So has every conspiracy theorist on the planet. What's that saying... "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I notice you didn't site any of the sources of your personal research.
Show me hard evidence, you know, like the kind that can be substantiated, with a quantifiable impact on the election results, which are able to stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. I know, such high standards! Meet them and you have my ear, but there is such a huge amount of garbage information out there that unless you do, I don't have time to listen anymore.
Most of my information has come from watching the many hours of state legislature hearings (PA, MI, GA, AZ). I don't have a link readily available but they should be easy enough to find if you look.
There have been a few witnesses in these hearings that have been debunked. For example one lady testified that people were voting in MI without identification. Which is perfectly legal. A bit disconcerting, but legal. Other witnesses have provided wild speculation (e.g. Smartmatic hacking) with indeed no evidence.
The vast majority of the witnesses at these hearings, however, do seem to be legitimate complaints. It seems odd to me, that a reasonable person, after listening to their testimonies, would not at least have some doubts regarding the integrity of the election.
Whether it's the constitutional issues regarding signature matching in PA, or the poll watchers being thrown out in MI, or the many other issues at hand, it seems that at least one of these reasons would be cause for concern. And these aren't small issues - they could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of ballots.
So when people say that there is "no evidence" - I am a little bit shocked, surprised, at how quickly these claims are dismissed. Usually people point to the judges' casual dismissal, as justification for their own casual dismissal. Very rarely have I seen much effort made in actually investigating the claims that have been made. Actual investigation into these issues have been limited at best, and done with the strict intent of "debunking" rather than trying to get to the truth.
( Please be considerate with the downvotes. I am a new user and the negative karma is causing rate limits, effectively censoring me from this discussion. I am trying to have reasonable, constructive discourse. )
> Usually people point to the judges' casual dismissal, as justification for their own casual dismissal
I can't say how usual this is without evidence, but sounds like you might be casually dismissing other peoples' thought processes, including the judges.
I think some of the issues and concerns being raised absolutely should be looked into, and at minimum they should help inform us on how to improve election processes going forward. But the bar for deciding to throw out votes needs to be very high, so I expect the evidence required to reach that level to go far beyond seemingly legitimate witness complaints. Those complaints seem like a great starting point for investigators though, and it's beyond my expertise to evaluate them myself.
Unfortunately we also have an administration coming at these issues in rather dubious ways, which seems to harm their efforts for seeking out the truth. It makes me suspicious they are really only seeking their version of the truth, otherwise why would they be arriving at such strong conclusions _before_ enough evidence has been gathered to determine real, quantifiable effects of specific events? If I have a hypothesis and want to legitimately evaluate it by gathering facts and then I proceed to announce conclusions before the evidence has been gathered and vetted, I would be correctly dismissed as biased and only looking to advance my own agenda, not seeking the truth.
> I have done my own research, and to me, it seems unquestionable that election laws were broken in a variety of significant ways that meaningfully impacted the result of the election.
Oh? Why in your research were highly paid lawyers unable to point to anything convincing? Why in most cases did they not even try once in a venue where lying would have penalties?
It's pretty well documented that poll watchers were denied their lawful right of meaningful observation.
The counter-claim to this is that the poll-watchers were being rude/abusive but this is the claim that does not have evidence.
The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out.
There are many other ways election laws were also broken. This is just the example I use that, to me, is the most straight forward and best documented.
> Why in most cases did they not even try once in a venue where lying would have penalties?
Often times the courts haven't even provided the opportunity to swear in witnesses.
Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all.
> The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out.
That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law.
Then going back to the premises, isn't this in PA the one where they could see, they just weren't as close as they wanted to be, and they were exactly as close as the observers from the other campaign?
> Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all.
Time reasons sounds reasonable to you? They have raised multiple _hundreds_ of millions of dollars, and the candidate has his own funds. They can't get more lawyers and assistants to help? This has been going for weeks.
You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?
In Michigan, based on testimony/affidavits:
1) The poll workers were almost exclusively Democrats.
2) It was only Republican poll watchers who were being thrown out
3) Republican poll watchers were not replaced after they were thrown out
4) By the end of the night there were only a handful of Republican watchers
5) The Democrat poll watchers would harass the Republican poll watchers until they are thrown out
6) The reasons provided to throw out Republicans were applied unevenly (Only applied to Republicans)
Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. If there is evidence to the contrary for the above claims, I haven't seen it.
> That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law.
How should it work? It's not a fair system either to kick out all of the observers, and then claim that "no fraud happened" after kicking out everyone who was there to detect fraud.
The election laws exist for a reason and these laws were basically outright ignored.
Keep in mind, that even with the limited observation, there is testimony that points to specific cases of fraud. For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored.
> You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?
I don't know why they chose to select those witnesses to depose, and not the others. Perhaps Binnall personally felt those were his strongest witnesses. Maybe the other witnesses were not available to testify (or did not want to seek out the harassment).
I don't know. Judges are fallible, as are laywers, and people.
I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far.
(Please be considerate with the downvotes. I'm a new user, and I'm trying to be constructive with my posts, yet getting rate-limited due to negative karma.)
>Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read.
Cite them, please.
>For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored.
Cite this, please.
>This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored.
Cite this, as well, please.
>I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far.
These next two questions are real questions, not snark, I promise.
Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)? Do you really believe that?
Edit: Downvote me if you want, but at least have the decency to answer my questions. If you're so concerned about it, then get your information out in front of more people, instead of making baseless claims.
For the specific claim made above (Biden and Trump both filled in, going to Biden), if I recall it was one of the witnesses during the Michigan legislature hearing.
If you do a search for "Exhibit 1" this will take you to the list of affidavits.
> Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)?
In matters of law, certainly not. In matters of right and wrong, I consider myself on an equal footing as anybody else.
I've reviewed the reasons the judges have dismissed the cases. The reasons typically boil down to either:
1) Outright dismissal without giving opportunity to provide any evidence,
2) Dismissal on technical grounds (e.g. standing),
3) Dismissal from declaring the affidavits hear-say,
4) Dismissal that grants premise that election laws were not followed but this does not prove fraud
I'm not sure what the legal standards are on what determines an affidavit to be hear-say or not, but they can be submitted to a court as evidence. Thus far, no judge (as far as I'm aware) has allowed them to be provided as evidence.
Regardless of the legal implications of affidavits and the standards they must meet to be provided as evidence in court, I have seen more than enough (dozens if not hundreds) of testimonies that provide the same consistent general picture: election laws were not followed, and in a significant way.
For point #4 above, either the election laws exist for a reason, or they don't. The election laws that prevent fraud were (in my opinion) blatantly ignored, in critical Democrat areas, amounting to hundreds of thousands of votes processed without the required legal oversight.
(For the record, wasn't me who downvoted. Thanks for engaging in constructive discussion. )
Thanks for the links. I have reviewed the first link some weeks back. From what I can tell, the judgement falls under the "casual dismissal" category. Aside from the fact that the judgement is loaded with clearly biased editorializations, it doesn't provide adequate justification for its findings. As an example:
> Challengers are allocated one per respective party or organization to each counting board.5
> The only challenger right specifically listed with respect to absent voter ballots is to observe the
> recording of absentee ballots on voting machines. M.C.L. § 168.733(1)(e)(i) (“A challenger may
> do 1 or more of the following: … Observe the recording of absent voter ballots on voting
> machines.”) This requirement was met at all times.6
"This requirement was met at all times". How was this finding reached? The footnotes referenced (5,6) does not provide any indication to how this was reached. Yet, this finding is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided. On what evidence was this finding based?
Further, the judgement states:
> Even Plaintiffs’ “material” allegations could not possibly support their causes of action. If
> each and every one of the allegations were true (they are not true), at most, they relate to a small
> number of ballots, that could not possibly change the outcome of the election.
This is just factually not true, based on the number of hours of lack of meaningful observation, which would be hundreds of thousands of votes. Again, there is no indication in the judgement how this finding was reached.
THANK YOU however for providing these links. I have not yet looked at the other two and I will review them with the attention they deserve.
prucomaclu: Shame on you for gullibly believing and mendaciously spreading hypocritical, cynical, Anti-American lies, and shame on Texas for trying to overturn Democracy.
Supreme Court dismisses bid led by Texas attorney general to overturn the presidential election results, blocking Trump’s legal path to reverse his loss
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a long-shot bid by President Trump and the state of Texas to overturn the results in four states won by Democrat Joe Biden, blocking the president’s legal path to reverse his reelection loss.
The court’s unsigned order was short: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, as they have in the past, said they did not believe the court had the authority to simply reject Texas’s request. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
Trump, who has appointed three of the court’s nine members, has long viewed the Supreme Court as something of an ace-in-the-hole, and called for the justices to display “courage” and rescue him in post-election litigation.
[...]
The states said Texas’s claims were hypocritical and cynical. Although Texas said in a filing that it “does not ask this court to reelect President Trump,” the suit does not ask the court to discount the votes in any state Trump won where state officials and courts altered voting procedures because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Among those states are Texas itself, where the governor made changes.
> For the specific claim made above (Biden and Trump both filled in, going to Biden), if I recall it was one of the witnesses during the Michigan legislature hearing.
Shame on you, and shame on Texas. You LOST the Civil war, and you FAILED to start another one. Trump and Texans are such Anti-American sore losers. No slaves for you!
Republican congressman rips Texas GOP for suggesting secession and says 'my guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no'
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger on Friday criticized the Texas GOP for floating the idea of secession after the Supreme Court rejected a bid to overturn the results of the presidential election.
In a statement, the Texas GOP chairman suggested that "law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said the statement should be immediately retracted and the people involved fired. "My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no," he said.
> Texas does not need permission from the federal government to secede
A majority vote within Texas cannot deprive any in the minority of the protection of the US Constitution, or absolve the US federal government of their obligations to that minority.
Such a vote might plausibly be argued to justify a negotiation process which might lead to a separation, including territorial or other accommodation to the minority that wishes to remain affiliated with the US, but absent a more specific preexisting legal/Constitutional framework for succession the right of self-determination does not mean a potentially transitory majority has an automatic right to forcibly separate the territory including an unwilling minority from the institutions of a nation to whom that minority wishes to remain affiliated.
Are you trying to fraudulently overturn the results of the free and fair election that your comments should be downvoted because they don't contribute to the discussion and violate the guidelines?
>Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
Are you going to keep creating new accounts every time you get so much negative karma you can't post any more, as many times as Trump and the GOP have lost lawsuits trying to overturn the election, until you're at "prucomaclu50"?
>Trump And The GOP Have Now Lost More Than 50 Post-Election Lawsuits
>The Trump campaign and its Republican allies have officially lost or withdrawn more 50 post-election lawsuits, and emerged victorious in only one, according to a tally kept by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias, underscoring the extent to which President Donald Trump and the GOP’s efforts to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s win in the courts has overwhelmingly failed to affect the election results.
>The 50-case milestone was reached Tuesday as a state court in Georgia dismissed a Republican-led lawsuit, and the count includes both cases that courts have struck down and that the GOP plaintiffs have chosen to withdraw, such as an Arizona lawsuit that the Trump campaign backed down from because it would not affect enough ballots to change the election outcome.
>The Trump campaign and GOP’s only win struck down an extended deadline the Pennsylvania secretary of state set for voters to cure mail-in ballots that were missing proof of identification, and likely only affected a small number of mail-in ballots.
>Among the Trump campaign’s more notable losses in court thus far are the campaign’s failed lawsuit attempting to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results, which a Trump-appointed appeals court judge said was “light on facts” and “[had] no merit,” and a Nevada court that found the campaign had “no credible or reliable evidence” proving voter fraud.
>Courts have also repeatedly struck down the campaign’s allegations claiming their election observers were not able to properly observe the vote counting process, and while one Pennsylvania court did grant the campaign a win by ordering that poll watchers can move closer to election workers, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later overturned the ruling.
>In addition to the Trump campaign, GOP allies including state lawmakers, Republican Party officials and former Trump legal advisor Sidney Powell have also brought dozens of entirely unsuccessful lawsuits, and a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers was rejected Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.
>The legal campaign is expected to continue until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14—or potentially until January—but a “safe harbor” deadline midnight Tuesday, which ensures certified results submitted by that date can’t be challenged by Congress, will make it harder for outstanding cases to succeed.
Are there any other controversial scenarios that you believe are true, but that require thousands of individuals to secretly plan and execute, and then cover up, and still not have enough evidence to win in court?
Offer ten million dollars to one of the "inside" poll workers and get first hand eye witness testimony. Surely one of them even sneakily video taped the wrongdoing so that they could sell video evidence to the highest bidder. Surely at least one of these thousands has a paper trail of communications used to coordinate the scheme. And considering that polling officials are bipartisan, surely a few thousand would be motivated to testify about the corruption!
It takes thousands to successfully conspire. It only takes one for it to fail.
The Armenian Genocide comes to mind. You also couldn't prove that Uyghurs are being subject to anything out-of-the-ordinary in Chinese courts right now.
I'm not saying that that's what we're dealing with here, but saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" is begging the question, not a convincing argument. Noting that we'd expect odd statistical distributions of votes in the case of fraud is a better one.
Trump has crossed so far over the line and lied so much, that not caring if he wins or loses isn't a reasonable, defensible position any more.
You're pretty lucky to be in such a privileged position that you can be so careless, but there are so many people who are directly affected and attacked by him that aren't privileged to be so lucky and care-free as you claim to be.
What exactly would he have to do in order for you to care? Is separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages while undermining Democracy just fine with you? Or can he get away with anything he wants to in your mind, even worse than that, and you still don't care if he wins or loses? Where do you draw the line?
There's always a "but", isn't there? "I'm not racist, but [racist shit]..." "I don't mean to be rude, but [rude shit]..." "I'm not a Trump supporter, but [parrots Trump's lies]..."
Whatever comes after the "but" always proves whatever came before the "but" was a lie. That's what "but" means.
Again: where do you draw the line? Tell me what he'd have to do in order for you to give a shit? This time, try not using the word "but".
> Other Presidents have started wars. Tortured people. Persecuted whistleblowers. Spied on the American people.
> Generally speaking, Trump continued those things, as would Biden.
Which wars has Trump started? Last I checked, he will be the first president in a long time not to start/enter a war during his presidency. In fact, he's trying to pull troops out of his predecessors wars and instead Congress is seeking a super majority to block him from doing so in the NDAA.
Maybe it just seems this way, but it seems like it's been a very long time since a US President has not started any new wars.
I agree with you - it is a point in his favor that he's at least trying to pull out of these wars.
I think it was 2 years ago, he announced he was pulling out, and the media instantly went into panic mode, calling the actions reckless, attacking his decision.
So I will give credit where credit is due. He's at least trying to pull out of the wars.
Don't be ridiculous. No other president has ever tried to overturn the results of an election like Trump. You're attempting to make a blatantly false equivalency. That's textbook "bothsidesism". If you're "morally opposed to everything this President has done", then why do you "not care if Trump wins or loses"?
You've also offered absolutely no proof of your unfounded claims that "it seems unquestionable that election laws were broken in a variety of significant ways that meaningfully impacted the result of the election".
That's total bullshit. No it certainly isn't "unquestionable", and you have no proof of that whatsoever, and neither does Trump, which is why his absurd court cases are all being thrown out with such prejudice.
If you have some "unquestionable" convincing proof, then why doesn't Giuliani have it too, and share it with the court? Why don't you share it with us here and now? Because you don't. You are simply parroting Trump's and Giuliani's and Putin's propaganda and lies.
>And I generally do my own research.
And yet you somehow coincidentally come up with the exact same conclusions that Trump is lying about, but neither of you has a shred of proof. There's your problem.
>To clarify, I said "to me, it is unquestionable".
All you've proven is that you're "unquestioning", which is why you're parroting disproven lies. But not one shred of proof for your claims about election fraud. The only widespread instances of fraud are the claims you're parroting.
You mean the "widely scorned" Texas election lawsuit? That's bullshit. But you wouldn't know that, being so unquestioning and gullible.
Funny how Texas, which has historically been so concerned about "States Rights" (a euphemistic dog whistle for the right to own slaves), is suddenly so busy sticking their nose into other state's rights.
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Join Widely Scorned Texas Election Lawsuit
Election experts scoffed this week when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he would be filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states in an attempt to block presidential electors from finalizing Joe Biden's election victory.
But now President Trump and 17 states he carried are joining that effort.
Officials in the states targeted in the suit — Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — derided it as nothing more than an unfounded publicity stunt.
The lawsuit may be a typically adept Trump move to get attention, but election law experts said he has little chance of getting the Supreme Court to support his move.
As election law expert Richard Hasen put it about the Texas filing, "This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. ... What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage."
Just how little legal support there is for the lawsuit is evidenced by who signed the briefs asking the high court to intervene. Trump's brief was not signed by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall or any other Justice Department official. Rather, the brief was signed by John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University. (A Trump campaign statement said the president intervened "in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election.")
The Texas brief was not signed by the state's solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins. Paxton, who signed the Texas brief, remains under indictment over securities fraud and is also facing an FBI investigation on bribery and abuse of office allegations.
All of the briefs filed so far are in the form of a motion seeking permission to sue the states in the Supreme Court. As legal experts have noted, it is unclear what legal standing Trump, Texas or the 17 states supporting their move have for challenging the results of elections in other states.
Moreover, with the Electoral College slated to meet next week, this legal action amounts to little more than an eleventh hour Hail Mary pass. It is more like trying to stop the game clock from ticking when all the players are walking off the field.
Trump and Texas File New Election Lawsuit After Supreme Court Rejection: A Closer Look
Seth takes a closer look at the Supreme Court rejecting a lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its electoral votes for Joe Biden and the GOP attempting another Hail Mary pass to overturn the election results.
It's up to the charlatans filing the frivolous lawsuits to "PROVE" their claims, which they've spectacularly failed to do, not the rest of the world to disprove them. I've already provided you with links and citations, but you're ignoring them, so I'm not going to waste my time on that again, since you're arguing in bad faith, and have already proven you won't read them anyway.
If you support states rights so much, then why do you support Texas interfering in other states' rights, or does it only go one way?
"States Rights" is actually a racist dog whistle, as we all well know. People like Ronald Reagan who use that term don't actually mean it at face value, but use it as a dog whistle to racists, since they actually support things like the federal war on drugs and don't support things like gay marriage, both of which prove they don't give a damn about "states rights". That's evidence that they're not arguing in good faith, and actually mean it as a racist dog whistle, no matter how much fake moral outrage they inflect their denials of racism with. It's about as convincing as saying "I'm not racist, but ..."
The point of using a dog whistle like "states rights" is so you can deny it by saying things like "I can tell you, that my personal support of states rights, has absolutely nothing to do with racism." The cat is out of the bag, and that's simply not plausible, especially given your other statements:
When you claim to support states rights, that directly contradicts your claim of supporting Texas's frivolous lawsuit that explicitly interferes in other state's rights, so it's pretty obvious you're not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith.
You're not fooling anyone by unquestioningly supporting a frivolous unconstitutional lawsuit that flagrantly violates states rights, and totally fails to prove its claims, then implausibly claiming you support states rights, but not in a racist way.
Once your precious Texas Hail Mary lawsuit is laughed and kicked out of court, what will you say then? Will you finally admit you're wrong, or will you descend even deeper into conspiracy theories?
>Dog-Whistling Dixie. When Reagan said “states’ rights,’ he was talking about race.
>The current row is about interpreting Reagan’s defense of “states’ rights” and his choice of venue. Was this language, in this place, an endorsement of the white South’s wish to reverse the 20-year-old trend of using federal laws (and troops when necessary) to protect the rights of African-Americans? Or was Reagan’s remark just an expression of his well-known disdain for “big government”—and his choice of Neshoba County an unhappy blunder? In the ambiguity lies the answer.
>"I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states' rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level, and I believe we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment." -Ronald Reagan
>He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them." The use of the phrase was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs.
And we all know about the Republican Party's racist Southern Strategy, of course:
>In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
>If you can provide a link with meaningful substance, that counters the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit, or any other election lawsuit, I would like to see it.
Well, prucomaclu, aren't you ashamed of yourself for being so gullible, delusional, and Anti-American to think Texas's fraudulent lawsuit actually had a chance? Shame on you, and shame on Texas.
>The Supreme Court has smacked down the much-talked-about Texas lawsuit to overturn the results of the election.
>Days after rejecting a Pennsylvania case, the order from the Supreme Court reads Texas’ motion “is denied for lack of standing” and says “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [...]
>Furthermore, the complaint was riddled with falsehoods and unproven conspiracy theories of voter fraud that centered around a bogus statistical analysis that claimed there was only a “1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000” chance of Biden winning the four states. [...]
>“Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” Pennsylvania’s brief stated.
Here's the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas' attempt to throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states. The court declines to hear it; the only dispute is a technical one over the manner by which it is killed.
It's over.
The court's decision - that Texas lacks standing to bring this case - means it could not and did not reach the other issues. But these claims have all been rejected for many, many, many other reasons by other state and federal courts. Many.
Justices Alito and Thomas indicated that the court was (in their very consistent view) required to hear the case but that they too "would not grant other relief" - meaning they too wouldn't sign on to Texas' request for an injunction throwing out the election.
After all that, not one of the three Supreme Court justices nominated by President Trump made even a squeak in public to support this breathtaking attempt to invalidate the election he lost.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
CERTIORARI GRANTED
20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.
>5 big problems with Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win at the Supreme Court
>"This case is hopeless," said SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who argues frequently before the court.
Read it yourself, because I'm not summarizing it for you, since you're not arguing in good faith, just trying to waste people's time.
After you read that, can we both agree on the fact that Trump is a pathetic sore loser, who has absolutely no chance of overturning the election, which Joe Biden won fair and square, and by Trump's own definition and words, won it in a "massive landslide" (except that Biden ALSO won the popular vote, which Trump LOST both times)?
>Biden On Track For What Trump Once Called ‘Massive Landslide’ Electoral College Victory
>Democratic candidate Joe Biden is on track to win the presidency, but if he wins in all the states where he’s currently ahead, the victory won’t even be close by some peoples’ standards: namely, President Donald Trump’s standards.
>Biden leads Trump in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Nevada, which, along with Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and the rest of the states that have been called for him, would give him exactly 306 electoral votes.
>If that number seems familiar, it’s because Trump won that same number of electoral votes in 2016 after capturing Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan himself, even as he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
>In an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace in Dec. 2016, Trump dismissed a question about Russian interference in the election by boasting “we had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the electoral college, I guess the final number is 306 and [Clinton] is down to a very low number.”
>Two of Trump’s electors ended up defecting in 2016, along with five of Clinton’s, giving him 304 to her 227, which he tweeted was a “MASSIVE (304-227) Electoral College landslide victory!”
>Biden is also on track to win the popular vote by an even larger margin than Clinton did: he currently leads by over 4 million votes, nearly 3 points, according to the New York Times.
That lawsuit you're so excited about is a complete fraud, and you should feel ashamed for falling for such a transparent pack of lies. It's just recycling bogus claims that have ALREADY been disproven in court. But of course you believe it because you want to. Prepare to be sorely disappointed by reality. Texas has again made itself a laughing stock, and an embarrassment to the rest of the country.
>Battleground states file fiery condemnations of election results lawsuit as 106 House GOP back Texas
>Officials in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia have filed ferocious condemnations of the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court that seeks to overturn election results in the four key battleground states won by Joe Biden.
>The Pennsylvania filing describes the move by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and supported by Donald Trump, as using a “cacophony of bogus claims” in support of a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”, resting on “a surreal alternate reality”.
>State Attorney General Josh Shapiro wrote: “Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas's preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy."
>Mr Trump lost the four key states, and the action by Texas is an attempt to invalidate millions of votes, thereby potentially swinging the election to him. The states’ court filings come as 106 Republican lawmakers signed onto the Texas brief in support fo delaying their certification of presidential electors.
>The Pennsylvania filing continues: “Texas's effort to get this court to pick the next president has no basis in law or fact. The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”
>In her state’s filing, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel described the challenge as “unprecedented” and “without factual foundation or a valid legal basis". She wrote: “The election in Michigan is over. Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here.”
>Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul called the lawsuit an "extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin's and the other defendant states' elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each state."
>Attorney general of Georgia Chris Carr concurred and argued that the case does not meet the standard for the court to hear it: “Texas presses a generalised grievance that does not involve the sort of direct state-against-state controversy required for original jurisdiction.”
>He continued: "And in any case, there is another forum in which parties who (unlike Texas) have standing can challenge Georgia's compliance with its own election laws: Georgia's own courts."
> What exactly would he have to do in order for you to care? Is separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages while undermining Democracy just fine with you?
This "kids in cages" practice started under the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration stopped it. [0]
Obama never had a policy of separating kids from their parents, like Trump does, and the cages were only used for 72 hours before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services for further placement.
The Associated Press reported in late 2019 that an unprecedented 69,550 migrant children were held in U.S. custody over that year.
So do you support separating kids from their parents, and keeping them in cages for longer than 72 hours? If not, then why are you defending the Trump administration's policies to do just that, by complaining about Obama? Of course I don't approve of Obama putting kids in cages for 72 hours either, but that CERTAINLY does not justify Trump separating them from their parents AND putting many tens of thousands of them in cages during the Coronavirus pandemic for much longer periods of time, then refusing to cooperate with the efforts to reunite them with their parents. Your argument is pure whataboutism and deflection.
