lurker wrote:much like Great Leader, they are desperately flailing. i wonder, from living in a Fox news/OAN thought bubble, are they surprised, having actually believed that their coman candidate was popular enough to get a clean win, or are they simply flinging poop at the wall? they certainly seem to have plenty of poop to fling. one could even say they're full of it.

The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump’s campaign to overturn the state’s election results, the latest loss in the president’s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious.

The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state that President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

The Trump campaign’s Nevada lawsuit included baseless allegations that more than 61,000 people voted twice or from out of state. Although Trump campaign lawyer Jesse R. Binnall said last week a “robust body of evidence” supported his claim that the state’s six electoral votes were “stolen” from the president, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford (D) had challenged Trump’s attorneys to present any evidence supporting the unfounded allegations. “This election is over,” Ford said.

Ford, the Nevada attorney general, celebrated the decision, tweeting that the Trump campaign “never once presented sufficient evidence of widespread fraud.”

“Yes, they spouted nonsense in the media. But they NEVER backed it up in court,” Ford said. “That’s why they always lost. And that’s why they lost again tonight.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... n-results/

CDFingers wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:03 am TX AG = pardon shill

CDFingers

Wino wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:00 am wings - good analogy of where we are.

Romney, the Republican senator for Utah who has in the past publicly opposed Trump, took a swipe at any such attempt to change the election result."This is madness. We have a process, recounts are appropriate, going to the court is appropriate and pursuing every legal avenue is appropriate, but trying to get electors not to do what the people voted to do is madness," he said in comments tweeted by NBC's Frank Thorpe.

"It would be saying, 'Look, let's not follow the vote of the people, let's instead do (it) what we want. That would not be the way a democratic republic ought to work," Romney said, according to the NBC journalist, who added that the senator expressed confidence that such a move would be rejected. A spokesperson for Romney's office confirmed to Newsweek that he made the comments.

The proposed move by [Rep Mo] Brooks [R-AL] when Congress gathers to count the electoral votes on January 6 would at most only be symbolic and simply delay the certification of the presidential race by hours, rather than make any significant difference to the result, ABC News reported.

A member of Congress can object to its counting of electoral votes and declaration of results, but both a member of the House and Senate must raise the objection. It would then have to be approved by both chambers which is a long shot given that the House is controlled by the Democrats.

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 stop the game clock from ticking when all the players are walking off the field.

In addition to Missouri, the states joining Texas were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. All of the states were represented by Republican officials in the filing. All but three of the states have Republican governors.

Both procedurally and substantively, it’s a mess,” Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Law School in California, said of the Texas lawsuit. “There’s zero chance the court agrees to take the case.”

Trump is represented by John Eastman, a conservative legal scholar who drew criticism for falsely questioning whether Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as vice president because her immigrant parents were born outside the United States.

Bisbee wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:01 pm 45 would be a security risk if his MacDonald’s growth hormone addled brain could remember any details beyond two boobies.

wings wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:59 pm I feel weird saying this, but I feel like both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - despite being appointed by Donny - have shown more integrity through this mess than Kennedy did in the last year before his retirement. I'm sure that had nothing to do with his son's exposure through Deutsche Bank and their ill-considered loan program.

"I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

Indeed, a recent poll by the reputable Rasmussen polling firm indicates that 47% of all Americans (including 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats), believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” the election was stolen from the current incumbent President.

And he had coattails but, as some commentators have cleverly noted, apparently no coat. That is, Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, down to Republican candidates and the state and local level, all out-performed expectations and won in much larger numbers than predicted, yet the candidate for President at the top of the ticket who provided those coattails did not himself get over his finish line in first place. This, despite the fact that the nearly 75 million votes he received—a record for any incumbent President—was nearly 12 million more than he received in the 2016 election, also a record (in contrast to the 2012 election, in which the incumbent received 3 million fewer votes than he had four years earlier but nevertheless prevailed). These things just don’t normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss.

It is not necessary for the Plaintiff in Intervention to prove that fraud occurred, however; it is only necessary to demonstrate that the elections in the defendant States materially deviated from the “manner” of choosing electors established by their respective state Legislatures.

Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable.

TrueTexan wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:14 am If Paxton was hopping for a tRump pardon, it won't help because the charges are at the state level not federal. I don't think Abbott will grant him a pardon because this Governor doesn't sell mules.

The Texas politician who filed the Supreme Court election challenge that President Donald Trump touted as "the big one" may have good reason to curry favor with the White House at this moment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took the lead in the long-shot legal bid to overturn Trump's 2020 election defeat just two weeks after reports surfaced that he is the subject of an FBI investigation into allegations he abused his office to benefit a wealthy donor -- a thorny problem Trump could eliminate with a presidential pardon.

Paxton and a group of Republican state attorneys general met with the president at the White House on Thursday, days after filing the case that now shoulders Trump's hopes of holding onto his job for another term. Paxton's attorney, Philip H. Hilder, declined to comment on the nature of Paxton's discussions with the president.

CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 am Seditious abuse.

Olbermann.

CDFingers

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)