• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jenna Ellis. Senior Legal Adviser to Team Trump and Counsel to Donald Trump tweeted

@JennaEllisEsq
If Joe Biden is really confident he won legally and legitimately, why is he so afraid of proving it?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Jenna Ellis. Senior Legal Adviser to Team Trump and Counsel to Donald Trump tweeted

@JennaEllisEsq
If Joe Biden is really confident he won legally and legitimately, why is he so afraid of proving it?
Click to expand...

77,782,870. to 72,506,165

He proved it bitch.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What is needed for Biden to be officially recognized as president-elect?
Click to expand...

"President-elect" is an unofficial term for most situations. (The exception is if he happens to die. Other than that, it's an unofficial term. I'll get to that.)


In order to receive access to trigger the provisions of the Presidential Transition Act of 2015 (or maybe it was amended in 2015, originally passed in 1963, I think), the Administrator of the General Services Administration would have to declare that Joe Biden was the "apparent winner" (that's the language of the statute) of the presidential election. The current head of GSA is Emily W. Murphy. The head of the GSA is a political appointee.

If she were to make that declaration, the money allocated for the presidential transition could start being used by the Biden team to fund transition activities, and the sort of access they have been asking for to agencies to aid in government trasition could begin. So far, she has declined to make that determination.

The phrase "president-elect" does occur in the constitutional amendment regarding presidential succession, noting that if the president elect dies before taking office, the vice president elect will be inaugurated as president. The designation of Biden as president-elect for those purposes will occur in January when the electoral votes are counted.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
What is needed for Biden to be officially recognized as president-elect?
Click to expand...

It's usually immediately after the result is known, which in this case was about three days after the election. But the GSA administrator is afraid Trump will fire her.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: I swear it's like he's challenging Biden to a fistfight behind the cafeteria after school.
Click to expand...

What I like about it is that it classic changing the burden of proof. The election took place Biden won. He doesn't have to prove anything. If Trump and his legal team want to prove that specific ballots were illegal, it is their burden to prove they were illegal. Not the other way around.
 
acbytesla said:
What I like about it is that it classic changing the burden of proof. The election took place Biden won. He doesn't have to prove anything. If Trump and his legal team want to prove that specific ballots were illegal, it is their burden to prove they were illegal. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Which is what I point out to every Trump supporter who claims election fraud. If Trump had evidence, he'd had provided it. Put up or shut up. He has not. End of story. No evidence of election fraud = Biden becomes POTUS #46. It's just that simple.
 
Ambrosia said:
:eye-poppi

really?

In the UK our entire election is counted by hand. 30million ballots last time around.

If you setup the right processes you get an extremely accurate count when it's done by hand.
Click to expand...

That's like saying someone doing a very complex math problem with a computer is going to be less accurate than people doing it by hand.

You count several million votes by hand there will be errors.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Which is what I point out to every Trump supporter who claims election fraud. If Trump had evidence, he'd had provided it. Put up or shut up. He has not. End of story. No evidence of election fraud = Biden becomes POTUS #46. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Tying up people in court has worked well for him in the past. Trump is probably shocked that the defendants in his legal suits haven’t offered to settle out of court and hand him the election.
 
Meadmaker said:
"President-elect" is an unofficial term for most situations. (The exception is if he happens to die. Other than that, it's an unofficial term. I'll get to that.)


In order to receive access to trigger the provisions of the Presidential Transition Act of 2015 (or maybe it was amended in 2015, originally passed in 1963, I think), the Administrator of the General Services Administration would have to declare that Joe Biden was the "apparent winner" (that's the language of the statute) of the presidential election. The current head of GSA is Emily W. Murphy. The head of the GSA is a political appointee.

If she were to make that declaration, the money allocated for the presidential transition could start being used by the Biden team to fund transition activities, and the sort of access they have been asking for to agencies to aid in government trasition could begin. So far, she has declined to make that determination.

The phrase "president-elect" does occur in the constitutional amendment regarding presidential succession, noting that if the president elect dies before taking office, the vice president elect will be inaugurated as president. The designation of Biden as president-elect for those purposes will occur in January when the electoral votes are counted.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the awesome explanation.

My opinion is that it would be reasonable(ish) to wait for the last rounds of absentee ballots etc. to be counted, just for pure optics given the postal delays and the complications with COVID.

But that's what... another day or two at most? Start sharing with the apparent winner by next Monday at the latest. Still more grandstanding and pretense than I want, but I can wait a few more days before I let my blood pressure rise.
 
jrhowell said:
Tying up people in court has worked well for him in the past. Trump is probably shocked that the defendants in his legal suits haven’t offered to settle out of court and hand him the election.
Click to expand...

It has. He managed to prevent pretty much everyone access to his tax returns and financials for his entire presidency despite promising to proved them at the beginning of his campaign in 2016. Appeal after appeal after appeal. And months pass between each step.

The problem is it isn't working at all in this case. His suits are getting tossed as fast as they are filed.
 
Despite Trump supposedly winning a lawsuit in Pennsylvania which prevented a number of ballots to be counted, Biden added about 1,000 movre votes to his margin over Trump today.

Current margin in PA is 54,613 votes.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's hard to imagine any other reason for Trump to appoint loyalists to top military positions at this point. It's not just military positions either, he's moving loyalists into place in several agencies.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out why anyone would even take such a position. What are you going to accomplish in 2 months? Really, how much harm could one do? Below these positions in all agencies and the Pentagon there are numerous levels of bureaucrats who can just delay, postpone, call more meetings, etc. Any half-way decent bureaucrat can make two months go by without any action at all.
 
Minoosh said:
I can't tell if the Ga. secretary of state is contradicting himself for not. He talks about a full hand-count, but he also talks about a risk-limiting audit.

It sounds to me a lot like fiddling with the data until they get it "right."
Click to expand...

I thouight the GA SoS was clear. Given the closeness of the race, an audit count and a risk-limiting count were the same thing: a full hand count.
 
Minoosh said:
I can't tell if the Ga. secretary of state is contradicting himself for not. He talks about a full hand-count, but he also talks about a risk-limiting audit.

It sounds to me a lot like fiddling with the data until they get it "right."
Click to expand...

As I understand it, here's the situation. No guarantees of accuracy here. it's just what I've heard.

Georgia law calls for an "audit" of every election. To perform an audit, you sample some ballots by hand, compare them to the official vote totals, and make sure that they are pretty close. The number of ballots that you audit is based on some combination of the number of votes cast and the closeness of the final results. Big elections that end very close require lots of votes to be counted. (I heard at least a million for this election and this reported margin.)

Georgia also provides for a recount to be conducted under some circumstances. I don't remember if the recount is requested by a losing candidate, or if it is triggered automatically for close elections. Recounts, by law, are conducted with machines.

For appearances, it was decided that a full hand recount would be the most likely to satisfy people that the final count was legitimate, but the law required recounts be conducted by machine.

So, what did the Secretary of State do? He ordered an audit, which is conducted by hand, and he ordered that the audit include every single vote that was cast.




There is a lot of debate on whether or not that's a good decision, for various reasons, but that's what is going to happen.

ETA: So, I did some googling, and the above is basically correct. There's some debate about whether the losing candidate at the end of the "audit" could then request a "recount", and then whether the "recount" would have to be "audited". But basically, the one thing everyone agreed on was that due to the closeness of the race, you would need a lot of ballots in the audit, and, something I didn't take into account above, you would have to take great pains to ensure that the sample reflected the makeup of the population of Georgia, that the best way of doing a proper "audit" was to include every vote in the audit.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
It's usually immediately after the result is known, which in this case was about three days after the election. But the GSA administrator is afraid Trump will fire her.
Click to expand...

She is more afraid of Trump not pardoning her for her role in preventing the move of the FBI Headquarters.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
She is more afraid of Trump not pardoning her for her role in preventing the move of the FBI Headquarters.
Click to expand...

I don't know what criminal law you have in mind here. I think she kowtowed to the president who was interested only in benefiting his business, but I'm not sure I see any criminal charges coming from that.
 
Meadmaker said:
As I understand it, here's the situation. No guarantees of accuracy here. it's just what I've heard.

Georgia law calls for an "audit" of every election. To perform an audit, you sample some ballots by hand, compare them to the official vote totals, and make sure that they are pretty close. The number of ballots that you audit is based on some combination of the number of votes cast and the closeness of the final results. Big elections that end very close require lots of votes to be counted. (I heard at least a million for this election and this reported margin.)

Georgia also provides for a recount to be conducted under some circumstances. I don't remember if the recount is requested by a losing candidate, or if it is triggered automatically for close elections. Recounts, by law, are conducted with machines.

For appearances, it was decided that a full hand recount would be the most likely to satisfy people that the final count was legitimate, but the law required recounts be conducted by machine.

So, what did the Secretary of State do? He ordered an audit, which is conducted by hand, and he ordered that the audit include every single vote that was cast.




There is a lot of debate on whether or not that's a good decision, for various reasons, but that's what is going to happen.

ETA: So, I did some googling, and the above is basically correct. There's some debate about whether the losing candidate at the end of the "audit" could then request a "recount", and then whether the "recount" would have to be "audited". But basically, the one thing everyone agreed on was that due to the closeness of the race, you would need a lot of ballots in the audit, and, something I didn't take into account above, you would have to take great pains to ensure that the sample reflected the makeup of the population of Georgia, that the best way of doing a proper "audit" was to include every vote in the audit.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it is a recount, but they can't call it that.
 
phiwum said:
I don't know what criminal law you have in mind here. I think she kowtowed to the president who was interested only in benefiting his business, but I'm not sure I see any criminal charges coming from that.
Click to expand...

it is very likely that she lied to Congress about the reasons to abort the move and her communication with Trump about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom