Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 489204 times)




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: Cruz to argue for Trump at SCOTUS in PA Case?
« Reply #1403 on: December 08, 2020, 07:59:42 AM »

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/12/07/if-pennsylvania-case-moves-forward-this-senator-will-argue-at-the-supreme-court-n2581182


This may turn out to be a great role for Cruz.  Also, Texas is suing the states with the alleged cheat.
https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-battleground-states-unconstitutional-changes-to-2020-election-laws/513-27d922ef-e21c-4b47-813c-f3020a58bd05

This is all going to happen fast and be over soon.  Like a mass shooting and a lot of other breaking news stories, I will take a watch and see approach before rushing to judgment.  What seems persuasive at logically is that there are many massive mathematical anomalies that are centered in  6 Democrat-run cities in 6 swing states that don't fit any observed pattern anywhere else.  Presenting judicially admittable and persuasive evidence in a timely manner is another matter.  We will see.
-----------------------------

(Texas) Attorney General Ken Paxton believes that the states flooded the citizens with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements, involving how they were received, evaluated, and counted.

Paxton expresses how the trust of the citizens and the integrity of the 2020 election was compromised because of the violation of the statutes by the states.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections. Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”   

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Supreme Court
« Reply #1404 on: December 08, 2020, 02:03:02 PM »
refuses to hear PA election case request

not sure of the details of this latest blow:

https://wkow.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-republican-bid-to-reverse-certification-of-biden-victory-in-pennsylvania/

bags of 100% Biden votes showing up in middle of night - laid at feet of Dem lawyers - not a Constitutional problem for the state (Commonwealth ) of PA.

among other irregularities.  :cry:

Cruz must have scared them off.......



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The Roberts decision
« Reply #1407 on: December 09, 2020, 01:18:45 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 03:23:47 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Larry lib in on cover up
« Reply #1411 on: December 09, 2020, 04:20:01 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyers-group-calls-for-disciplining-trump-legal-team-over-dangerous-fraud-allegations-215654402.html

Larry says move on

eye eye sir!   :roll:

a bunch of Dem lawyers judges and the other party hacks

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: McCarthy: Texas lawsuit is frivolous
« Reply #1412 on: December 09, 2020, 06:04:38 PM »

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-12-09&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

I've used up my freebies, would someone please paste the actual article?

Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 9, 2020 4:28 PM

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton addresses reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court during a 2016 case in Washington, D.C., March 2, 2016. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
There is no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
The first thing to notice about Texas’s desperation lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, is what does not appear on the front page: the name of the state’s solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins.

The lawsuit is brought against four other states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — that have certified Joe Biden as the winner of their electoral votes. Thus, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton invokes the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to hear disputes between states. Yet the brief is not signed by the lawyer who typically represents Texas before that nation’s highest court (as Solicitor General Hawkins did, for example, in the recent Obamacare case).

Plainly, this is because the complaint Paxton has filed is a political document that has no prospect of being taken seriously as a set of legal claims.

MORE IN TEXAS
The Dumb Statistical Argument in Texas’s Election Lawsuit
Goldman Sachs Considers Moving Asset Management Arm to Florida in Warning Sign for NYC’s Budget
Austin Mayor Flew to Mexico for Vacation While Advising Public to ‘Stay Home’
There is a lot to be said for Texas’s complaints as a political polemic. It is true that Democrats labor mightily to undermine election integrity. The only rational reason for that is to make it easier for legally unqualified people to cast ballots, and to cast in bulk — and under the influence of progressive activists — the ballots of people who would not otherwise have voted (and whose qualifications may be dubious). It is also true that mail-in voting on a massive scale, favored by Democrats, creates tremendous potential for fraud. This potential is inevitably realized in at least some fraud when coupled with other policies Democrats aggressively push — e.g., the weakening of identification, signature-verification, and witness requirements. It is also true that Democrat-dominated executive officials, courts, and bureaucracies presume broad authority to deviate from the terms of legislatively enacted election laws, under the guise of administering those laws.

All of these matters should be addressed by Congress, and by state lawmakers. Not a single one of them, however, gives the state of Texas standing to sue other states over the manner in which those states enforce (or refrain from enforcing) their laws.

This does not mean the flouting of election laws by officials in Pennsylvania and other states is not a serious issue. It means that if Texas wants to raise that issue, the Supreme Court is not the right forum. To repeat a point I’ve made before, the Court did not grant review of a case from Pennsylvania that it should have taken, involving a narrow, critical issue of constitutional law pertaining to elections, when that issue was raised by parties in the commonwealth who were directly affected. The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics.

I doubt the Court will say anything other than that leave to file Texas’s complaint is denied. In the unlikely event of elaboration, the justices may convey that if Texas has a problem with the way other states administer elections, it should address that through the political process, including through Texas’s large and influential delegation of elected officials in Congress. Such a complaint is not the business of lawsuits . . . unless you’re ready for tomorrow’s lawsuit by, say, California and New York against Texas for trying to disenfranchise its citizens; or the countersuit by Pennsylvania et al. over Texas’s intrusion in affairs over which the Constitution recognizes their sovereignty, such as the manner of conducting elections.

If Texas’s theory is right, then every state now has standing to sue every other state over the latter’s administration of its own laws in connection with its own citizens if it can articulate some collateral consequence that may affect the allegedly injured state in some way. I have a hard time believing that the “Don’t Mess with Texas” State will want to live in the world that its attorney general proposes to create.

In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts; in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in two cases, here and here) and the federal district court in Pennsylvania (here).

Texas’s principal claim, for example, is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing? Not surprisingly, the rambling discussion of standing principles in Paxton’s brief cites no case holding that a state has standing to challenge another state’s administration of an election.

THE MORNING JOLT
Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day.


Email Address
Texas further claims, on a Bush v. Gore theory, that its citizens’ equal-protection rights have been trampled by the four defendant states’ alleged counting of ballots submitted by unqualified voters. But our Constitution does not provide for a national election — much to the chagrin of blue states that would like to eradicate the Electoral College. We have state elections for president. To the extent that the citizens of Texas have a right to vote, it is given to them not by the Constitution but by their state legislature, and it is a right to vote for a candidate to be awarded Texas’s electoral votes, not those of other states.

Furthermore, the “diminished weight” theory of equal protection (i.e., that counting illegal votes disenfranchises lawful voters) has repeatedly been rejected when posited by citizens within the state where the unlawful voting takes place; the theory is even weaker across state lines. As the Third Circuit has emphasized, “Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”

Texas’s substantive due-process claim may be even more fatuous. To repeat, even the citizens of a state where election-law violations allegedly occurred do not have a general, judicially enforceable right to force election officials to comply with state law. They must show a concrete, particularized, non-speculative injury. Even less do states have a right to make other states comply with the latter’s own laws. Texas has no standing to sue, say, Michigan over the failure of Michigan officials to comply with Michigan law, to the alleged detriment of Michigan’s citizens.


Finally, in its proposed lawsuit, Texas does exactly what the Third Circuit, in Trump for President v. Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recently said a litigant may not do. It waited until the eleventh hour to file (beyond that, actually — the complaint was not submitted until after midnight on the federal safe-harbor day). It pleads conclusory allegations (including some, such as mentions of Dominion software, that are plainly included for atmospheric effect, unconnected to any claim for relief). It posits claims that have already been litigated and lost by parties that, unlike Texas, had some cognizable interests. And it seeks unprecedented, drastic relief — the undoing of other states’ elections and disenfranchisement of their citizens; the invocation of the Court’s purported “remedial authority” to order a new “special” election in those states; the vacating of the certification of electors by those states, and the barring of those states from voting in the Electoral College — without citing any case in which the courts have found such breathtaking authority to exist, much less exercised it.

Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. To be clear, though, this does not mean questions about election-law improprieties are frivolous.

Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that Paxton doesn’t know that.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article
172

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of BALL OF COLLUSION: THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY. @andrewcmccarthy
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 06:08:36 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: McCarthy: Texas lawsuit is frivolous
« Reply #1413 on: December 09, 2020, 06:07:57 PM »
I hope deep staters understand that if the jury box option fails, there is one box left.




https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-12-09&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

I've used up my freebies, would someone please paste the actual article?

Skip to content
SECTIONS
NEWSLETTERS
POPULAR TOPICS
NRPLUS
MAGAZINE
PODCASTS
PHOTOS
VIDEOS
GAMES
WINE CLUB
CONTACT & ABOUT US
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
FOLLOW US

Primary Menu
National Review
Search National Review
Search Text
SEARCH
GO
Dec. 9, 2020
SUBSCRIBE
 
LOGIN
NR PLUS LAW & THE COURTS
Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 9, 2020 4:28 PM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton addresses reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court during a 2016 case in Washington, D.C., March 2, 2016. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
There is no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
The first thing to notice about Texas’s desperation lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, is what does not appear on the front page: the name of the state’s solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins.

The lawsuit is brought against four other states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — that have certified Joe Biden as the winner of their electoral votes. Thus, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton invokes the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to hear disputes between states. Yet the brief is not signed by the lawyer who typically represents Texas before that nation’s highest court (as Solicitor General Hawkins did, for example, in the recent Obamacare case).

Plainly, this is because the complaint Paxton has filed is a political document that has no prospect of being taken seriously as a set of legal claims.

MORE IN TEXAS
The Dumb Statistical Argument in Texas’s Election Lawsuit
Goldman Sachs Considers Moving Asset Management Arm to Florida in Warning Sign for NYC’s Budget
Austin Mayor Flew to Mexico for Vacation While Advising Public to ‘Stay Home’
There is a lot to be said for Texas’s complaints as a political polemic. It is true that Democrats labor mightily to undermine election integrity. The only rational reason for that is to make it easier for legally unqualified people to cast ballots, and to cast in bulk — and under the influence of progressive activists — the ballots of people who would not otherwise have voted (and whose qualifications may be dubious). It is also true that mail-in voting on a massive scale, favored by Democrats, creates tremendous potential for fraud. This potential is inevitably realized in at least some fraud when coupled with other policies Democrats aggressively push — e.g., the weakening of identification, signature-verification, and witness requirements. It is also true that Democrat-dominated executive officials, courts, and bureaucracies presume broad authority to deviate from the terms of legislatively enacted election laws, under the guise of administering those laws.

All of these matters should be addressed by Congress, and by state lawmakers. Not a single one of them, however, gives the state of Texas standing to sue other states over the manner in which those states enforce (or refrain from enforcing) their laws.

This does not mean the flouting of election laws by officials in Pennsylvania and other states is not a serious issue. It means that if Texas wants to raise that issue, the Supreme Court is not the right forum. To repeat a point I’ve made before, the Court did not grant review of a case from Pennsylvania that it should have taken, involving a narrow, critical issue of constitutional law pertaining to elections, when that issue was raised by parties in the commonwealth who were directly affected. The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics.

I doubt the Court will say anything other than that leave to file Texas’s complaint is denied. In the unlikely event of elaboration, the justices may convey that if Texas has a problem with the way other states administer elections, it should address that through the political process, including through Texas’s large and influential delegation of elected officials in Congress. Such a complaint is not the business of lawsuits . . . unless you’re ready for tomorrow’s lawsuit by, say, California and New York against Texas for trying to disenfranchise its citizens; or the countersuit by Pennsylvania et al. over Texas’s intrusion in affairs over which the Constitution recognizes their sovereignty, such as the manner of conducting elections.

If Texas’s theory is right, then every state now has standing to sue every other state over the latter’s administration of its own laws in connection with its own citizens if it can articulate some collateral consequence that may affect the allegedly injured state in some way. I have a hard time believing that the “Don’t Mess with Texas” State will want to live in the world that its attorney general proposes to create.

In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts; in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in two cases, here and here) and the federal district court in Pennsylvania (here).

Texas’s principal claim, for example, is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing? Not surprisingly, the rambling discussion of standing principles in Paxton’s brief cites no case holding that a state has standing to challenge another state’s administration of an election.

THE MORNING JOLT
Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day.


Email Address
Texas further claims, on a Bush v. Gore theory, that its citizens’ equal-protection rights have been trampled by the four defendant states’ alleged counting of ballots submitted by unqualified voters. But our Constitution does not provide for a national election — much to the chagrin of blue states that would like to eradicate the Electoral College. We have state elections for president. To the extent that the citizens of Texas have a right to vote, it is given to them not by the Constitution but by their state legislature, and it is a right to vote for a candidate to be awarded Texas’s electoral votes, not those of other states.

Furthermore, the “diminished weight” theory of equal protection (i.e., that counting illegal votes disenfranchises lawful voters) has repeatedly been rejected when posited by citizens within the state where the unlawful voting takes place; the theory is even weaker across state lines. As the Third Circuit has emphasized, “Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”

Texas’s substantive due-process claim may be even more fatuous. To repeat, even the citizens of a state where election-law violations allegedly occurred do not have a general, judicially enforceable right to force election officials to comply with state law. They must show a concrete, particularized, non-speculative injury. Even less do states have a right to make other states comply with the latter’s own laws. Texas has no standing to sue, say, Michigan over the failure of Michigan officials to comply with Michigan law, to the alleged detriment of Michigan’s citizens.


Finally, in its proposed lawsuit, Texas does exactly what the Third Circuit, in Trump for President v. Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recently said a litigant may not do. It waited until the eleventh hour to file (beyond that, actually — the complaint was not submitted until after midnight on the federal safe-harbor day). It pleads conclusory allegations (including some, such as mentions of Dominion software, that are plainly included for atmospheric effect, unconnected to any claim for relief). It posits claims that have already been litigated and lost by parties that, unlike Texas, had some cognizable interests. And it seeks unprecedented, drastic relief — the undoing of other states’ elections and disenfranchisement of their citizens; the invocation of the Court’s purported “remedial authority” to order a new “special” election in those states; the vacating of the certification of electors by those states, and the barring of those states from voting in the Electoral College — without citing any case in which the courts have found such breathtaking authority to exist, much less exercised it.

Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. To be clear, though, this does not mean questions about election-law improprieties are frivolous.

Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that Paxton doesn’t know that.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article
172

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of BALL OF COLLUSION: THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY. @andrewcmccarthy

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1414 on: December 09, 2020, 06:41:43 PM »
McCarthy was on Gorka today. He made clear the potentially, directly injured party is the state legislature in each state whose power to set the rules of the election was violated.

McCarthy is smarter than us but that doesn't mean he is right on what 5 Justices will do.  The fact they are hearing arguments means the door is open a hair. IF the preponderance of the evidence shows that what happened in these four state was illegal tampering on a scale large enough to swing the results, not fair elections, then the constitution has an defined method of resolution available to the Court.

Odds of reversing this election are one in a quadrillion, again.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1415 on: December 09, 2020, 08:46:50 PM »
From my FB page.  Not sure who actually wrote it:
============================================

I doubt the Court will say anything other than that leave to file Texas’s complaint is denied. In the unlikely event of elaboration, the justices may convey that if Texas has a problem with the way other states administer elections, it should address that through the political process, including through Texas’s large and influential delegation of elected officials in Congress. Such a complaint is not the business of lawsuits . . . unless you’re ready for tomorrow’s lawsuit by, say, California and New York against Texas for trying to disenfranchise its citizens; or the countersuit by Pennsylvania et al. over Texas’s intrusion in affairs over which the Constitution recognizes their sovereignty, such as the manner of conducting elections.
If Texas’s theory is right, then every state now has standing to sue every other state over the latter’s administration of its own laws in connection with its own citizens if it can articulate some collateral consequence that may affect the allegedly injured state in some way. I have a hard time believing that the “Don’t Mess with Texas” State will want to live in the world that its attorney general proposes to create.
In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts; in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in two cases, here and here) and the federal district court in Pennsylvania (here).

Texas’s principal claim, for example, is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing? Not surprisingly, the rambling discussion of standing principles in Paxton’s brief cites no case holding that a state has standing to challenge another state’s administration of an election.

Texas further claims, on a Bush v. Gore theory, that its citizens’ equal-protection rights have been trampled by the four defendant states’ alleged counting of ballots submitted by unqualified voters. But our Constitution does not provide for a national election — much to the chagrin of blue states that would like to eradicate the Electoral College. We have state elections for president. To the extent that the citizens of Texas have a right to vote, it is given to them not by the Constitution but by their state legislature, and it is a right to vote for a candidate to be awarded Texas’s electoral votes, not those of other states.
Furthermore, the “diminished weight” theory of equal protection (i.e., that counting illegal votes disenfranchises lawful voters) has repeatedly been rejected when posited by citizens within the state where the unlawful voting takes place; the theory is even weaker across state lines. As the Third Circuit has emphasized, “Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”

Texas’s substantive due-process claim may be even more fatuous. To repeat, even the citizens of a state where election-law violations allegedly occurred do not have a general, judicially enforceable right to force election officials to comply with state law. They must show a concrete, particularized, non-speculative injury. Even less do states have a right to make other states comply with the latter’s own laws. Texas has no standing to sue, say, Michigan over the failure of Michigan officials to comply with Michigan law, to the alleged detriment of Michigan’s citizens.

Finally, in its proposed lawsuit, Texas does exactly what the Third Circuit, in Trump for President v. Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recently said a litigant may not do. It waited until the eleventh hour to file (beyond that, actually — the complaint was not submitted until after midnight on the federal safe-harbor day). It pleads conclusory allegations (including some, such as mentions of Dominion software, that are plainly included for atmospheric effect, unconnected to any claim for relief). It posits claims that have already been litigated and lost by parties that, unlike Texas, had some cognizable interests. And it seeks unprecedented, drastic relief — the undoing of other states’ elections and disenfranchisement of their citizens; the invocation of the Court’s purported “remedial authority” to order a new “special” election in those states; the vacating of the certification of electors by those states, and the barring of those states from voting in the Electoral College — without citing any case in which the courts have found such breathtaking authority to exist, much less exercised it.

Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. To be clear, though, this does not mean questions about election-law improprieties are frivolous.

Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that Paxton doesn’t know that.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1416 on: December 09, 2020, 09:53:45 PM »
Author unknown:


There are always tipping points. The powers that been seem utterly intent on testing how far they can yank this. I won't say you're wrong to be skeptical and pessimistic. (If we can call people being reticent to "war-war" pessimistic? Ha!).

Folks are reluctant - in the extreme - to throw their lives and comforts away, and I concede most will sit on the fence - through any indignity - waiting to see which side prevails.

But it doesn't take "most folks" to knock a pear over. And defiance spreads. It spreads faster if FedGovCo starts stomping on people and overreacting. Look how quickly Bundy Ranch almost zipped out of control. That entire mess was one negligent discharge away from Lexington 2.0. Blatantly stealing national elections is that times fifty-million... and more cats know about it and have skin in the game.

To enjoy mass support, a revolt needs to have a legitimate grievance - something egregious most folks can sympathize with. It also has to enrage people on a moral level - beyond what than they can bury in escapism and creature comforts...

...well, you don't get much more sympathetic than "stealing elections." And the powers that be have Bubba's undivided attention now - and not in a good way. All the energy that was going into Sports (ratings dead), Movies (pandemic dead), and Video Games (SJW infected and dying), is getting channeled into Joe-Six-Pack contemplating who he needs to shoot to stop Tranny-Story-Hour and get his kid's football season running again.

The small creature comforts tip the scales in the end. And those are being strangled by the fools who benefit most from them. The accumulation of one-thousand slights adds up over time. Every cruel cut and overreach remembered - until no amount of escapism, avoidance and appeasement can suppress the anger. Particularly when the left's cultists have made those avenues deliberately unbearable.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1418 on: December 10, 2020, 04:50:09 AM »
All legal questions keep getting diverted back to 'standing', but the real question is whether or not overwhelming evidence can be presented within the time limits.

McCarthy's point is that Texas has no more standing than any state or citizen.  But if the evidence is overwhelming that this election result is a sham in these four states, we all are the injured, in no small way.  A third of the states joining them, more states than we had at Founding, roughly twice as many as left the Union in the last civil war, demonstrates that.  Lack of standing IS the frivolous argument. .

We need to know we can find justice through the courts to settle our disputes.  The unthinkable alternatives otherwise become the only remedies remaining.

The highest court needs to see the evidence and hear thw arguments on both sides and rule on the merit.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 05:18:13 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Larry Lib
« Reply #1419 on: December 10, 2020, 05:14:43 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/laurence-tribe-donald-trump-election-over-082118042.html

Larrylib,

explain to us why a law professor is aiding and abetting in the cover up of  election law crimes .

no concern for election fraud which is plainly obvious
to anyone with a brain who can read

just that the orange man is gone.

I really can't stand this partisan creep


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Andrew McCarthy on the Texas lawsuit
« Reply #1420 on: December 10, 2020, 07:16:42 AM »


I doubt the Court will say anything other than that leave to file Texas’s complaint is denied. In the unlikely event of elaboration, the justices may convey that if Texas has a problem with the way other states administer elections, it should address that through the political process, including through Texas’s large and influential delegation of elected officials in Congress. Such a complaint is not the business of lawsuits . . . unless you’re ready for tomorrow’s lawsuit by, say, California and New York against Texas for trying to disenfranchise its citizens; or the countersuit by Pennsylvania et al. over Texas’s intrusion in affairs over which the Constitution recognizes their sovereignty, such as the manner of conducting elections.

If Texas’s theory is right, then every state now has standing to sue every other state over the latter’s administration of its own laws in connection with its own citizens if it can articulate some collateral consequence that may affect the allegedly injured state in some way. I have a hard time believing that the “Don’t Mess with Texas” State will want to live in the world that its attorney general proposes to create.
In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts; in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in two cases, here and here) and the federal district court in Pennsylvania (here).

Texas’s principal claim, for example, is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing? Not surprisingly, the rambling discussion of standing principles in Paxton’s brief cites no case holding that a state has standing to challenge another state’s administration of an election.

Texas further claims, on a Bush v. Gore theory, that its citizens’ equal-protection rights have been trampled by the four defendant states’ alleged counting of ballots submitted by unqualified voters. But our Constitution does not provide for a national election — much to the chagrin of blue states that would like to eradicate the Electoral College. We have state elections for president. To the extent that the citizens of Texas have a right to vote, it is given to them not by the Constitution but by their state legislature, and it is a right to vote for a candidate to be awarded Texas’s electoral votes, not those of other states.
Furthermore, the “diminished weight” theory of equal protection (i.e., that counting illegal votes disenfranchises lawful voters) has repeatedly been rejected when posited by citizens within the state where the unlawful voting takes place; the theory is even weaker across state lines. As the Third Circuit has emphasized, “Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”

Texas’s substantive due-process claim may be even more fatuous. To repeat, even the citizens of a state where election-law violations allegedly occurred do not have a general, judicially enforceable right to force election officials to comply with state law. They must show a concrete, particularized, non-speculative injury. Even less do states have a right to make other states comply with the latter’s own laws. Texas has no standing to sue, say, Michigan over the failure of Michigan officials to comply with Michigan law, to the alleged detriment of Michigan’s citizens.

Finally, in its proposed lawsuit, Texas does exactly what the Third Circuit, in Trump for President v. Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recently said a litigant may not do. It waited until the eleventh hour to file (beyond that, actually — the complaint was not submitted until after midnight on the federal safe-harbor day). It pleads conclusory allegations (including some, such as mentions of Dominion software, that are plainly included for atmospheric effect, unconnected to any claim for relief). It posits claims that have already been litigated and lost by parties that, unlike Texas, had some cognizable interests. And it seeks unprecedented, drastic relief — the undoing of other states’ elections and disenfranchisement of their citizens; the invocation of the Court’s purported “remedial authority” to order a new “special” election in those states; the vacating of the certification of electors by those states, and the barring of those states from voting in the Electoral College — without citing any case in which the courts have found such breathtaking authority to exist, much less exercised it.

Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. To be clear, though, this does not mean questions about election-law improprieties are frivolous.

Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that Paxton doesn’t know that.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Lib, Lawrence Tribe
« Reply #1422 on: December 10, 2020, 08:48:56 AM »
"HuffPost
Harvard Law Professor Hits Donald Trump With The Cold Truth: ‘You Are A Loser’ "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Tribe is both a partisan hack and the nation's leading, liberal, constitutional scholar, an oxymoron on steroids.

What bothers me is not that this one individual is leftist or creepy, but that a place like Harvard attaches their once esteemed brand name to that.

Nobel gave its award to Obama for beginning the apologize for America tour and to Yassir Arafat, the Godfather of modern terror.  Pulitzer gave its award to Wash Post and NYT for Russia conspiracy coverage that was 100% false.  NBC, ABC, CBS put their journalism stamp on practicing Democrat operatives.  Harvard put its brand on the likes of Lawrence Tribe.  When are these institutions no longer considered prestigious or even mainstream and what are the replacement brand names that should carry that level of respect?

« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 08:51:21 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1423 on: December 10, 2020, 09:42:42 AM »
"Nobel gave its award to Obama for beginning the apologize for America tour and to Yassir Arafat, the Godfather of modern terror.  Pulitzer gave its award to Wash Post and NYT for Russia conspiracy coverage that was 100% false.  NBC, ABC, CBS put their journalism stamp on practicing Democrat operatives.  Harvard put its brand on the likes of Lawrence Tribe.  When are these institutions no longer considered prestigious or even mainstream and what are the replacement brand names that should carry that level of respect?"

lets not forget Academy Awards and of course the Emmy joke of an award to
Mario's kid .

if any one should get an Emmy for daytime television DJT has captivated and entertained the world like no one in decades .

But of course the liberals who run those would not dream of it.
I could go on but I will keep to myself .


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Maybe?
« Reply #1424 on: December 11, 2020, 10:22:16 AM »


No.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1425 on: December 12, 2020, 05:42:55 AM »
The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot. Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors. Why? Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this.
... - AmericanThinker

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
The 2005 Carter-Baker Report could have averted what we have now
« Reply #1426 on: December 12, 2020, 08:30:30 AM »
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/11/20/7-ways-the-2005-carter-baker-report-could-have-averted-problems-with-2020-election/?utm_source=TDS_Email&fbclid=IwAR3mNvQpeBeUOoExU1VSM-Ure-RkCITgQxbq7u7GDshfQ3gBM3nbfhj_th4

7 Ways the 2005 Carter-Baker Report Could Have Averted Problems With 2020 Election
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / November 20, 2020 / 171 Comments

On Sept. 19, 2005, former President Jimmy Carter (left) returned to the White House to provide President George W. Bush a copy of the report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform. Carter co-chaired the commission with former Secretary of State James Baker. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

They called on states to increase voter ID requirements; to be leery of mail-in voting; to halt ballot harvesting; to maintain voter lists, in part to ensure dead people are promptly removed from them; to allow election observers to monitor ballot counting; and to make sure voting machines are working properly.

They also wanted the media to refrain from calling elections too early and from touting exit polls.

All of this may sound eerily similar to the issues in the prolonged presidential election battle of 2020. But these were among the 87 recommendations from the 2005 report of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, known informally as the Carter-Baker Commission.

The bipartisan commission’s co-chairmen were former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican who served in the George H.W. Bush administration.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The commission was created to address voting and election integrity issues raised by the tumultuous 36-day postelection battle of 2000, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that resulted in awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

Had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 postelection mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided, said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation.

“So many of the problems we’re now hearing about in the aftermath of the 2020 election could have been avoided had states heeded the advice of the Commission on Federal Election Reform,” she said. 

James continued:

Simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections.

Several state legislatures adopted aspects of the recommendations, particularly voter ID proposals. However, Congress reportedly was unenthusiastic about the report.

Major media outlets have called the race for Biden, but election litigation is still playing out in courts, and votes are still being counted.

However, 70% of Republicans do not believe the 2020 election was free and fair, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll. Before the election, just 35% of Republicans didn’t believe the election would be free and fair. The shift was different among Democrats, where 95% believed the election was free and fair afterward, compared with 52 who said the same before the election.

Here’s a look at the 2005 panel’s recommendations relevant to this year’s elections.

1) Voter IDs
With the vast expansion of mail-in voting this year, voter ID requirements were less likely.

Today, states have a patchwork of voter ID laws, with 36 states either requiring or requesting voters to present identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The conference says only six states have “strict” photo ID requirements—Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

The Carter-Baker Commission called for voter ID standards nationwide in its 2005 report.

“To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005,” the Carter-Baker Commission report said.

“The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an [Election Assistance Commission]-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.”

Carter, when speaking months after the release of the report, said other countries not known for being examples of democracy had fairer elections than the United States, and stressed the need for photo IDs.

“It’s disgraceful and embarrassing,” the former president said in May 2006. On IDs, Carter said, “Americans have to remember you have to have the equivalent to what we’re requiring to cast a ballot to cash a check or board a plane.”

2) Mail-In and Absentee Voting Risks
In a brief filed supporting the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania litigation over mail-in ballots, a group of Republican state attorneys general reference the Cater-Baker Commission report among other items regarding mail-in voting and ballot harvesting.

The 2020 election trends seemed to shift dramatically as mailed-in votes were counted. Further, many questions have emerged about the point of origin for ballots.

Specifically, the report called on states to prohibit third parties or political operatives from collecting ballots—a practice commonly known as “ballot harvesting.”

The report stated: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

“State and local jurisdictions should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal Service, or other legitimate shipper, or election officials,” the 2005 commission report said. “The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

However, this year, as mail-in voting veered into becoming a partisan issue, the Carter Center issued a statement promoting support for mail-in voting, but maintaining safeguards against ballot harvesting.

The Carter Center, founded by the former president and first lady Rosalynn Carter, is affiliated with Emory University and promotes peace and democracy efforts globally and domestically.

A Carter Center press release in May said the commission report “noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.”

“However, the Carter-Baker Commission found that where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place—for example in Oregon, where the entire state has voted by mail since 1998—there was little evidence of voter fraud,” the Carter Center statement continued.

The commission’s main recommendations on vote-by-mail and absentee voting were to increase research on vote-by-mail (and early voting) and to eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots. 

Fortunately, since 2005, many states have gained substantial experience in vote-by-mail and have shown how key concerns can be effectively addressed through appropriate planning, resources, training, and messaging.

Carter himself is quoted in the press release saying, “I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy—the right of our citizens to vote.”

3) Avoiding Duplicate Registration Across State Lines
In Nevada, the Trump campaign asserts there were potentially thousands of out-of-state votes cast in one of the most closely contested states.

The Carter-Baker Commission report called for states to make it easier to track registered voters who move from one state to another to reduce duplication of registrations.

The report states, “Invalid voter files, which contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, or deceased voters, are an invitation to fraud.” 

“In order to assure that lists take account of citizens moving from one state to another, voter databases should be made interoperable between states,” the Carter-Baker report stated. “This would serve to eliminate duplicate registrations, which are a source of potential fraud.”

The report calls for states to maintain and update their voter registration lists.

“When an eligible voter moves from one state to another, the state to which the voter is moving should be required to notify the state which the voter is leaving to eliminate that voter from its registration list,” the report said, adding:

All states should have procedures for maintaining accurate lists, such as electronic matching of death records, driver’s licenses, local tax rolls, and felon records.

Federal and state courts should provide state election offices with the lists of individuals who declare they are non-citizens when they are summoned for jury duty.

4) Election Observers for Integrity
In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, Republicans have complained that qualified election observers have been prohibited from watching the counting.

The Carter-Baker Commission report stressed the need for election observers to maintain the integrity of the ballots.

“All legitimate domestic and international election observers should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the electoral process, and respect the secrecy of the ballot,” the 2005 report said.

Such observers should apply for accreditation, which should allow them to visit any polling station in any state and to view all parts of the election process, including the testing of voting equipment, the processing of absentee ballots, and the vote count.

States that limit election observation only to representatives of candidates and political parties should amend their election laws to explicitly permit accreditation of independent and international election observers.

5) Reliable Voting Machines
Voting machines have also been a significant issue in 2020, particularly in Michigan, as one county there flipped from Biden to Trump after a hand recount showed the machine count to be inaccurate.

The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that machines print out paper receipts for voters to verify their vote was accurately counted.

“States should adopt unambiguous procedures to reconcile any disparity between the electronic ballot tally and the paper ballot tally,” the 2005 report says. “The Commission strongly recommends that states determine well in advance of elections which will be the ballot of record.”

6) Media Calling Elections
On election night, Fox News Channel was the first to call the state of Arizona for Biden, prompting outrage in the Trump camp. Moreover, major media outlets have projected Biden to have won the election, even as vote counting and litigation continue.

The 2005 commission report also addressed problems with the media, suggesting news outlets voluntarily offer candidates free airtime and also show restraint in calling a state for one candidate or the other. The First Amendment would prevent any such rule from being mandatory.

“News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all of the polls have closed in the 48 contiguous states,” the report states. “News organizations should voluntarily agree to delay the release of any exit-poll data until the election has been decided.”

7) Prosecuting Voter Fraud
The Carter-Baker Commission suggested that federal and state prosecutors should more aggressively monitor voter fraud.

“In July of even-numbered years, the U.S. Department of Justice should issue a public report on its investigations of election fraud,” the report says.

This report should specify the numbers of allegations made, matters investigated, cases prosecuted, and individuals convicted for various crimes. Each state’s attorney general and each local prosecutor should issue a similar report. … The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity should increase its staff to investigate and prosecute election-related fraud.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 08:32:23 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
"The 2005 Carter-Baker Report could have averted what we have now"
« Reply #1428 on: December 12, 2020, 12:11:56 PM »
Funny

I don't James Earl Carter  telling us about the fraud  now from a webcam in his basement while on Fox News
 in 2020.

He could be welcome guest on Tucker Ingraham Hannity if he really was honest as he claims.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Judge to decide fate of Dominion audit…
« Reply #1430 on: December 13, 2020, 08:17:10 AM »
from populist.press:

https://populist.press/judge-to-decide-fate-of-dominion-audit/

thank God! this judge appointed in 2017
if obama or clinton or never trump bush judge this would have NO Chance of seeing light of day as part of the cover up:

http://www.13thcircuitcourt.org/directory.aspx?EID=416

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1431 on: December 13, 2020, 08:43:50 AM »
13th Circuit?  I didn't realize we had that many!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
How to answer?
« Reply #1432 on: December 13, 2020, 09:18:13 AM »
Honorable Dem asks:  The Reps lost every (over 50?) lawsuit.  So how can you say there was vote fraud and that Trump won?

How to answer concisely?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: How to answer?
« Reply #1433 on: December 13, 2020, 10:15:55 AM »
Honorable Dem asks:  The Reps lost every (over 50?) lawsuit.  So how can you say there was vote fraud and that Trump won?

How to answer concisely?

Has there been an actual trial on the merits where they have lost? Or just endless bullshit technicalities so the evidence is never seen by a jury?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: How to answer?
« Reply #1434 on: December 13, 2020, 10:21:45 AM »
Honorable Dem asks:  The Reps lost every (over 50?) lawsuit.  So how can you say there was vote fraud and that Trump won?

How to answer concisely?

Has there been an actual trial on the merits where they have lost? Or just endless bullshit technicalities so the evidence is never seen by a jury?

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1337966276585664513

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Vote count 99% Biden, 3 hours in 4 cities, do you believe in miracles?
« Reply #1435 on: December 13, 2020, 11:53:25 AM »
How do they answer the one in a quadrillion question - where the vote count in 4 cities flipped the entire election in 3 hours in demographics where Trump otherwise increased his vote share everywhere else and even in these cities during all other hours of vote counting?

As Al Michaels asked, "Do you believe in miracles?"

I don't,  not during overnight, unobserved vote counting in Democrat run cities that come up with enough votes to flip the nation.

Where is the broken water main?

Did this follow or violate the laws established by the state legislatures?

I think it's the courts who believe they lack standing. Apparently this must be settled by the state legislatures. 

Can you be honorable and be comfortable with winning by cheating?

The constitution provides a second method to select the President when the first path fails. Take it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Vote count 99% Biden, 3 hours in 4 cities, do you believe in miracles?
« Reply #1436 on: December 13, 2020, 12:14:23 PM »


How do they answer the one in a quadrillion question - where the vote count in 4 cities flipped the entire election in 3 hours in demographics where Trump otherwise increased his vote share everywhere else and even in these cities during all other hours of vote counting?

As Al Michaels asked, "Do you believe in miracles?"

I don't,  not during overnight, unobserved vote counting in Democrat run cities that come up with enough votes to flip the nation.

Where is the broken water main?

Did this follow or violate the laws established by the state legislatures?

I think it's the courts who believe they lack standing. Apparently this must be settled by the state legislatures. 

Can you be honorable and be comfortable with winning by cheating?

The constitution provides a second method to select the President when the first path fails. Take it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Vote count 99% Biden, 3 hours in 4 cities, do you believe in miracles?
« Reply #1437 on: December 13, 2020, 12:16:27 PM »




How do they answer the one in a quadrillion question - where the vote count in 4 cities flipped the entire election in 3 hours in demographics where Trump otherwise increased his vote share everywhere else and even in these cities during all other hours of vote counting?

As Al Michaels asked, "Do you believe in miracles?"

I don't,  not during overnight, unobserved vote counting in Democrat run cities that come up with enough votes to flip the nation.

Where is the broken water main?

Did this follow or violate the laws established by the state legislatures?

I think it's the courts who believe they lack standing. Apparently this must be settled by the state legislatures. 

Can you be honorable and be comfortable with winning by cheating?

The constitution provides a second method to select the President when the first path fails. Take it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1438 on: December 13, 2020, 04:53:05 PM »
Please give the URLs when posting memes so I can post them elsewhere.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1440 on: December 14, 2020, 03:16:53 AM »
TY

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
When the Dem election fraud is too big to fail
« Reply #1441 on: December 14, 2020, 07:09:20 AM »
https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/courts-to-voters-democrat-election-fraud-is-too-big-to-fail/

Courts to Voters: Democrat Election Fraud Is ‘Too Big to Fail’
We will not have another fair election in our country. There is no “next time.”
By Karin McQuillan

December 13, 2020
The courts have spoken, one after another. Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court.  The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.

Our play-it-safe judges don’t want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent. They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar. Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law. Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.

One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing: the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to “upend an election.” Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. These are political statements. They are pusillanimous statements. They are not legal statements.

Upending an election has no precedent, we are told. But stealing a presidential election on this scale has no precedent, either.  The courts are saying that if election crimes are so consequential, they require a politically consequential act to be redressed, then no redress is allowed.

That doesn’t even make sense.

We are told there is no redress because the problem is political.

Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional.

The judges’ angry rebukes of the Republican plaintiffs are bogus by the very terms they use. If our judges are not willing to “disenfranchise” fraudulent and illegal votes, then they are disenfranchising the entire country.

We are not getting the candidate who won the election. But the Supreme Court tells us our state attorneys have no standing to protect our votes.

The evidence will not be heard in court. We cannot see the evidence formally submitted, discovery allowed, or 500 sworn testimonies of wrongdoing examined. Because none of us have the legal right to protest this heinous crime. Because we should have gone to court before the crime was committed, not after. Now is too late.

This is a failure of our justice system on a massive scale.

It is the wrong time or the wrong place or the wrong person to be heard. But the evidence is still there.

When those charged with defense of our laws will not defend them, the fraud will become institutionalized. There will be no remedy after the fact. Democrat-controlled states will be safe havens for election rules that bake in the outcome. Chinese corruption and cyberwarfare in our election system will be hardened, not corrected.

We will not have another fair election in our country. There is no “next time.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
From a FB opponent:
« Reply #1443 on: December 14, 2020, 12:35:56 PM »



The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court’s rejectionof another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that’s been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court’s workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court.

A “stipulated set of facts,” in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp’s common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, too.

Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking.

Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: “The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!” The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would “show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried” (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we’ve been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.
GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski Tells Trump to Start Transition

So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”

The legal arguments were not much more weighty than the vacant factual presentation.

The Trump team started out as audaciously on claimed constitutional violations as it had been on public allegations of fraud. It claimed Wisconsin officials had run roughshod over the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment — the array of allegations they’ve made in other battleground states as well. When it became clear, however, that the court was willing to entertain the president’s case but would scrutinize it closely, the Trump team quickly dropped the First Amendment and Due Process claims. In addition, as Ludwig recounts, the president’s counsel “offer[ed] no clue of a coherent Equal Protection theory,” and “offered neither evidence nor argument to support such a claim.”

So the challenge boiled down to this: Wisconsin had allegedly flouted the Electors Clause, which empowers states legislatures to prescribe the manner of conducting elections, by allowing bureaucrats to change election law under the guise of applying it. The state was said to have done this in three ways. First, it allowed election boards to correct errors and omissions in regard to the addresses provided by witnesses vouching for absentee ballots. Second, as the pandemic tightened its grip, election officials issued guidance informing voters in the elderly and “at-risk” health categories — not all voters — that they might qualify for absentee voting under the state’s “indefinite confinement” exemption. Third, they authorized drop boxes for the submission of ballots.

Ludwig rejected these claims on the merits. As a general matter, he explained that the Constitution gives each state legislature power to prescribe the manner of conducting an election; he concluded that the Trump team was confounding this with the means by which this prescribed manner is carried out.

In Wisconsin (as across the country), the manner of conducting the election is by popular vote, which was done. The means of conducting the popular election has some variations from county to county, but that inevitability has never been of constitutional significance. Even if it were, Wisconsin’s election bureaucracy was created by the state legislature precisely to administer elections and provide procedural guidance for conducting them. Ergo, the fact that the election commission may go beyond the letter of statutes does not mean it is violating state law; it is carrying out the mission state law created it to accomplish:

complementing (not contradicting) baseline statutory requirements with administrative procedures.
As for the three specific complaints:

• Ludwig noted that the practice of allowing election officials to use available information to correct faulty witness-address information began in 2016. That was when Trump won the state by close to the 20,000-vote margin he lost it by this time; and back then, just as this time around, he made no objection to address-correction. The court found the guidance, which apparently affected “at least some absentee ballots,” to be consistent with state law, which disqualifies ballots if the entire address is missing, but does not prohibit correcting flawed addresses.

• The application of the “indefinite confinement” exemption, which was used by 240,000 of the 3.3 million voters, was in harmony with both state law permitting the election commission to issue guidance and with a ruling by Wisconsin’s state supreme court.

• In employing 500 drop boxes, the commission relied on guidance from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security.

In connection with each of these claims, Ludwig observed that the doctrine of laches (sitting on one’s rights too long) could have been applied because the campaign easily could have raised and litigated them pre-election. Nevertheless, the court found there was no need to resort to laches because the Trump complaints, at most, involved “disputed issues of statutory construction” that did not involve “any significant departure from the legislative scheme” for conducting elections.

The lack of a significant claim was especially noteworthy because the campaign’s claims for relief were, Ludwig said, “extraordinary” (emphasis in original). The Trump team was asking the court to declare that 50,000 ballots were “likely” tainted (a comedown from the 100,000 counsel touted in public statements). More eye-poppingly, the campaign was asking the court to invalidate the popular vote (i.e., disenfranchise 3.3 million voters) and remand the case to the state legislature (GOP-controlled) to appoint electors (i.e., to seat the Trump rather than Biden slate to cast the state’s 10 electoral votes) — even though state officials had already certified Biden’s victory in the manner prescribed by state law.

As has been the case since Election Day, the mismatch between the improprieties alleged and the remedy sought was vast, wholly apart from the court’s rejection of the allegations.

Nor can it be ignored that this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court. In Pennsylvania, just days before the date a federal judge had set aside for a hearing on the Trump campaign’s complaint, the campaign dropped its fraud chargesand agreed that no hearing would be necessary. In Michigan, the campaign dropped its lawsuit after a federal judge threatened to dismiss it for failure to prosecute — nearly a week after filing the case with great fanfare, the campaign had still not served its complaint on the secretary of state.

It has become an article of faith among ardent Trump followers that the election was stolen. The president continues to insist that this is the case, and these flames were further fanned by 19 Republican-controlled state governments, along with 126 Republican members of Congress, who joined the meritless Texas lawsuit, tossed out by the Supreme Court on Friday. The rationalization behind that stunt was that the president has been denied his day in court. But every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds. Why is that?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: From a FB opponent:
« Reply #1444 on: December 14, 2020, 01:11:46 PM »
"to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't standing, it was laches, meaning timeliness, and a judge predisposed to not apply the remedy, reverse the outcome. 

Author implies the Biden side doesn't deny allegations including massive vote fraud.  Both sides stipulated the facts?

Sounds more like gloating than legal analysis.  No judge wants to touch this; that's what they've come up with.  Looks like that's good enough.

Are you better off winning by theft or losing by theft?  The next two to four years may answer that.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 02:59:18 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1445 on: December 14, 2020, 01:30:51 PM »
Tangent:

It is spelled "laches".

And I remember working a Section 7 Clayton Act (pertaining to mergers) case when I worked a summer ant the Anti-Trust Division of the FTC where laches was asserted against the FTC when it tried undoing a merger that had occurred DECADES earlier.

Working from memory, said the court "Laches does not run against the government when it asserts the people's rights" , , , or something like that.

None of the recent references to laches in court decisions that I have seen seem to take this into account.

Turning to the subject at hand, I am of the thought that my FB opponent makes some very telling points.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 01:32:56 PM by Crafty_Dog »



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1448 on: December 14, 2020, 02:57:46 PM »
I appreciate the correction, don't like to telegraph my ignorance.

It seems that it was the legislatures that had to fix this, or the legislatures that had to bring the action to court.  If you want the court to declare that a massive conspiracy crime took place, your evidence should be the arrest and conviction records of the people who did it.  That is not possible in a one month time frame - with no one of legal authority investigating it.

Separate from judicial rulings and the impending inauguration, the questions remain, did Biden get more legal votes in these swing states?  Will we ever know what happened? Will it always be partisan facts, one side believes this, the other side believes the opposite?  If it was stolen, will those responsible face justice?  Will system failures be addressed to keep it from happening again? 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1449 on: December 14, 2020, 03:13:01 PM »
There are obviously no consequences for vote/election fraud. After the mass amnesties for illegal aliens and then chain migration, the left won't need to cheat in future elections.


I appreciate the correction, don't like to telegraph my ignorance.

It seems that it was the legislatures that had to fix this, or the legislatures that had to bring the action to court.  If you want the court to declare that a massive conspiracy crime took place, your evidence should be the arrest and conviction records of the people who did it.  That is not possible in a one month time frame - with no one of legal authority investigating it.

Separate from judicial rulings and the impending inauguration, the questions remain, did Biden get more legal votes in these swing states?  Will we ever know what happened? Will it always be partisan facts, one side believes this, the other side believes the opposite?  If it was stolen, will those responsible face justice?  Will system failures be addressed to keep it from happening again?