Judge orders a new primary election after evidence was presented of widespread, pernicious fraud.
Original Link: https://ctexaminer.com/2023/11/01/court-overturns-ganim-win-in-bridgeport-primary-calling-evidence-of-fraud-shocking/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/5oqQX
BRIDGEPORT – A judge ruled on Wednesday to overturn the city’s Democratic primary election, initially won by incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, following claims of absentee ballot fraud by his opponent, John Gomes.
After two weeks of evidentiary hearings for Gomes’s absentee ballot fraud lawsuit, Judge William Clark ordered a new Democratic primary based on 180 pieces of evidence presented by Gomes’s legal counsel.
In the 37-page ruling, Clark said the video footage presented by Bill Bloss – Gomes’s attorney – was particularly alarming.
"Mr. Ganim was also correct to be ‘shocked’ at what he saw on the video clips in evidence that were shown to him while he was on the witness stand,” Clark wrote. “The videos are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.
I am confused, I have been told over and over again, for over a decade now, that election fraud rarely happens? But yet, here we see yet another local election overturned due to widespread, pernicious fraud. This happens over and over again, all across the country, but we are supposed to believe that this never happens at the state level? /sarc
File these links away, people. Throw them in the face of anyone who says election fraud never happens.
No surprise that it was a Democratic primary. The party of fraud won't even run their primary elections honestly. The real question is whose Cheerios the incumbent mayor pissed in. Democrats cheat all the time without the judiciary intervening, so what makes this case different?
They're selecting for the guy who stuffs ballots the best.
If you think about it, it’s really evolutionary pressure. The most fit political animal is the one that cheats the best.
Always has been.
Honestly, the main surprise is that they bother hiding it.
Do I correctly recall the DNC going on record during the Bernie thing to state that no, the DNC itself decides who wins? The voting stuff is purely for show.
It's amazing how so many countries other than the US routinely have "widely disputed elections" or whatever cuckolded term the media wants to use. They say that when they don't like the result.
In the US, though, it could never happen. Nvm that the CIA is one of the ones routinely rigging these things.
That was my main takeaway from the election as well. Not that other countries with widely disputed elections are suspiciously the ones the US wants regime change in (but that's a good observation), but that it can't happen in the US.
It's not only that we don't have disputed elections - there's not even any official process to challenge the results - except for sending alternate electors or the VP pocketing the count. We saw what happened when people protested to send it back to the states.
Empires always look impossible to topple until they aren't. The good-grilling seems like it will never stop until it does. I can't tell you when, but I can absolutely tell you the US is on the decline. And China and India are on the rise.
I always ask why people would want to move from india to the US. I suppose a lot of them don't; just there's a lot of Indians. But what I mean is you have a better chance of striking your fortune over there at this point. Sinking tides strand all boats.
Remember the battle of Athens? How they handled election fraud, can we go back to those times?
Negative, Ghost Rider. That requires men. With balls.
The party that explicitly and publicly screwed Bernie Sanders out of two nominations is also telling you that election fraud can't happen. Also, so is Bernie Sanders and his supporters...
Well... ok but it only happens in isolated incidents in local elections with the city.
It's often the same people running the national elections, but TOTALLY DIFFERENT this time
As the judge in Kari Lake's case explained, the claimants need to PROVE someone would have motive to commit fraud in an election. It's not like it's self-evident or anything...
No motive at all, other than taking control of the levers of power. Once they have it, oops, no standing!
Where were these judges 3 years ago??? I think this was ONE person stuffing ballots.
I remember a line they had about there only being fifteen or so confirmed cases of fraud in a century. So, what, they had twelve times the fraud of the entire country over a century, in a single city, in a single election? How could you not vote blue when they're such amazing overacheivers?