Patrick Colbeck✝️

@pjcolbeck 👀⬇️🚩🚩🚩❓️❓️❓️ parallel vote count

@PJColbeck have some integrity and standards! How Election Integrity Effort Is Now A Total Psychological Warfare Con Of Bullshit! See the post by Mike Lindell's Election Crime Bureau Chief and it is post like this which make us all look like FOOLS. But remember he pushed they "had the PCAPS" too! If these folks will "lie" to your face about things you can easily look up in court documents and rulings - on your own - what else will they lie to you about, and never blink twice? Here is each Election Crime Bureau Claim versus the court ruling: None of these statements were affirmed by the ruling, and most were not even the subject of the Coomer v. Byrne case. Judge Barber’s order granted summary judgment for Byrne solely because Coomer failed to prove actual malice (subjective knowledge of falsity or serious doubt) by clear and convincing evidence regarding the claims in The Deep Rig about the alleged Antifa call and Coomer’s supposed role in it. The court made no findings that any election-related allegations were true. It did not “affirm” the film, Byrne’s views, or any broader claims about hacking, Dominion, Venezuela, algorithms, China, or ballot destruction. Dismissal on the actual-malice standard leaves the underlying facts unadjudicated. Here is each point: 1. “The 2020 election was hacked, Dominion ran it, and he possessed electronic evidence proving the hack.” Not the focus of this case. The lawsuit centered on Oltmann’s specific story about an alleged call involving Coomer. The court did not find the election was hacked, that Dominion “ran it,” or that any electronic evidence proved a hack. No such finding exists in the order. 2. “Texas hired Dominion to study the 2018 Dallas election, giving Dominion two years to reverse-engineer how to hack an election.” Not part of this case. The order does not mention the 2018 Dallas election, any Texas study, or reverse-engineering. The ruling has no bearing on this claim. 3. “Dominion’s technology originated in Venezuela and was developed for Hugo Chávez to rig elections.” Not part of this case. The order discusses the film and the Oltmann/Coomer allegations; it does not address Dominion’s corporate origins, Venezuela, Smartmatic, or Chávez. Courts in related litigation have repeatedly noted the absence of evidence for this longstanding claim; this order neither examines nor endorses it. 4. “Smartmatic became Dominion through corporate transactions, carrying election-manipulation capabilities into U.S. elections.” Not part of this case. No discussion of Smartmatic-Dominion corporate history or any transfer of “manipulation capabilities” appears in the order. 5. “Systems allowed administrators to override security and that weak security extended manipulation capabilities to foreign actors.” Not the subject of this case. The order does not analyze Dominion’s security features, administrator overrides, or foreign access. The ruling decides only the actual-malice issue for the specific statements about Coomer. 6. “Dominion machines used an algorithm that weighted one candidate’s votes more heavily than another’s.” Not part of this case. The order contains no reference to vote-weighting algorithms or any technical analysis of Dominion systems. No court in this litigation found such an algorithm existed or was used. 7. “Trump’s support exceeded what the manipulation algorithm could overcome through smaller-scale cheating.” Not part of this case. This is speculative commentary about an unproven algorithm. The order does not address vote totals, algorithms, or the scale of any alleged cheating. 8. “Georgia tabulating machine sent results to China and that he had personally seen photographs, computer forensics, and IP traces supporting that claim.” Not part of this case. The order does not discuss Georgia machines, data transmission to China, photographs, forensics, or IP traces. This specific assertion was not litigated or affirmed here. 9. “Dominion paid for a shredding truck to destroy 3,000 pounds of ballots, with payment connected to a Dominion credit card.” Not part of this case. The order does not mention shredding trucks, destroyed ballots, credit-card payments, or any related evidence. The ruling has no connection to this claim. This shows the extent of this ongoing CON! Donate now, promo code : PillowSmothering

I voted early a couple of days ago in Alpena, strange that they printed ballot as I stood there, that's something new!

BREAKING: A MICHIGAN COURT JUST ORDERED BENSON TO TELL EVERY CLERK IN THE STATE TO KEEP THE NOVEMBER 3 POLL BOOKS. The Court's words to Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State: "Defendants are directed to instruct all local election officials to retain the EPBs from the November 3 General Election." And Benson's deletion rule? "Defendants are precluded from enforcing Rule 168.48 pending the resolution of this matter." Benson's rule: DELETE the poll book files 7 days after the election is certified. Federal law: KEEP election records 22 months. One township clerk asked which law to follow. Nobody answered. So Michelle McQueer sued. In August, the Court protected her file, the ONLY one known to still exist, and barred enforcing the rule against her. Today it extended that protection to EVERY clerk in Michigan, on an additional request from the RNC and Michigan Republican Party, who joined her case this month. Glad to have them in the fight. Along the way, @TheJusticeDept and the @CivilRights division told the Court the Secretary "remains ultimately responsible" for preserving poll book data. And Benson's own data manager swore the list each precinct downloaded for Election Day "need not be uploaded." Reconstruction is not preservation. This isn't the final ruling. But no November poll book gets deleted while the judge decides. That's all one clerk asked for. ONE CLERK. ONE QUESTION. EVERY NOVEMBER POLL BOOK SAVED. The Order: tinyurl.com/PollbookStatewid… McQueer v Benson, Court of Claims No. 26-000172-MZ Let's make Michigan safe, normal, and responsible again! 🇺🇸 @MIGOP @MI_Republicans @Th_Midwesterner @MINewsSource @stevegrubershow @MrJustinBarclay @JonathanTurley @RobGouveiaEsq @downi75 @Mike_Cox @MrAustinPredict @gatewaypundit @honestpollster @mifairelections @dcexaminer @MZHemingway @jsolomonReports @HarmeetKDhillon

Michigan election officials, please explain this one. 👀 Wayne County reportedly had 333 “active” voters listed as 115 years old or older. But here’s where it gets ugly: records reportedly show ballots credited to people who died decades ago. One died in 1968. Another in 1992. 🗳️😳 This isn’t about a typo on a spreadsheet. It’s about whether Michigan is doing the most basic job required to protect the vote. electioncrimebureau.com/eri-… Call your county clerk. Ask how deceased voters are removed. Ask when the rolls were last audited. Then share this until they answer. 🔥🇺🇸 LindellPlan.com