2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

[heymatto70]

Yep, among other problems...

And technically, they didn't wait "until the last minute." They waited until after the election, which is after the event.

In the suit, they have set themselves up for a laches dismissal. They explicitly say it's not about election fraud, and only about the states approved policies.

Election fraud would be something that would have to be addressed after the election. But if the concern is only about the election rules, that is something that should have been addressed earlier, when they happened.

If they had a problem with other states having non-legislative actors making voting rules, aside from the fact that it happened in Texas itself, they should have said something when it happened.

I appreciate the response. It's good to know that this suit should stand no chance. Let's hope the SCOTUS comes through.

 

[eerok]

It’s even stupider than the “Kraken” suits, the last of which was flicked away yesterday by a Wisconsin judge like the legal booger it was. Remember when the Trump cultists were all excited about that and yammering about how this was The Big One?

IMO The Big One will be the one that finally puts Trump in a cell.

 

[eerok]

This is pure theater, and it is a shame that millions of Americans don't use good sources of information to relaize that they are being lied to.

I think Trump's legacy is a presidency marked by bad theater. Stupidity piled on stupidity, with jazz hands.

 

[pgwenthold]

The kraken, she dead.

Last ‘Kraken’ Slain: Court Notes ‘Federal Judges Do Not Appoint the President,’ Wonders Why Sidney Powell Asked [lawandcrime.com]


Ninja'd of course, but still a good article.

This is the case where the judge called out Powell for making up a quote.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337044678445772802

Summary: Powell "quoted" a ruling in another case, but the quoted sentence was not present in the ruling, and, moreover, that case was not material to the case at hand. The judge actually says that they "made up" the quote.

I have to say, that's not a good look for a lawyer.

Remember, she is a rockstar lawyer! Who makes **** up.

 

[JayUtah]

And technically, they didn't wait "until the last minute." They waited until after the election, which is after the event.

In the case of Pennsylvania, after two elections. The primary election was conducted according to the same laws that the plaintiffs now contend have always been unconstitutional. And those laws were actually passed in November of last year. A cause of action for facial unconstitutionality of a law does not require a fact pattern to adjudicate. Hence the clock for such causes of action starts ticking the moment the law is enacted. It doesn't suddenly become ripe the moment you decide you can now benefit from the disappearance of some law.

The Republicans' desired goal here is clearly not to have free and fair elections, which would have been better served by contesting the complained of laws before elections were held according to them. The goal instead is to get the artifact of an election thrown out if, after the fact, it does not result in a Republican victory. Doing it the right way would have foreclosed such an action, since they would have been unable later to claim that balloting was unlawful.

This sort of prejudicial outcome achieved by timing one's lawsuit is exactly why the doctrine of laches exists. The judiciary aims to provide equitable relief, not strategically amplified relief.

If they had a problem with other states having non-legislative actors making voting rules, aside from the fact that it happened in Texas itself, they should have said something when it happened.

Indeed it is suspicious that voting procedure was challenged only in states the plaintiffs did not carry. Many states modified their voting procedures to accommodate health guidelines, and many such hasty modifications could probably be scrutinized for conformance with good lawmaking. For the relief to be truly equitable, in the manner desired by the plaintiffs, then all states whose voting practices cannot survive constitutional scrutiny should be discarded, regardless of who the electors were going to vote for. The suit all but claims that unconstitutional balloting occurred only in states the plaintiffs lost.

The notion that "the Legislatures thereof" means the literal legislatures are the only powers within a state authorized by the Constitution to regulate elections is a complete red-herring denial of how legislation actually works. Even though substantial power is vested by the people in their legislatures to carry out tasks assigned to them, they routinely delegate some of that power to the executive -- even, at times, discretionary power. When that discretion (or ordinary discretion) is exercised, it is still according to power that ultimately derives from the legislature. "Non-legislative actors" operating by authority delegated to them by the legislature are within the purview of "the Legislatures thereof."

And acts of all legislatures necessary leave gaps into which certain facts may fall, and in other cases create contradictory overlaps that encompass certain other facts. In those cases it is the proper role of the state's judiciary to apply sound principles of reasoning, binding precedent, and nonpartisan equanimity to decide how the prior determination of "the Legislatures thereof" should apply to some pattern of facts and to direct the affected parties accordingly. Those actors then are still acting according to the laws given by the legislature. The fact that a court helped them understand how best to do that matters not a bit.

 

[Craig4]

This is the case where the judge called out Powell for making up a quote.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337044678445772802

Summary: Powell "quoted" a ruling in another case, but the quoted sentence was not present in the ruling, and, moreover, that case was not material to the case at hand. The judge actually says that they "made up" the quote.

I have to say, that's not a good look for a lawyer.

Remember, she is a rockstar lawyer! Who makes **** up.

When the dust settles, I do hope the relevant disciplinary committees of the Bar Associations that hold the licenses for this people will become involved.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Including Texas, is it 20 yet??

Are you talking about the number of lawsuits that Sydney Powell has lost?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

In the case of Pennsylvania, after two elections. The primary election was conducted according to the same laws that the plaintiffs now contend have always been unconstitutional. And those laws were actually passed in November of last year. A cause of action for facial unconstitutionality of a law does not require a fact pattern to adjudicate. Hence the clock for such causes of action starts ticking the moment the law is enacted. It doesn't suddenly become ripe the moment you decide you can now benefit from the disappearance of some law.

The Republicans claim that Act 77 of 2019 is unconstitutional? They didn't seem to feel that way when it came time to vote on it:

In the Senate, where Act 77 passed 35-14, Republicans voted 27-0 in favor along with eight Democrats; all 14 dissenting votes came from Democrats. In the House, Republicans voted 105-2 in favor while Democrats were more divided — 59 against, 33 in favor.

https://www.publicsource.org/trump-...-2020-pa-republicans-supported-it-originally/

 

[pgwenthold]

Indeed it is suspicious that voting procedure was challenged only in states the plaintiffs did not carry. Many states modified their voting procedures to accommodate health guidelines, and many such hasty modifications could probably be scrutinized for conformance with good lawmaking. For the relief to be truly equitable, in the manner desired by the plaintiffs, then all states whose voting practices cannot survive constitutional scrutiny should be discarded, regardless of who the electors were going to vote for. The suit all but claims that unconstitutional balloting occurred only in states the plaintiffs lost.

And if this ever got to that point, the states being sued would absolutely use that as a defense. Texas has arbitrarily (at least from a legal sense, it's certainly not arbitrary) targeted those 4 states for supposed violations, but has not included other states that have done the same thing. WiPaArGa insist that all the states that have these violations be included in the lawsuit (which means Tx has to sue itself) or this argument be dropped.

The notion that "the Legislatures thereof" means the literal legislatures are the only powers within a state authorized by the Constitution to regulate elections is a complete red-herring denial of how legislation actually works. Even though substantial power is vested by the people in their legislatures to carry out tasks assigned to them, they routinely delegate some of that power to the executive -- even, at times, discretionary power. When that discretion (or ordinary discretion) is exercised, it is still according to power that ultimately derives from the legislature. "Non-legislative actors" operating by authority delegated to them by the legislature are within the purview of "the Legislatures thereof."

And in the end, the state courts have ruled that the approaches used by the states was allowed within the state constitutions, which are beholden to the US constitution. Therefore, the SC can just say, if you think those states violated the constitution then have someone sue those states. Oh wait, they already did? So what's the problem?

 

[Horatius]

Best thing for the SC to do would be nothing whatsoever.
No statement, nothing.

No, the best thing would be for them to comprehensively slap this down, and conclude with the judicial equivalent of "Whoever tries to pull **** like this again is going straight to prison!"

We need a ruling that is unequivocal that all this crap is wrong, unconstitutional, evil, and treasonous. Period.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, the best thing would be for them to comprehensively slap this down, and conclude with the judicial equivalent of "Whoever tries to pull **** like this again is going straight to prison!"

We need a ruling that is unequivocal that all this crap is wrong, unconstitutional, evil, and treasonous. Period.

Unfortunately, that's not how courts work. I don't think they can do that, because they have to follow the law, and I doubt the law allows that sort of thing. Anyone can bring a suit. It isn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal.

So, it's ironic that the people pulling this stuff will be able to hide behind the very system of laws they are trying to subvert.

However, I agree with the sentiment, and I would rather see a major smackdown than a simple "We decided not to hear the case."

 

[Meadmaker]

One more thing. I really do think we need a constitutional amendment that tightens up some of the grey areas exposed by this post-election fiasco. I think the system has held up very well under the assumption that presidential candidates and their supporters are, at their heart, people who believe in democracy, fair play, and the rule of law. However, this year has exposed what happens when those assumptions are shown to be false.

We need to get rid of things like "the legislature of the state", and replace it with "the laws of the state", ensuring that we won't see any of the attempted post-hoc coup attempts Trump is trying to pull now. We need to actually state that the votes of the people matter. Even if we keep the outdated concept of state-by-state electoral votes, is there anyone who thinks having actual electors, some of which might be "faithless", is a good idea?

Unfortunately, it won't happen, because no matter how simple or obvious the proposed reform is, it will slightly favor one side or the other, and so the other side won't support it.

 

[Craig4]

Yes. Now that Republicans have learned where the choke points are that blocked their attempt to steal the election, they now know where they need to put loyalists. I doubt this will be the last election the Republicans attempt to steal.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the SC says and does nothing, the Trump Putschists won't know if they need to do something else or not, and won't start kidnapping and brainwashing Electors to assure their thousand year Reich.

 

[pgwenthold]

On a related note, has the State of Texas released the calculations by which the odds of a Biden victory were determined to be 1,000,000,000,000 to one, or whatever even more ridiculous number they're claiming? Dissecting the fallacies involved in it could be entertaining.

Dave

Remember the threads about the Republican party being science deniers?

This is the result. This is complete pseudoscience crap.

Use unfounded assumptions and baseless estimates to come up with a ludicrous result. They could just as well be talking about UFOs and chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracies.

Oh, and throw in their lame video analysis and you've got Bigfoot hunters.

(Hint: instead of relying on stupid video analysis, why not just depose the workers and ask them what they were doing? Aside from the fact you won't like the mundane answer....)

 

[Norman Alexander]

I'm surprised there are no counter-suits by elections workers and states who had to respond to these Kraken ****. They are being publicly demeaned, insulted and even physically harassed.

So I wonder if these super-spreading wannabe legal smart-asses, Karens, and gun-toting would-be lynchers threatening them and their livelihoods and even lives would be having second thoughts if they get sued for this sort of clearly threatening behaviour. On the grounds of common assault, making lethal threats, harassment, loss of freedom, and loss of income, etc, etc. Make them pay for their stupidities.

Yeah, I know. Expecting people to think twice who don't even think once.

 

[eerok]

I'm surprised there are no counter-suits by elections workers and states who had to respond to these Kraken ****. They are being publicly demeaned, insulted and even physically harassed.

I think this could happen, in the fullness of time.

 

[Bubba]

Powell’s Arizona co-counsel Alex Kolodin told The Epoch Times in a phone interview that his team plans to fast-track the case to the Supreme Court and will file a petition for appeal in the coming days. (as planned)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidne...dium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-10-1

 

[No Other]

I'm surprised there are no counter-suits by elections workers and states who had to respond to these Kraken ****. They are being publicly demeaned, insulted and even physically harassed.

So I wonder if these super-spreading wannabe legal smart-asses, Karens, and gun-toting would-be lynchers threatening them and their livelihoods and even lives would be having second thoughts if they get sued for this sort of clearly threatening behaviour. On the grounds of common assault, making lethal threats, harassment, loss of freedom, and loss of income, etc, etc. Make them pay for their stupidities.

Yeah, I know. Expecting people to think twice who don't even think once.

No need for counter-suits; Representative CJ Johnson of Michigan put out the word to her Soldiers.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Here you go (Starting on page 20 of the PDF):

A-HA!!! 20!!!