Trump's Coup d'état.

[acbytesla]

On another web site's forum, someone made the point that the recent SCOTUS decision about PA (from Mike Kelly) only denied emergency injunctive relief, so that case is still pending before SCOTUS.

1. Is that an accurate reading legally?

2. Is it moot anyway given that we are after the Safe Harbour deadline?

They're half right and yet totally wrong. Kelly filed for injunctive relief pending an appeal. There is now nothing on the SCOTUS docket regarding this case. But Kelly is free to file his appeal. So it's open in his mind.

There are thousands of appeals filed every year. Only a tiny few are ever heard.

 

[Horatius]

Heck, California could make the same claim as Texas that California's votes are more diluted than other states.

That's the thing they don't seem to realize with this case. If other states changing their laws rises to level of "impacting" the election in a given state, then any state can sue any other state for any change in election law or practice.

Like, say, all the stupid limitations on how many polling places, and where they are placed, that go on in GOP run states. Supressing a significant portion of the Democratic vote in places like Georgia and Texas certainly has an impact on the electoral success of California's preferred candidates, after all.

If they win this, they open the floodgates, and I can't imagine they'll enjoy that.

Lucky for them they have essentially zero chance of winning.

 

[acbytesla]

Was one point of the emergency injunctive relief to somehow disable the Safe Harbour deadline? If the SCOTUS had granted that relief, the Safe Harbour deadline would be extended until the case was decided on?

Maybe. But even that would be futile. The election was certified. The slate of Biden electors has been chosen. In theory without safe harbor the PA State legislature could appoint a slate of Trump electors between now and Monday when the EC votes. One problem with that. The PA State legislature is not in session and has no viable way of going into session. They would require a supermajority which the GOP doesn't have.

 

[Resume]

Nah, this guy isn't fascist/a dictator/attempting a coup/nuttier than squirrel ****.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump on Wednesday vowed to intervene in a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas filed at the U.S. Supreme Court trying to throw out the voting results in four states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden as he seeks to undo the outcome of the election.

The Republican president, writing on Twitter, said: “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”

The lawsuit, announced on Tuesday by the Republican attorney general of Texas Ken Paxton, targeted the election battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump has falsely claimed he won re-election and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud.

Trump provided no details on the nature of the intervention in the case that he was promising, including whether it would be his presidential campaign or the U.S. Justice Department that would take action.

It's simply mind-boggling where we're at.

 

[dudalb]

Nah, this guy isn't fascist/a dictator/attempting a coup/nuttier than squirrel ****.


It's simply mind-boggling where we're at.

How can he intervene at this point?
Answer: He really can't.
He is just blowing off more crap to keep the grift going.
I honestly believe Trump has a number of motives, and raising a lot of money that he can divert into his personal account is one of them. He owes a lot of money, and he can't get a loan at any reputable bank because he is considered a bad risk. Banks don't loan money to people who lose money running a casino.....

 

[Resume]

How can he intervene at this point?
Answer: He really can't.
He is just blowing off more crap to keep the grift going.

I understand the grifting; that's been my contention since forever, but don't be so certain about what Trump can't, won't or wouldn't do. He's been doing those things since forever as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But as always proving Trump can win at chess because he's breaking all the rules of chess doesn't mean he can't win at "Flipping the board over."

Again no this doesn't mean coup, it doesn't mean revolution, it doesn't mean mass insurrection but the seeds of doubt in the Democratic process he's sewed, all without an ounce of evidence behind it, does mean that his followers will make this hard for us for a while.

 

[dudalb]

I understand the grifting; that's been my contention since forever, but don't be so certain about what Trump can't, won't or wouldn't do. He's been doing those things since forever as well.

Oh, he might try some crap, but it won't get off the ground legally.

 

[CORed]

But as always proving Trump can win at chess because he's breaking all the rules of chess doesn't mean he can't win at "Flipping the board over."

Again no this doesn't mean coup, it doesn't mean revolution, it doesn't mean mass insurrection but the seeds of doubt in the Democratic process he's sewed, all without an ounce of evidence behind it, does mean that his followers will make this hard for us for a while.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Trump's cult following is going to fade away over the next few years. That doesn't mean that the people who are currently his followers won't be a problem, as they will likely latch onto another demagogue in the next few years. But I think most of the hard core Trump cultists are still convinced that he is going to somehow hold power, and it's becoming increasingly clear that he is not making a serious effort to do so. I think that when Biden takes power on Jan. 20, with Trump still whining that he was cheated, his aura of invincibility will be irreparably broken. Maybe I'm underestimating the cultists' capacity for self-delusion (which is clearly huge) and cognitive dissonance, but I think Trump is going to reach the breaking point for a lot of them.

 

[Firestone]

Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia file in support of the Paxton motion.

So does Trump.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ef of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...5_No. 22O155 Original Motion to Intervene.pdf

Links come from the SCOTUS Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

 

[I Am The Scum]

On another web site's forum, someone made the point that the recent SCOTUS decision about PA (from Mike Kelly) only denied emergency injunctive relief, so that case is still pending before SCOTUS.

Not a lawyer: My understanding is that the lawsuit is technically alive, but effectively dead. In the absence of emergency relief, the suit goes forward on the regular docket, meaning that Biden will be at least a few months into his first term before the Supreme Court could potentially hear the case, and by then, it's too late.

 

[cosmicaug]

Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia file in support of the Paxton motion.

So does Trump.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ef of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...5_No. 22O155 Original Motion to Intervene.pdf

Links come from the SCOTUS Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

If my understanding is correct, the suit is suggesting that the voting rules have not been changed in a legally acceptable way (regarding mail-in voting & other things to facilitate voting during the Covid-19 pandemic —even though none of this seemed to bother Texas until after the election). Does anyone have any idea regarding how many of those 16 states (if any) would be impacted if this was applied to all 50 states (not just the 4 named in the suit)?

 

[Firestone]

Certainly Texas.

"The brief also argues that executive officials shouldn't be able to mess with voting rules. But Texas -- the plaintiff in this case, the state they're supporting -- did that very thing. The governor used executive power to extend the early voting period, among other things. "

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336767769124155394?s=19

By the way, the Trump motion is hilarious. One excerpt: "For example, he [Trump] won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States. "

 

[acbytesla]

Certainly Texas.

"The brief also argues that executive officials shouldn't be able to mess with voting rules. But Texas -- the plaintiff in this case, the state they're supporting -- did that very thing. The governor used executive power to extend the early voting period, among other things. "

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336767769124155394?s=19
By the way, the Trump motion is hilarious. One excerpt: "For example, he [Trump] won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States. "

FACT: Nixon did in 1960

 

[Firestone]

FACT: Nixon did in 1960

Who cares about facts in a motion to SCOTUS?

I see on the SCOTUS docket that Roy Moore (yes, that Roy Moore), has also filed a motion in support of Paxton.

 

[Minoosh]

Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia file in support of the Paxton motion.

So does Trump.

Montana is one of the states that sent a damn ballot to every registered voter, unsolicited!

Every state that made voting by mail easier during the pandemic should sue every state that didn't for contributing to the virus's spread.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Certainly Texas.

"The brief also argues that executive officials shouldn't be able to mess with voting rules. But Texas -- the plaintiff in this case, the state they're supporting -- did that very thing. The governor used executive power to extend the early voting period, among other things. "

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336767769124155394?s=19

By the way, the Trump motion is hilarious. One excerpt: "For example, he [Trump] won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States. "

Also, Abbott closed down many drop off locations for absentee ballots in large counties by limiting the locations to one per county. For reference, Harris county has 4.7 million residents and Dallas county has 2.6 million. Both leaned heavily to Biden.

 

[pgwenthold]

On another web site's forum, someone made the point that the recent SCOTUS decision about PA (from Mike Kelly) only denied emergency injunctive relief, so that case is still pending before SCOTUS.

1. Is that an accurate reading legally?

No. They never applied for cert from the SC, only injunctive relief. There is nothing left. That is according to the lawyers I have been reading on Twitter (PopeHat and others)

Besides, so what? What they NEEDED in order to prevent the election from going forward was injunctive relief. It does them no good to wait until March for the court to hear the case. At that point, it's over, Biden is President. These morons don't actually think that the SC will rule that he's not President after he's sworn in, do they?

 

[Firestone]

Montana is one of the states that sent a damn ballot to every registered voter, unsolicited!

Every state that made voting by mail easier during the pandemic should sue every state that didn't for contributing to the virus's spread.

Also, Abbott closed down many drop off locations for absentee ballots in large counties by limiting the locations to one per county. For reference, Harris county has 4.7 million residents and Dallas county has 2.6 million. Both leaned heavily to Biden.

Are you suggesting these Republicans are ... disingenuous?

Fun fact: the lawyer who filed the Trump motion is the guy who wrote the Kamala Harris birther article in Newsweek.
Metadata of the motion pdf suggests the motion may have been written by one of Paxton's lawyers.

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1336786099000238080?s=19

 

[dudalb]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Paxton, it will trigger a Second Civil War.
Which is another reason I think the suit is going nowhere.