investigating election fraud, for an infraction as small as a poll worker asking for ID in a "blue state". THAT is how Democrats got away with having illegals vote, the dead vote, and all the other crap.

GOP legally barred from fighting vote fraud
Archive

2018 is the first time in 36 years the Dems will face an election where them stealing it can be studied and prosecuted. And when they lose, rather than say the real reason - they can't get away with fraud anymore, - they'll claim they lost because of the Russians.

The report, with all the details follows below. California was never a blue state, and rather than lose the whole deal Dems wanted to split California up when this law was un-done in January 2018 by none other than an Obama appointed judge.

Note: Could that be one of the reasons Q kept saying to Watch California?

Judge ends consent decree limiting RNC 'ballot security' activities
Archive

What could keep such a law out of the MSM, with the RNC being silent about it also for 36 years? Blackmail? WHO was blackmailed to stay shut up about this, and let it happen?

Resource

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

MolochHunter ago

What did the RNC get in return, what was the Quid Pro Quo ?

I suspect it was immunity from scrutiny of military industrial complex funding of the GOP

so much corruption has grown under that damnable 1982 agreement

221113 ago

The Reps were caught red-handed doing exactly the same kind of election fraud we're wringing our hands over now. They were hauled into court over it. The Quid Pro Quo they got is they escaped criminal prosecution for what they did, and everybody got to sweep it under the rug.

A consent decree is when a plaintiff, a defendant, and a judge presiding over the case, all mutually agree to some remedy for a criminal wrong that is to take place outside of the criminal justice system. "Consent" because all parties freely agreed to it. "Decree" because the blessing of the judge gives it the weight of a court ruling, equivalent to a sentence after a criminal trial.

myvoicefromhell ago

Who was the judge in this case?

myvoicefromhell ago

Thank you!