The election irregularities as presented thus far

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#51 Post by kroxquo » Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:29 am

SpacemanSpiff wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:25 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:01 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:30 pm
The latest Republican Hail Mary lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which sought to invalidate all the mail-in ballots, has been dismissed with prejudice by the judge. The judge specifically noted the lack of any factual evidence in support of the allegations. The suit claimed that the latest Pennsylvania law regarding mail-in voting procedures was unconstitutional and that all such ballots should be disqualified. The judge noted that plaintiff's attorneys had made numerous attempts to amend the pleadings, including, in the judge's words, "a rude and ill-conceived voicemail which distracted the Court's attention from the significant issues at hand."

The court said that both the Trump campaign and a couple of individual voter plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The two plaintiffs had their mail-in ballots invalidated because they failed to follow the correct procedure, but the counties where they lived (Republican counties) were not parties to the lawsuit. The court also noted that disqualifying all the votes would not cure any injury the plaintiffs might have suffered. As far as the Trump campaign was concerned, the court found that it had never alleged any actual injury it had suffered.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylva ... 01121.html

Game, set, and match in Pennsylvania.
Senator Toomey, citing the decision by "a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist," has congratulated President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris on their victory and urged Donny to cooperate with the transition.

Here's the Court's opinion. It's blistering.
Judge Brann wrote:Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.
--Bob
And, not surprisingly, he has appealed that ruling.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/state ... 2011220197

CNN had this to say

"In the hall of mirrors in which Trump's legal team operates, a stinging rebuke from a judge is simply interpreted as validation for a legal strategy steeped in conspiracy theories, lies and paranoia. Giuliani greeted the humiliating put-down by Brann not as confirmation of a laughable case but as a decision that "turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court.""

Rudy is not lying or exaggerating. The strategy has always been to get their case before the Supreme Court where they believe they will have a friendly audience. The question now is whether the SCOTUS will have the cojones to look at the case and decide - as they should - that there is no legal basis to hear the case and let the PA State Supreme Court stand. As a side note - I am quite sure that someone had to explain to the incumbent that they could not just simply drive over to the Supreme Court on November 4 and have them hear it and rule on it right then.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
SpacemanSpiff
Posts: 2388
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: Richmond VA
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#52 Post by SpacemanSpiff » Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:08 am

kroxquo wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:29 am
Rudy is not lying or exaggerating. The strategy has always been to get their case before the Supreme Court where they believe they will have a friendly audience. The question now is whether the SCOTUS will have the cojones to look at the case and decide - as they should - that there is no legal basis to hear the case and let the PA State Supreme Court stand. As a side note - I am quite sure that someone had to explain to the incumbent that they could not just simply drive over to the Supreme Court on November 4 and have them hear it and rule on it right then.
Therein lies the issue, and I'll rely on the lawyers here to correct me (and I'll admit that law was among the worst of my courses in colleges, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately).

From what I read, they can appeal the rejection of the case, but not overrule the case itself. It would then be forced back to the original court for rehearing.

Of course, the appellate court could simply schedule the hearing on, say, January 21, 2021.
#ignorehashtags

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19644
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#53 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:47 pm

SpacemanSpiff wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:08 am
kroxquo wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:29 am
Rudy is not lying or exaggerating. The strategy has always been to get their case before the Supreme Court where they believe they will have a friendly audience. The question now is whether the SCOTUS will have the cojones to look at the case and decide - as they should - that there is no legal basis to hear the case and let the PA State Supreme Court stand. As a side note - I am quite sure that someone had to explain to the incumbent that they could not just simply drive over to the Supreme Court on November 4 and have them hear it and rule on it right then.
Therein lies the issue, and I'll rely on the lawyers here to correct me (and I'll admit that law was among the worst of my courses in colleges, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately).

From what I read, they can appeal the rejection of the case, but not overrule the case itself. It would then be forced back to the original court for rehearing.

Of course, the appellate court could simply schedule the hearing on, say, January 21, 2021.
The next step is the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I'll be astonished if any court anywhere agrees to throw out millions of votes, which is exactly what Donny is asking them to do.

Their theory (in this case) is that different counties treated voters differently. The Secretary of State encouraged all counties to provide a "cure" mechanism for voters with fixable problems with their absentee votes. Some counties did, others didn't. The plaintiffs wanted equal treatment across all counties.

That theory, on its face, is at least plausible (but it's foreclosed by a whole bunch of case law). What moves the case beyond the realm of legally mistaken to the realm of farce is the remedy they're requesting. The plaintiff voters, who didn't get an opportunity to vote, didn't ask for their own votes to be counted. Instead, they wanted all the other votes to be thrown out, just like theirs were.

It's really the kind of lawyering that gives lawyering a bad name. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#54 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:41 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:47 pm
Their theory (in this case) is that different counties treated voters differently. The Secretary of State encouraged all counties to provide a "cure" mechanism for voters with fixable problems with their absentee votes. Some counties did, others didn't. The plaintiffs wanted equal treatment across all counties.

That theory, on its face, is at least plausible (but it's foreclosed by a whole bunch of case law). What moves the case beyond the realm of legally mistaken to the realm of farce is the remedy they're requesting. The plaintiff voters, who didn't get an opportunity to vote, didn't ask for their own votes to be counted. Instead, they wanted all the other votes to be thrown out, just like theirs were.
Some counties (generally blue counties) gave voters a chance to cure defective absentee ballots. Red counties, including those where the plaintiffs lived, did not. They did not sue their counties for not affording them that right; instead they sued the blue counties for giving others that right.

The district judge, who was a former member of the Federalist Society, correctly ruled that they had no standing in this matter (a good way to avoid reaching the constitutional issue).
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#55 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:05 am

I wish it were possible for both sides to lose this lawsuit. I have a feeling that a lot of the money that pro-Trump suckers sent in to funds like this either wound up in Trump's or the group organizers' pockets.

Pro-Trump Group Donor Sues Over Failure to Expose Election Fraud
A pro-Trump group that promised to challenge the Nov. 3 election results and expose fraud was sued by a North Carolina money manager who donated $2.5 million to the cause but says he didn’t get his money’s worth. Fred Eshelman, founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, wants his money back, saying he “regularly and repeatedly” asked for updates on the project but his “requests were consistently met with vague responses, platitudes, and empty promises,” according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in Houston federal court.

Houston-based True the Vote Inc. had promised a multi-pronged plan to “investigate, litigate, and expose suspected illegal balloting and fraud in the 2020 general election,” according to the lawsuit. In the weeks after the election, True the Vote filed four lawsuits, but it dropped them all last week. “While we stand by the voters’ testimony that was brought forth, barriers to advancing our arguments, coupled with constraints on time, made it necessary for us to pursue a different path,” the group announced on its website on Nov. 17. Despite numerous allegations of voter fraud and irregularities from President Donald Trump and his supporters, no evidence has emerged of widespread problems that would have changed the results of the election which President-elect Joe Biden won with 306 electoral votes.

True the Vote called its effort to reverse the election results Validate the Vote. The plan included filing lawsuits in seven swing states, collecting whistleblower complaints, galvanizing Republican legislative support in key states, and conducting “sophisticated data modeling and statistical analysis to identify potential illegal or fraudulent balloting,” according to Eshelman’s lawsuit. The money manager said he agreed to support the plan and wired the group $2 million on Nov. 5 and $500,000 a week later after the group’s president told him that more money might be needed to achieve their goals, according to the suit. When True the Vote failed to provide any reports on its progress and with certification deadlines approaching, Eshelman said it became obvious the group wouldn’t be able to execute the plan he agreed to support. So, he asked for his money back.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#56 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:46 am

SpacemanSpiff wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:32 pm
His campaign has wired in $3 million to the State of Wisconsin for partial recounts there -- specifically, the Democratic-leaning areas around Madison and Milwaukee. It certainly wouldn't make up enough to cover his shortfall there (about 20,000 or so votes), but all it'll take is a swing of less than 100 votes in his favor for him to scream "Aha! I was cheated!"
The results are in for the recount in Milwaukee County. Biden gained an extra 132 net votes there. Dane County (Madison) has not finished yet. If you think about it, it would make more sense for Trump to ask for a recount in Republican counties since if votes were missed, they would more likely be Trump votes than the votes that were missed in Milwaukee or Madison.

Trump is still challenging this recount in court, claiming that 25,000 people in Milwaukee who claimed that they were "indefinitely confined" should not have been allowed to vote absentee. That doesn't mean they were in prison; they just used that reason if they said that they didn't want to vote in person due to COVID. Another 2,000 defective ballots were cured before the election and Trump is challenging them as well.

In Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit rejected Trump's appeal, and would not allow him to refile under a new theory. The judge who issued the opinion, a Trump appointee, said:
Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#57 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:34 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:46 am
SpacemanSpiff wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:32 pm
His campaign has wired in $3 million to the State of Wisconsin for partial recounts there -- specifically, the Democratic-leaning areas around Madison and Milwaukee. It certainly wouldn't make up enough to cover his shortfall there (about 20,000 or so votes), but all it'll take is a swing of less than 100 votes in his favor for him to scream "Aha! I was cheated!"
The results are in for the recount in Milwaukee County. Biden gained an extra 132 net votes there. Dane County (Madison) has not finished yet. If you think about it, it would make more sense for Trump to ask for a recount in Republican counties since if votes were missed, they would more likely be Trump votes than the votes that were missed in Milwaukee or Madison.

Trump is still challenging this recount in court, claiming that 25,000 people in Milwaukee who claimed that they were "indefinitely confined" should not have been allowed to vote absentee. That doesn't mean they were in prison; they just used that reason if they said that they didn't want to vote in person due to COVID. Another 2,000 defective ballots were cured before the election and Trump is challenging them as well.
And the recount is finished in Dane County as well. This time, the total vote count was reduced by about 150 votes as a result of the recount, and Trump picked up a net of 45 votes. So, for their $3 million investment, the Trump campaign got a margin that increased by 87 votes for Biden.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
jaybee
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#58 Post by jaybee » Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:27 pm

This whole charade has gone way past the point of being ridiculous. We are down to only two options here:

1. The president of the United States is deliberately trying to undermine a national election for his own gain.

2. The president of the United States is insane and no longer has a firm grasp on reality.

#1 is certainly a crime, even (or especially) if committed by the President. What's our options here? Impeachment of a lame duck president?

#2 makes him unfit and unsafe to be in any position of power. Assuming this is where the 25th amendment comes into play?

It's like watching a ticking time bomb without knowing how much time is left on the clock before it blows.
Jaybee

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 20378
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#59 Post by SportsFan68 » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:01 pm

After reading The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis and the above post by S3, I'm convinced that the lawsuits and tantrums are just another way to drain money from someone else's pocket into Trump's.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#60 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:26 pm

This should be a dog-bites-man story, but when even Donald Trump's most loyal lap dog deserts him, this deserves a bit of notice. In the meantime, we're still waiting for bombshells in the Durham report.

Barr States The Obvious: No Mass Voter Fraud That Would Swing Election Results
Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. His comments come despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the election was stolen, and his refusal to concede his loss to President-Elect Joe Biden.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they’ve uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.

The comments are especially direct coming from Barr, who has been one of the president’s most ardent allies. Before the election, he had repeatedly raised the notion that mail-in voter fraud could be especially vulnerable to fraud during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans feared going to polls and instead chose to vote by mail.

Last month, Barr issued a directive to U.S. attorneys across the country allowing them to pursue any “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities, if they existed, before the 2020 presidential election was certified, despite no evidence at that time of widespread fraud. That memorandum gave prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election was certified. Soon after it was issued, the department’s top elections crime official announced he would step aside from that position because of the memo. ...

Barr didn’t name [Trump attorney Sidney] Powell specifically but said: “There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Barr said.

He said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department. “There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” Barr said.

He said first of all there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate. “Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations and. And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
jaybee
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#61 Post by jaybee » Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:43 pm

Aaaannnnd - Ex Attorney General Barr in 5 - 4 - 3 - ....
Jaybee

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19644
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#62 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:29 pm

This one may actually mean something. A county in New York has discovered 55 previously uncounted early votes. At the moment, Claudia Tenney leads Rep. Anthony Brindisi by 12 votes in that race, so the newly discovered votes could swing that seat. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#63 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:07 pm

Mo Brooks, an Alabama Congressman, has announced that he plans to challenge the Electoral College vote under the provisions of an obscure 1887 law called the Electoral Count Act. That Act provides that if one Representative and one Senator challenge the results in any state when Congress meets on January 6 to confirm the election results, then Congress must debate the challenge in separate chambers before taking the final results are certified. And, since each state's (plus DC's) results are considered separately, Brooks could force 27 separate caucuses (one for each jurisdiction Biden carried plus the one electoral vote in Nebraska). Brooks would need one Senator to join him, but there seem to be several Republicans who might be willing to do so. Brooks and his Senate colleague must make their request in writing and state the reasons why they think the result should not be certified. But since this issue has never come up before, there's no precedent for just how much of a showing Brooks must make or whether the usual claims of widespread fraud would suffice.

What continues to infuriate me isn't so much that people like Brooks are trying these stunts, it's the fact that there doesn't seem to be any political penalty for their doing so. Those like me were never going to vote Republican anyway, and the results in the last election show that there's relatively little downballot penalty for supporting Trump's positions in competitive districts.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/hu ... ief-491033
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
SpacemanSpiff
Posts: 2388
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: Richmond VA
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#64 Post by SpacemanSpiff » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:09 pm

jaybee wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:43 pm
Aaaannnnd - Ex Attorney General Barr in 5 - 4 - 3 - ....
A headline tonight on th Washington Posr website says that might happen. Trump is reportedly livid at Barr, and is considering termination.
#ignorehashtags

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#65 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:37 pm

Here's a decision that was closer than it should have been and shows how Trump envisioned this entire legal challenge playing out. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected Trump's latest challenge, claiming that the state's election practices were illegal. The suit challenged the results in Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee Counties, but not in the other parts of the state that followed the same practices. This was a direct filing with the Surpreme Court that ruled 4-3 not to accept the case because it should start in trial court. There are four conservatives on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, one of whom voted with the three liberals not to take the case. So, there were three justices willing to hear Trump out and possibly rule in his favor (although it's hard to see how you can get a ruling that invalidates results in only two counties). Trump has two suits still pending in federal court in Wisconsin.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19644
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#66 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:52 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:37 pm
Here's a decision that was closer than it should have been and shows how Trump envisioned this entire legal challenge playing out. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected Trump's latest challenge, claiming that the state's election practices were illegal. The suit challenged the results in Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee Counties, but not in the other parts of the state that followed the same practices. This was a direct filing with the Surpreme Court that ruled 4-3 not to accept the case because it should start in trial court. There are four conservatives on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, one of whom voted with the three liberals not to take the case. So, there were three justices willing to hear Trump out and possibly rule in his favor (although it's hard to see how you can get a ruling that invalidates results in only two counties). Trump has two suits still pending in federal court in Wisconsin.
Elections matter. One of the four justices in the majority won her seat this spring, upsetting an incumbent Republican justice who might well have ruled with the dissent, which would have made that the majority opinion. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#67 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:05 pm

A new twist since the Trump campaign is running out of state and federal courts in which to challenge election results. The State of Texas, through its Attorney General, has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, alleging various election improprieties. Unlike the various other lawsuits in this case, suits between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. These suits usually involve matters like border disputes and are typically referred to a special master who holds a factual hearing and the Supreme Court issues a final decision. However, the Court is not obligated to take up the case. SInce 1960, the Supreme Court has received about 140 motions for leave to file an original case (which Texas filed here). They have denied nearly half of these motions without a hearing.

What Texas (as proxy for the Trump campaign) is really looking for here is a stay issued by the Supreme Court that would delay the Electoral College vote on December 14. Today is the "safe harbor deadline" under federal law, which says that electors that have been certified in any state with all disputes resolved by today must be certified. It appears that this requirement would apply to every contested state except perhaps Wisconsin.

A quick look at the "facts" alleged by Texas are many of the same unsupported allegations that have shown up in many other court filings. One interesting fact is a statement that the odds of Trump losing any of the four states based on the results counted as of the middle of the night following the election are one in one quadrillion. That, of course, assumes that the votes counted by that time are a random sampling of all the votes cast which was definitely not the case, as mail-in and early voting results in these states were counted days after the election.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/texas-sues ... FOGMDS7PM/
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19644
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#68 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:28 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:05 pm
A new twist since the Trump campaign is running out of state and federal courts in which to challenge election results. The State of Texas, through its Attorney General, has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, alleging various election improprieties. Unlike the various other lawsuits in this case, suits between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. These suits usually involve matters like border disputes and are typically referred to a special master who holds a factual hearing and the Supreme Court issues a final decision. However, the Court is not obligated to take up the case. SInce 1960, the Supreme Court has received about 140 motions for leave to file an original case (which Texas filed here). They have denied nearly half of these motions without a hearing.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/texas-sues ... FOGMDS7PM/
Even in an original matter, there has to be a "case or controversy," which is a requirement that includes (among other things) a standing requirement. And it's impossible to imagine that the State of Texas has standing to challenge other states' appointments of electors. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#69 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:13 pm

Here's a Georgia election lawsuit that might get somewhere.

Federal judge hears case challenging Georgia voter purges
A federal judge heard arguments Thursday from voting rights groups that are challenging the removal of what they said were hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from Georgia’s voting rolls last year. U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones did not make a ruling Thursday but said he would release his decision “as quick as possible.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by the Black Voters Matter Fund, the Transformative Justice Coalition and the Rainbow Push Coalition. Attorneys for the secretary of state’s office asked Jones to dismiss the case. Lawyers for the Black Voters Matter Fund argued that the state removed tens of thousands of voters from the list because it believed they had moved out of their county or the state when, in fact, they had not. It also challenges a “use it or lose it” provision in state law that allows Georgia to purge voters who do not cast ballots for many years. That allowed the state to remove tens of thousands more voters, attorneys argued.

The lawsuit is based on a report released by the American Civil Liberties Union in September. At the time, the secretary of state’s office called it “misinformation” and demanded the group release its data or retract its report.
Republican voter suppression tactics in Georgia are common. Already, the legislature is making noises about tightening up absentee voting procedures for the 2022 election (all the state elective offices and the Loeffler/Warnock Senate seat are up in 2022). And there was a big stink raised when Cobb County, the third most populated county in the state, cut its early voting locations in half, claiming "staffing shortages." They did relent and add two locations back and moved a third. Early voting for the Senate runoffs starts next Monday.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#70 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:20 pm

Some Senate Republicans are refusing to commit to confirmation hearings or votes for Joe Biden's Cabinet picks while election challenges from President Trump and others continue to play out. "As long as there's litigation ongoing, and the election result is disputed, I do not think you will see the Senate act to confirm any nominee," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told Axios. Sen. Ron Johnson, who holds sway as chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said, "There's still some pretty troubling irregularities that haven't been explained."
https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet ... dc3e5.html

I think that if Biden's cabinet picks come up for a vote, enough Republicans like Romney, Murkowski, and Collins will vote to approve to get them through. But Mitch McConnell could prevent hearings from being held if he remains as majority leader.

I hope that Democratic groups in Georgia run Cruz's statements as an incentive to elect Ossoff and Warnock and let Biden run the country.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 23597
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#71 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:23 pm

I just noticed that the Texas suit against Pennsylvania says that Pennsylvania wrongly extended the time to return mail-in ballots. However, Texas did the exact same thing. :roll:
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 19644
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#72 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:31 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:28 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:05 pm
A new twist since the Trump campaign is running out of state and federal courts in which to challenge election results. The State of Texas, through its Attorney General, has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, alleging various election improprieties. Unlike the various other lawsuits in this case, suits between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. These suits usually involve matters like border disputes and are typically referred to a special master who holds a factual hearing and the Supreme Court issues a final decision. However, the Court is not obligated to take up the case. SInce 1960, the Supreme Court has received about 140 motions for leave to file an original case (which Texas filed here). They have denied nearly half of these motions without a hearing.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/texas-sues ... FOGMDS7PM/
Even in an original matter, there has to be a "case or controversy," which is a requirement that includes (among other things) a standing requirement. And it's impossible to imagine that the State of Texas has standing to challenge other states' appointments of electors. --Bob
Told you so. Note that even Alito and Thomas, who voted to hear the case because they think the Court is required to hear all cases within its original jurisdiction, would have denied all other relief requested by Texas. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#73 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Dec 13, 2020 4:15 pm

Add another one to Trump's losing streak. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected his appeal from a Fulton County trial court, saying that he was appealing a non-final order (the refusal of the trial court to expedite a hearing on the case) and that this was not the "extremely rare" type of case that justified the Georgia Supreme Court invoking original jurisdiction to hear the case.

Trump's goal in almost all these cases now has been to get court orders staying the Electoral College vote in a state until the court can rule on the case. He has not been successful in any of these efforts.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#74 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:36 pm

Paul Mitchell, a Republican Congressman from Michigan, has left the Republican Party and officially changed his status to Independent (like Justin Amash before him). Of course, Mitchell is retiring at the end of this term, so his decision doesn't have much of a practical effect.

It's a lot easier for Republicans to express their disgust with Trump and party leadership when they no longer have to face the voters. I'm sure he'll do well as a commentator at CNN or MSNBC where he can tut-tut to his heart's content.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 18653
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The election irregularities as presented thus far

#75 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:35 pm

Apparently, not even the Electoral College vote is stopping the Trump lawsuits from proceeding. Atlanta attorney Lin Wood's case against the State of Georgia, which has been rejected by the 11th Circuit, has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is noteworthy primarily because Wood included in his filing an affidavit from "an unidentified person who claims to be a former member of the presidential security detail in Venezuela. He alleged he was present when Chavez and representatives of a Florida voting-equipment company conspired to create software to secretly change votes. He also said that company was connected to Dominion, Georgia’s election equipment vendor — a claim that is untrue." Although the Court found this "evidence" less than compelling, Rudy Giuliani brought it up at one of his press conferences alleging fraud. It's also noteworthy that Hugo Chavez had been dead for several years when this supposed meeting took place.

Other that the fact that the taxpayers of the State of Georgia, including me, have to foot the bill for defending these frivolous lawsuits, I'm more than happy for Georgia Republicans to fight among themselves with two crucial runoff elections less than a month away that will decide control of the Senate for the next two years.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply