Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[PhaelixWW]

The problem is there is no standing or precedent set for the Supreme Court to act in a way that would over turn the Election which is what is being asked for.

Again, even if there was standing (and an argument could be made for standing), it wouldn't matter, because even if they win this case, it won't change the outcome of the election.

They're primarily asking for SCOTUS to invalidate the appointment of 62 state Electors, at which point Biden would still win 244 - 232. They're also pleading with the court, with no real reason why this should happen, to allow the states' Legislatures to draft new Electors to cast their votes. But even if they could wrangle the Republican Legislatures of those four states to go along with this election-stealing scheme, three of those states (PA, WI, and MI) have Democrat governors who would veto any legislature on this, and the fourth, Brian Kemp of GA, has been blatant in his refusal to go along with Trump's shenanigans. PA, WI, and MI also don't appear to have veto-proof majorities in their legislatures in order to override their respective governors.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean the new case is the same as those being thrown out. This has not been, but the issues it brings up, have been... like 50 times...

I understand why you say that, because in essence it is, but not exactly there is, enough wiggle room for this to be CONSIDERED. Because there is no precedence for states suing other states for their constitutional right to decide their own elections, however there is no standing either. Meaning over all they can't or rather they can pick and choose which states they choose to invalid and which ones they do not without cause meaning PROVING how it damages the 17 states.

The argument people VOTED in a way some didn't like doesn't count.

Which is why I said in essence you are right, because without fucking evidence of fraud, there is nothing in the law that allows for the Justices to simply upend the election.

So picture in your fucking head going before supreme court, you want them to disenfranchise 81 million voters because?


LMFAO the only thing they have is the lawsuit that was already rejected by ALL 9 Justices.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, even if there was standing (and an argument could be made for standing), it wouldn't matter, because even if they win this case, it won't change the outcome of the election.

They're primarily asking for SCOTUS to invalidate the appointment of 62 state Electors, [I]at which point Biden would still win 244 - 232[/I]. They're also pleading with the court, with no real reason why this should happen, to allow the states' Legislatures to draft new Electors to cast their votes. But even if they could wrangle the Republican Legislatures of those four states to go along with this election-stealing scheme, three of those states (PA, WI, and MI) have Democrat governors who would veto any legislature on this, and the fourth, Brian Kemp of GA, has been blatant in his refusal to go along with Trump's shenanigans. PA, WI, and MI also don't appear to have veto-proof majorities in their legislatures in order to override their respective governors.

Yeah the part in bold is the only part I am foggy about I don't think either can take the office unless either has 270 right, that is why I said Pelosi would be President worst case scenario.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah the part in bold is the only part I am foggy about I don't think either can take the office unless either has 270 right, that is why I said Pelosi would be President worst case scenario.

I covered this part way back a while, but the law states that the someone needs more than half the available electors. The threshold is only 270 because normally, we have the full complement of 538 electors. But if 62 are nullified, then there are only 476 electors and thus a candidate only needs to have 239 electoral votes cast for them instead of 270.

If neither party surpasses half the total electoral votes (because of a third party candidate), then it would go to the House to decide.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I covered this part way back a while, but the law states that the someone needs more than half the available electors. The threshold is only 270 because normally, we have the full complement of 538 electors. But if 62 are nullified, then there are only 476 electors and thus a candidate only needs to have 239 electoral votes cast for them instead of 270.

If neither party surpasses half the total electoral votes (because of a third party candidate), then it would go to the House to decide.

But does nullifying electors invalidate the threshold. Not trying to be difficult, and I am perfectly willing and hoping you are correct, but I am really wondering if that how that would be applied. Again I don't know haha, but honestly I like your breakdown.


Keep in mind I wouldn't put it past some justices to pull some bullshit, but my guess is even in this case, it's probably not even going to be heard. The reason being is they rejected the PA Case 0 - 9, which honestly shocked the hell out of me.

That not a NO, that is a resounding NO!

[Breccia]

there isn't going to be a civil war, and this tactic of a lawsuit is going to fail.

Adding to everything else, there isn't much time here. Say what you want about even a biased SCOTUS, they will not remove a sitting President -- and may even lack the authority to do so. Don't know, don't care, they won't take that chance, not for Trump.

[Zaktar]

I also expect that the case will take a sudden turn to the "we found nothing and dropped it" right around late Jan. No, I'm not saying Biden will force the issue closed, although I assume the rabid fanbase will say so. I am expecting Trump's petty, pointless orders to stop holding value and everyone involved to just give up and do something productive.

Yeah it's a win-win for Trump, if it hits then he gets to gloat, if it misses he gets to cry "corruption!"

[Breccia]

Yeah it's a win-win for Trump, if it hits then he gets to gloat, if it misses he gets to cry "corruption!"

The second is easily countered. The prosecutor assigned to the case is either a Trump loyalist, or he isn't. If he is, since he and all the rest will be purged, he has to hand the case off to someone who isn't, so either way we move to the second option. A non-Trump-loyalist will likely review the case on the merits, find zero evidence, and could publicly say "there's no case here, it was politically motivated, and I was appointed by Barr" and end that argument...except amongst the cultists who are too far gone anyhow.

The DoJ lifers can't possibly be happy with what Trump did to the DoJ. Even Republicans in there will speak out shortly. Hell, they are now. Did you hear about the VA IG who said Trump's appointee tried to illegally silence a rape victim?

[PhaelixWW]

But does nullifying electors invalidate the threshold. Not trying to be difficult, and I am perfectly willing and hoping you are correct, but I am really wondering if that how that would be applied. Again I don't know haha, but honestly I like your breakdown.

The "threshold" doesn't really exist as a number. It comes from the language of the 12th Amendment, which says:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

So the Texas lawsuit is looking specifically to vacate the appointment of Biden's electors which happened when those states certified the results of the election. If their appointment is vacated, then there will only be 476 electors appointed instead of the normal 538, at which point the language of the 12th would clearly make that majority 239 of 476 instead of 270 of 538.

Furthermore, the state Legislatures can't just decide on a host of electors. The method for deciding electors is codified in each state's law. In order to change that and empanel a new group of electors, they would have to first amend their respective state laws to allow them to legally do so. And then the governors' veto powers come into play.

[Breccia]

This is an OP ED piece but the OP is more EDucated than me.

Texas is relying on an obscure source of the Supreme Court’s power — its ability to hear disputes between states immediately without having them go through lower courts, known as “original jurisdiction.” But the claim at the heart of the suit has nothing to do with interstate relations — like a border dispute or litigation over water rights. Nor does it have anything to do with fraud. Rather, Texas is arguing that coronavirus-related changes to election rules in each state violate the federal Constitution, never mind that most states (including Texas) made such changes this cycle.

But hypocrisy aside

NEVER!

the suit is also a perfect microcosm for so many of the other cases we’ve seen filed in the past month: It is lacking in actual evidence; it is deeply cynical; it evinces stunning disrespect for both the role of the courts in our constitutional system and of the states in our elections; and it is doomed to fail.

Precedents cited for three paragraphs.

All of this may help to explain why the Texas solicitor general — the state’s leading advocate before the Supreme Court — did not sign onto any of the filings in this new suit. And although Trump and his supporters have attempted to make mountains out of procedural molehills (such as the fact that the court “docketed” Texas’ suit — which is not the same as agreeing to hear it), the justices are highly unlikely to be sympathetic. For evidence, look no further than GOP Rep. Mike Kelly’s request to the court to throw out the Pennsylvania election results, which followed the same procedural path until it was summarily denied Tuesday afternoon, over no noted dissents.

If SCOTUS was looking for a reason to act on actions like this one, they already had an excuse. They didn't move on it like a bitch.

[cubby]

Hunter Biden says he's under federal investigation over his taxes



He did not say "I'm blocking every access to my taxes, I'm under audit, bigly"

What a pointless, petty move by a coward. In addition to it being purely vindictive, the election is over. If he was going to prosecute a political opponent, why not find the dirt before the election? This is just another dictatorial power grab. Trump sure does love grabbing his dict.

I also expect that the case will take a sudden turn to the "we found nothing and dropped it" right around late Jan. No, I'm not saying Biden will force the issue closed, although I assume the rabid fanbase will say so. I am expecting Trump's petty, pointless orders to stop holding value and everyone involved to just give up and do something productive.

This will actually work out well for the Biden team and the outside-chance-Senate-Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee. The investigation is being conducted by Trump's people, investigating a Biden. So when the DoJ finally comes under the helm of a sane person, and they begin investigations into Trump's (/sunglasses) affairs, Trump can't call "no fair". I mean, he will, but Biden's AG can throw this right back in his face: "The DoJ investigates all potentially illegal matters brought to our attention...."

[PhaelixWW]

This is an OP ED piece but the OP is more EDucated than me.

I read that article earlier today when I was researching, and I loved the byline: "By Steve Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law".

[Kaleredar]

This will actually work out well for the Biden team and the outside-chance-Senate-Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee. The investigation is being conducted by Trump's people, investigating a Biden. So when the DoJ finally comes under the helm of a sane person, and they begin investigations into Trump's (/sunglasses) affairs, Trump can't call "no fair". I mean, he will, but Biden's AG can throw this right back in his face: "The DoJ investigates all potentially illegal matters brought to our attention...."

Furthermore I hope any of this is, if indeed merely some petty inquisition launched by the Trump administration, is eclipsed by the hopeful legal proceedings coming against Trump after he leaves office.

[Zaktar]

The second is easily countered. The prosecutor assigned to the case is either a Trump loyalist, or he isn't. If he is, since he and all the rest will be purged, he has to hand the case off to someone who isn't, so either way we move to the second option. A non-Trump-loyalist will likely review the case on the merits, find zero evidence, and could publicly say "there's no case here, it was politically motivated, and I was appointed by Barr" and end that argument...except amongst the cultists who are too far gone anyhow.

The DoJ lifers can't possibly be happy with what Trump did to the DoJ. Even Republicans in there will speak out shortly. Hell, they are now. Did you hear about the VA IG who said Trump's appointee tried to illegally silence a rape victim?

It's just to generate more talking points to circulate through his followers' echo chambers, to fuel the grift. And of course petulant attacks on his perceived enemies.

[cubby]

Furthermore I hope any of this is, if indeed merely some petty inquisition launched by the Trump administration, is eclipsed by the hopeful legal proceedings coming against Trump after he leaves office.

We know the NY AG's office is chomping at the bit to seize assets and indict most of the Executive Team at the Trump Organization. The Manhattan District Attorney will have Trump's entire tax records days after Biden takes office. And the House Judiciary Committee will also have Trump's tax records - and if we will recall, the House can declassify material and/or hand it over to other "agencies". The only reason the House doesn't have them now is because SecTreas Mnuchin said "no" to the request. So Trump's tax records, and his broader financial records, in their entirety, will be public by no later than February.

Which will be awesome. Because that shit-show of a human being was into some seriously shady shit. The NYTimes released some of it, and hinted at more, but no one has the full picture, and Trump has fought tooth and nail to hide, so we will be expecting some really juicy stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

to fuel the grift

Excellent phrase - we need to use this more. It so accurately describes Trump's actions.

A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.

[Dontrike]

The election has now been certified in all 50 states.

In other news, 17 states are joining with Texas to ask the SCOTUS to overturn the election.

Every single person responsible for that ought to be charged with sedition.

One Republican had an interesting thing to say about this.

Kim Ward, the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania Senate, said the president had called her to declare there was fraud in the voting. But she said she had not been shown the letter to Congress, which was pulled together hastily, before its release.

Asked if she would have signed it, she indicated that the Republican base expected party leaders to back up Mr. Trump’s claims — or to face its wrath.

“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

[postman1782]

Hunter Biden says he's under federal investigation over his taxes



He did not say "I'm blocking every access to my taxes, I'm under audit, bigly"

What a pointless, petty move by a coward. In addition to it being purely vindictive, the election is over. If he was going to prosecute a political opponent, why not find the dirt before the election? This is just another dictatorial power grab. Trump sure does love grabbing his dict.

I also expect that the case will take a sudden turn to the "we found nothing and dropped it" right around late Jan. No, I'm not saying Biden will force the issue closed, although I assume the rabid fanbase will say so. I am expecting Trump's petty, pointless orders to stop holding value and everyone involved to just give up and do something productive.

Apparently this investigation has been happening since somewhere about 2018 before Barr was AG. So, if they had anything, they would have brought it out before the election if there was anything damning about it.

- - - Updated - - -

GOP Texas senator questions 'legal theory' behind Trump's lawsuit to challenge state's election results

"Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections," the senator continued. "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. So it's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."
----

I'd be surprised if scotus decides to hear this.

It probably has less standing than the one they just tossed a couple days ago.

[Breccia]

Pennsylvania GOP leader admits in public that challenging Trump in public would result in violence.

Speaking with The New York Times, state Sen. Kim Ward (R) made the remark when asked if she would have signed a letter to the state's congressional delegation urging them to "object, and vote to sustain such objection, to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" during the session of Congress certifying the Electoral College results next month.

“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” Ward told the Times, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

- - - Updated - - -

Trump, apparently furious at what he felt was betrayal, angrily calls basically everyone in Georgia demanding they not lead a GOP uprising against the Texas lawsuit.

"Wait, was that happening?"

The Georgia AG said the lawsuit was baseless, so in Trump's mind yes, he was spreading commie librul socialist rigged Fake News. In a "coincidence" that should surprise nobody, both Georgia Senators decided to make a joint statement how much they loved Trump and how important it was to all Americans that the lack of evidence be heard and doesn't Trump just have the biggest penis about 15 minutes after Trump hung up on them.

[cubby]

Pennsylvania GOP leader admits in public that challenging Trump in public would result in violence.

Speaking with The New York Times, state Sen. Kim Ward (R) made the remark when asked if she would have signed a letter to the state's congressional delegation urging them to "object, and vote to sustain such objection, to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" during the session of Congress certifying the Electoral College results next month.

“If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” Ward told the Times, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

I guess they are finally reaping what they've sown. It's amazing what happens when you throw gas on an ignorance-based hate machine.

I sincerely feel for this woman, and I'm glad she was able to put out some kind of call for help. I wonder who will answer.

[Sunseeker]

I guess they are finally reaping what they've sown. It's amazing what happens when you throw gas on an ignorance-based hate machine.

I sincerely feel for this woman, and I'm glad she was able to put out some kind of call for help. I wonder who will answer.

If they suffer no blowback for their actions, what is to keep them from doing this again, to keep this from becoming the norm?

[Kaleredar]

I guess they are finally reaping what they've sown. It's amazing what happens when you throw gas on an ignorance-based hate machine.

I sincerely feel for this woman, and I'm glad she was able to put out some kind of call for help. I wonder who will answer.

I still think the height of Republicans "reaping what they sow" would be Trumpkins effectively spoiling the GOP's senate hopes in Georgia and losing the GOP the house, presidency, AND senate.

Unfortunately, the GOP seems to have seen that train barreling down the track at them and put the lean on any and all GOP mainliners telling people to not vote/write in Trump in Georgia, or any (like Trump himself) who might have been attempting to say the pending Georgia elections could be as "fraudulent" as they also contend the presidential race was.

Frankly, I think the Democrats should really do a wink-wink-nudge-nudge sort of action around it to egg on those Trump spoiler voters. Not actually go so far as to lie, but simply... tell a truth that republican voters might interpret another way. Promise that "The Georgia runoff election will be just as sound as the presidential election was," or helpfully point out that "The Georgia GOP supports that Biden won the presidency." Basically, egg on GOP voter disillusionment with statements that are 100% the truth.