Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
BREAKING: Supreme Court denies request to stop certification of Pennsylvania vote, with no noted dissents.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
@unscriptedmike
This latest suit filed by Texas directly with the US Supreme Court, just before midnight last night, against several other states for violating the US Constitution in how they changed election rules, may be the one. This may be the case that breaks this thing wide open.
Click to expand...

lol, it won't be though. :D
 
I don't even know where to post what these days, but here's this.

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results [npr.org]
The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.
Click to expand...

Okay, ninja'd, but I'll leave the link.
 
Checkmite said:
lol, it won't be though. :D
Click to expand...

Nope. The actual bill of complaint is quite lengthy (more than 150 pages), but from what I've seen so far it argues all the same stuff that's been roundly rejected in all lower courts. It alleges -- without evidence -- widespread voter fraud. Its causes of action point to the same statutes that lower courts have said were misused (the Electors Clause, Due Process, Equal Protection). It makes a frantic appeal to Bush v. Gore to make any election-related issue a federal question, despite the Third Circuit having already closed that door.

The cause of action for one of the counts attempts to relitigate, without modification, claims of unconstitutional behavior or outcomes that have already been rejected by lower circuit courts and by the high courts of the defendant states. Importantly, these claims fail according to laches, meaning that the clock starts running on facial challenges to the constitutionality of laws the instant the laws are on the books, not at the point where you realize you're going to lose the election because of them.

And, as is usually fatal in all these claims, the plaintiff's prayer for relief is to "fix" problems in voting by throwing out entire states' worth of votes, irrespective of how many votes may have been cast lawfully. No court has yet even entertained such prayers without laughing.
 
Bubba said:
Dont worry.

That Texas suit has no chance.
Click to expand...

So now that it's over and Trump has lost, been humiliated time after time, at the polls, in court, in the recounts, what will you do with your trumpist merch: You know, your maga hats, your Trump 2020 flags, etc?

Also too, as it is clear by now that you've been gulled, what will you do with your Q merch?
 
CORed said:
I wonder if there is any consideration of state and local election officials suing Trump for defamation. Since they are public officials, as I understand it, they would have to prove actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth to prevail, but I think that Trump's conduct has been egregious enough that this might not be an insurmountable barrier.
Click to expand...

I don't know about state and local election officials, but Christopher Krebs (until a few weeks ago the director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) has filed a defamation suit against the Trump campaign and Joseph diGenova.

The 52-page complaint was filed in Maryland state court in Montgomery County, where diGenova resides. The lawsuit accused diGenova and the Trump campaign of defamation and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” It labeled Newsmax an aider and abettor. Krebs seeks a jury trial, money and punitive damages and an injunction ordering Newsmax to remove video of the incident.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a68a30-389a-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html

(Note: the "incident" referred to was diGenova's drawn and quartered/taken out at dawn and shot comment)
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
I don't know about state and local election officials, but Christopher Krebs (until a few weeks ago the director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) has filed a defamation suit against the Trump campaign and Joseph diGenova.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a68a30-389a-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html

(Note: the "incident" referred to was diGenova's drawn and quartered/taken out at dawn and shot comment)
Click to expand...

I admire Chris Krebs, and I hope he gets justice.
 
JayUtah said:
Nope. The actual bill of complaint is quite lengthy (more than 150 pages), but from what I've seen so far it argues all the same stuff that's been roundly rejected in all lower courts. It alleges -- without evidence -- widespread voter fraud. Its causes of action point to the same statutes that lower courts have said were misused (the Electors Clause, Due Process, Equal Protection). It makes a frantic appeal to Bush v. Gore to make any election-related issue a federal question, despite the Third Circuit having already closed that door.

The cause of action for one of the counts attempts to relitigate, without modification, claims of unconstitutional behavior or outcomes that have already been rejected by lower circuit courts and by the high courts of the defendant states. Importantly, these claims fail according to laches, meaning that the clock starts running on facial challenges to the constitutionality of laws the instant the laws are on the books, not at the point where you realize you're going to lose the election because of them.

And, as is usually fatal in all these claims, the plaintiff's prayer for relief is to "fix" problems in voting by throwing out entire states' worth of votes, irrespective of how many votes may have been cast lawfully. No court has yet even entertained such prayers without laughing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Texas has standing. Is this really a controversy between states?

The idea of vote dilution in the electoral college seems rather odd. Texas has no say in how Wisconsin chooses its electors. Ain't they votes, ain't their business. States Rights!

Even if the requested relief were granted, how would that work? If the electoral votes are vacated, that would reduce the number of appointed electors and Biden would still have a majority.

So they ask that the decision be remanded to the states' legislatures. But how would that work? Presumably they would have to pass a bill? What if the state House and Senate can't agree? Courts have ruled that if a state government allows the governor to veto, that also applies to election laws because that is part of the "legislature" as meant in the Constitution. What if there is a stalemate?

And if the state's constitution says that presidential electors are determined by popular vote, could the legislature even legally choose some other method? That would violate the constitutional rights of every eligible voter in the state.

Or would this fall to the laws when there is no decision in an election--a tie vote? Which usually means drawing lots. Would Pennsylvania flipping a coin restore the proposed injury to the state of Texas?

And then what? These types of issues probably happened in every state. New York sues Iowa. Wyoming sues California. Massachusetts sues Florida. The Supreme Court becomes a micromanager of elections.
 
A bunch of states have now joined the Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

Louisiana,
Arkansas,
Alabama,
Florida,
Kentucky,
Mississippi,
South Carolina,
South Dakota.

Guys, we gotta step up the chanting !!

In unison. Loudly!!

Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!!
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
A bunch of states have now joined the Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

Louisiana,
Arkansas,
Alabama,
Florida,
Kentucky,
Mississippi,
South Carolina,
South Dakota.

Guys, we gotta step up the chanting !!

In unison. Loudly!!

Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!!
Click to expand...

Funny, that's not mentioned in any of the Arkansas news sources I can find.
 
Bubba said:
A bunch of states have now joined the Texas lawsuit,
Click to expand...

You are lying again Bubba.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion Monday requesting his case be heard. He didn't actually submit his appeal. He is facing court for accepting bribes with a date yet to be set. Paxton's aim is to get pardoned by Trump before Trump is booted out.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he would bring his state into the case, "should it become one".

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry also endorsed the move but has not joined.
:big:
 
For the Texas case, the Alabama Attorney General said they would join the case in support of the plaintiff saying, "The unconstitutional actions and fraudulent votes in other states not only affect the citizens of those states, they affect the citizens of all states – of the entire United States."

That is an excellent argument against the electoral college. If the vote for President were by national popular vote, then fraudulent votes in one state would dilute votes from other states because the votes are all in one pool.

But that isn’t how it works. Each state gets electoral votes. The votes are by the electors. Although the electors are pledged, in most cases by law. They are the electors of the state, not the citizens.

With the electoral college system, votes of citizens by one state do not affect the votes of citizens in another state. It is the state, not the citizens, who decide electors, under the Constitution.

Under the electoral college system, it is the states, not the federal government or individual citizens, who ultimately determine the electors, and therefore the President.

Some have suggested that this may not be the best method.
 
Bubba said:
A bunch of states have now joined the Texas lawsuit, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated in this election from state-to-state.

Louisiana,
Arkansas,
Alabama,
Florida,
Kentucky,
Mississippi,
South Carolina,
South Dakota.

Guys, we gotta step up the chanting !!

In unison. Loudly!!

Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!! Its over!!
Click to expand...

And the Supreme Court said... NO

The states forgot to like Beer, they failed to bring enough Beer.

Did you get your JFKjr conspiracy theories from trump?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom