There's a threat, or something he doesn't want revealed and he's wrestling with his conscience?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
We’ll see. I think Raffensperger has integrity. If he’s found something which bothers him he’ll pursue it.
Trump has been making an issue about the mail-in envelopes which are separated from the ballots after signature check. He seems to think that auditing the envelopes on their own will show something. As I understand the position, each county certifies that their count is in order. Auditing envelopes isn’t part of any normal process.
So I think Raffensperger has been arguing that it would require a judicial decision (not a political request) to justify the time and delay in any extra audit not required under current State procedures. Plus States only have until 8 December to certify the election results.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
We’ll see. I think Raffensperger has integrity. If he’s found something which bothers him he’ll pursue it.
Trump has been making an issue about the mail-in envelopes which are separated from the ballots after signature check. He seems to think that auditing the envelopes on their own will show something. As I understand the position, each county certifies that their count is in order. Auditing envelopes isn’t part of any normal process.
So I think Raffensperger has been arguing that it would require a judicial decision (not a political request) to justify the time and delay in any extra audit not required under current State procedures. Plus States only have until 8 December to certify the election results.
I read somewhere that the signatures are checked on the envelopes, and the ballot is removed and counted, so there is no way of telling which ballot came from which envelope anyway...
I think that’s correct, Simon, but I believe they can distinguish between mail-in and in-person ballots, and so could conceivably argue that signature issues are so prevalent that all mail-in ballots should be thrown out.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Dave
That's it in a nutshell.
The argument in the joint filing from my link above (p12-13) rebuts the claim and points to the fact that the absentee ballot rejection rate in 2018 (before the signature reforms) was the same as in 2020. Which makes the request for envelope argument a fishing expedition and a delaying tactic.
Click on the joint filing Saturday link. I've had a look at the submission and it would be a surprise if the Powell/Wood lawsuit survives.
I followed those links for a bit. Who's _paying_ for all this? A bunch of crackpot politicians recruit a bullshit 'academic' (and not just any old one, but one with previous wild bullshit ('I invented email') debunked in the popular, not just academic, press) to make baseless speculations about something enormous, international and important. And then the law grinds on, and on, and on, picking those utterly bullshit claims apart one by one with all the thoroughness, procedure and expense that might be due a public enquiry into something which actually happened. It must be costing unbelievable sums in legal fees.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
40 plus lawsuits and counting. Special briefings for GOP lawmakers. Wall to wall accusations on conservative media. Additional security for folks subject to death threats. A super spreader rally. More to come.
(When my kids were in a pre-school nursery for mornings, I used to pick them up at lunchtime and race them back to the car in the car park. About half the time, they lost. The protestations were loud and lengthy, but shortened by my not getting into the car until they stopped, for the good of my ears. We used to call it losing practice. They were age 2-4).
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Click on the joint filing Saturday link. I've had a look at the submission and it would be a surprise if the Powell/Wood lawsuit survives.
I followed those links for a bit. Who's _paying_ for all this? A bunch of crackpot politicians recruit a bullshit 'academic' (and not just any old one, but one with previous wild bullshit ('I invented email') debunked in the popular, not just academic, press) to make baseless speculations about something enormous, international and important. And then the law grinds on, and on, and on, picking those utterly bullshit claims apart one by one with all the thoroughness, procedure and expense that might be due a public enquiry into something which actually happened. It must be costing unbelievable sums in legal fees.
When the cases are dismissed, do you think costs are awarded against the plaintiffs? Otherwise, Georgia (for example) will be spending a fortune defending these vexatious allegations.
When the cases are dismissed, do you think costs are awarded against the plaintiffs? Otherwise, Georgia (for example) will be spending a fortune defending these vexatious allegations.
The Dems should help Georgia pay the legal bills. Wouldn't that cause some howls?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
As of 9 December, all the electors of each state met at their respective state capitals and have cast their votes. Mr. Biden and Ms Harris have officially won.
As of 9 December, all the electors of each state met at their respective state capitals and have cast their votes. Mr. Biden and Ms Harris have officially won.
No, they haven’t. December 9 is two days from today. The electors meet a week from today, Monday, December 14.
December 8 is what's known as the "Safe Harbor" date. Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 if a state has definitively and finally selected a slate of presidential electors by six days before the electoral college meets, say by officially certifying its election results, Congress is legally bound to accept that slate of electors as final regardless of any subsequent legal challenges. This is also why state courts are hurrying to get any pending cases resolved.
I swear I am not drinking. I just looked at my computer date wrong. Anyway, as of yesterday, the 6th. All states have certified their votes. Biden and Harris won.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Raffensperger recertified Georgia, a necessity because of the result of the second recount. I think there is one Trump case outstanding in Georgia plus an appeal to the Supreme Court re Pennsylvania. Don’t think Hawaii and Tennessee have certified yet.
You must leave now take what you need you think will last
But whatever you wish to keep you better grab it fast
...
Look out Ma, the saints are coming through
And its all over now baby blue.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It ain’t over, Simon Toad. You’d think so, of course. But there are GOP House Representatives arguing that the EC Vote should be debated on the floor of the House when it meets to confirm the vote.
Today is what is called SAFE HARBOR Day which means if the states have met this deadline in determining their electoral votes, Congress can do nothing to overturn them. Yes, there have been some Republican backbenchers--if you will--who want to bring it up for debate on the floor of the House, but they do not control the House, and even their own senior leadership is not having it.
SCOTUS will likely through any appeals brought before them out because Trump has lost every lower court decision about the election. Now if he had won any of the lower courts, then yes, SCOTUS would have taken it up. They will likely refuse to hear the appeals and let the lower court decisions stand.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I hope you are right of course. Let’s wait and see.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It seems clear to me that Trump and a few fellow travellers are trying to screw up the safe harbour provisions by continuing to file law suits which will be outstanding at the end of today. If they all get thrown out after today by whatever court they finally end up in, then I guess the States can claim safe harbour. There might be a real flurry of legal activity throughout today.
I note that at least one Senator (Ted Cruz) seems prepared to take this to the wire in January and at least one House Representative (Jim Jordan) has already said so.
I think it takes one Senator and one Representative to force a debate in January re any votes claimed not to be in the safe harbour.
Let’s see what Alito does about the nonsense appeal re Pennsylvania. If he shoots it down, that will be the beginning of the end.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
Just seen the breaking news that the Supreme Court denied the appeal against Pennsylvania certification. No dissenting voices.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal concerning Pennsylvania.
So now Texas is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin from voting in the Electoral College. Shameless.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It’s an even more bullshit case than the Pa appeal. It’s all a tactic to try to push certification beyond the safe harbour date.
(BTW Jenna Ellis, Giuliani’s mad sidekick lawyer has also tested positive for COVID-19 and had turned up maskless at a WH Party. That’s created a lot of worry. Talk about comeuppance).
Two things. Firstly, the SCOTUS is clearly planning to rule quickly. Secondly, they don't think it will take State lawyers too long to produce effective rebuttals of this stupid appeal.
See this remarkable quote in the linked article.
University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted: “It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category. The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS. (Spoiler Alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.)”
In the unlikely event of the SCOTUS ruling in Texas' favour, I don't think I'd want to be driving through Pittsburgh or Detroit with Lone Star plates the day the decision comes down.
If the Supremes allow Texas' suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to proceed, then I hope Delaware files suit to prevent Florida, Ohio and Texas from voting in the electoral college (because, of course, of the massive, outrageous and completely unproven fraud that went on in those states).
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Appreciating what Miss Amanda said, and having no wish to create a hostage to fortune ....
If Texas is noted for having the biggest of everything, this lawsuit is the biggest pile of BS ever to make the Supreme Court docket.
Never say never, Hedgehog, but I really don’t think Delaware will need to retaliate.
I have been wondering, semi-seriously, if the continuing silence of the GOP in Congress is because they are scared of one possible development. That if they confront Trump over his destructive delusion he will set up a new ReTrumpican Party. Take his fan base away.
I think California should sue the rest of the whole goddamn country. As the most populous state, we are the most under-represented in the electoral college. We have the good sense to keep Republicans out of state-wide office; let's get rid of the party of racism at the federal level too.
My mistake. The suit that was thrown out was concerning Pennsylvania by the Trump people.
In case anyone is trying to keep score, I believe the Trump campaign has filed 40 lawsuits concerning the validity of the count, 35, no 36, have been summarily thrown out by various courts. The Texas lawsuit is not counted in the 40 lawsuits.
In case anyone is trying to keep score, I believe the Trump campaign has filed 40 lawsuits concerning the validity of the count, 35, no 36, have been summarily thrown out by various courts. The Texas lawsuit is not counted in the 40 lawsuits.
For those who are wondering, the one success the Trump team has had in court had the effect of moving Republican election observers forward by four feet. A previous court order in Pennsylvania had stated that recount observers had to stay ten feet back from ballot counters. After the success of the suit they were only required to stay six feet away.
Appreciating what Miss Amanda said, and having no wish to create a hostage to fortune ....
If Texas is noted for having the biggest of everything, this lawsuit is the biggest pile of BS ever to make the Supreme Court docket.
Never say never, Hedgehog, but I really don’t think Delaware will need to retaliate.
I have been wondering, semi-seriously, if the continuing silence of the GOP in Congress is because they are scared of one possible development. That if they confront Trump over his destructive delusion he will set up a new ReTrumpican Party. Take his fan base away.
That's the basic analysis I read somewhere: they're not actually expecting to win these lawsuits, they're just hoping to impress the MAGA crowd with their continued devotion to the cause.
And it might not be a concern about Trump going third-party, so much as voters at other levels punishing or rewarding GOP officials, eg. a Republican state senator thinking he might get voted out if he doesn't jump on the lawsuit bandwagon.
Though apparently this Paxton guy in Texas has a few indictments on his record, and the theory goes that he's just doing all this to swing a pardon. If true, that is simultaneously shameful and hilarious.
If they confront Trump over his destructive delusion he will set up a new ReTrumpican Party. Take his fan base away.
They'd be well rid of them.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
There might not be too many left in the GOP if the cult goes.
Re Texas, the political stunts keep coming. Indiana has joined the suit, Trump says he will intervene.
Jenna Ellis claimed that yesterday’s SC decision denied injunction, not the granting of cert and the Pa case is still on the SCOTUS docket. It isn’t. Some expert in constitutional law she is.
It’s 9 December, too late for any new request to grant cert to be accepted. Pennsylvania certification is in safe harbour unless the stupid Texas suit, filed before the deadline, is upheld.
But they don’t care. It’s showtime for the MAGA cult.
Jenna Ellis claimed that yesterday’s SC decision denied injunction, not the granting of cert and the Pa case is still on the SCOTUS docket. It isn’t. Some expert in constitutional law she is.
In its one-sentence order on the application, the court said: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.” So the only thing the Court has denied is in an emergency injunction.
The docket has not been closed. The Court has not yet declined to hear the case, because it hasn’t yet been formally asked to take the case. Of course, given this ruling, a petition for writ of cert might never get filed.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
The Law and Crime website disagrees, Nick Tamen. She used the term pending to describe the status of the case. Nothing is pending unless a fresh petition to grant cert is made. The case is closed unless cert is granted. And I think they missed the boat on that.
Fair enough on the claim that the case is “still pending.”
But the specific statement to which I was responding was:
Jenna Ellis claimed that yesterday’s SC decision denied injunction, not the granting of cert and the Pa case is still on the SCOTUS docket.
She was correct that the order only denied the injunction, not cert.
As for being “still on the SCOTUS docket,” a case docket is not automatically closed by the Court’s order. In all cases I’m aware of, it’s closed by the clerk, and for various reasons, that doesn’t necessarily happen immediately.
Comments
Trump has been making an issue about the mail-in envelopes which are separated from the ballots after signature check. He seems to think that auditing the envelopes on their own will show something. As I understand the position, each county certifies that their count is in order. Auditing envelopes isn’t part of any normal process.
So I think Raffensperger has been arguing that it would require a judicial decision (not a political request) to justify the time and delay in any extra audit not required under current State procedures. Plus States only have until 8 December to certify the election results.
Click on the joint filing Saturday link. I've had a look at the submission and it would be a surprise if the Powell/Wood lawsuit survives.
I read somewhere that the signatures are checked on the envelopes, and the ballot is removed and counted, so there is no way of telling which ballot came from which envelope anyway...
That's it in a nutshell.
The argument in the joint filing from my link above (p12-13) rebuts the claim and points to the fact that the absentee ballot rejection rate in 2018 (before the signature reforms) was the same as in 2020. Which makes the request for envelope argument a fishing expedition and a delaying tactic.
I followed those links for a bit. Who's _paying_ for all this? A bunch of crackpot politicians recruit a bullshit 'academic' (and not just any old one, but one with previous wild bullshit ('I invented email') debunked in the popular, not just academic, press) to make baseless speculations about something enormous, international and important. And then the law grinds on, and on, and on, picking those utterly bullshit claims apart one by one with all the thoroughness, procedure and expense that might be due a public enquiry into something which actually happened. It must be costing unbelievable sums in legal fees.
And all because of a sore loser.
The Dems should help Georgia pay the legal bills. Wouldn't that cause some howls?
sidney-powell-georgia-lawsuit-gets-thrown-out-in-court
But whatever you wish to keep you better grab it fast
...
Look out Ma, the saints are coming through
And its all over now baby blue.
Plus there may be a late SCOTUS move tomorrow.
SCOTUS will likely through any appeals brought before them out because Trump has lost every lower court decision about the election. Now if he had won any of the lower courts, then yes, SCOTUS would have taken it up. They will likely refuse to hear the appeals and let the lower court decisions stand.
I note that at least one Senator (Ted Cruz) seems prepared to take this to the wire in January and at least one House Representative (Jim Jordan) has already said so.
I think it takes one Senator and one Representative to force a debate in January re any votes claimed not to be in the safe harbour.
Let’s see what Alito does about the nonsense appeal re Pennsylvania. If he shoots it down, that will be the beginning of the end.
So now Texas is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin from voting in the Electoral College. Shameless.
(BTW Jenna Ellis, Giuliani’s mad sidekick lawyer has also tested positive for COVID-19 and had turned up maskless at a WH Party. That’s created a lot of worry. Talk about comeuppance).
"Giuliani COVID-19 diagnosis closes Arizona Legislature" (Arizona Capitol Times).
Arizona GOP Asks If Supporters Willing To Die For Trump's Election Fraud Lies. The Republican group later tweeted a scene from "Rambo" in which the titular character calls on his comrades to "die for something" (HuffPost).
I was hoping it was an attempt to shake some sense into T's followers. But seems not.
Two things. Firstly, the SCOTUS is clearly planning to rule quickly. Secondly, they don't think it will take State lawyers too long to produce effective rebuttals of this stupid appeal.
See this remarkable quote in the linked article.
If Texas is noted for having the biggest of everything, this lawsuit is the biggest pile of BS ever to make the Supreme Court docket.
Never say never, Hedgehog, but I really don’t think Delaware will need to retaliate.
I have been wondering, semi-seriously, if the continuing silence of the GOP in Congress is because they are scared of one possible development. That if they confront Trump over his destructive delusion he will set up a new ReTrumpican Party. Take his fan base away.
In case anyone is trying to keep score, I believe the Trump campaign has filed 40 lawsuits concerning the validity of the count, 35, no 36, have been summarily thrown out by various courts. The Texas lawsuit is not counted in the 40 lawsuits.
For those who are wondering, the one success the Trump team has had in court had the effect of moving Republican election observers forward by four feet. A previous court order in Pennsylvania had stated that recount observers had to stay ten feet back from ballot counters. After the success of the suit they were only required to stay six feet away.
That's the basic analysis I read somewhere: they're not actually expecting to win these lawsuits, they're just hoping to impress the MAGA crowd with their continued devotion to the cause.
And it might not be a concern about Trump going third-party, so much as voters at other levels punishing or rewarding GOP officials, eg. a Republican state senator thinking he might get voted out if he doesn't jump on the lawsuit bandwagon.
Though apparently this Paxton guy in Texas has a few indictments on his record, and the theory goes that he's just doing all this to swing a pardon. If true, that is simultaneously shameful and hilarious.
They'd be well rid of them.
Re Texas, the political stunts keep coming. Indiana has joined the suit, Trump says he will intervene.
Jenna Ellis claimed that yesterday’s SC decision denied injunction, not the granting of cert and the Pa case is still on the SCOTUS docket. It isn’t. Some expert in constitutional law she is.
It’s 9 December, too late for any new request to grant cert to be accepted. Pennsylvania certification is in safe harbour unless the stupid Texas suit, filed before the deadline, is upheld.
But they don’t care. It’s showtime for the MAGA cult.
In its one-sentence order on the application, the court said: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.” So the only thing the Court has denied is in an emergency injunction.
The docket has not been closed. The Court has not yet declined to hear the case, because it hasn’t yet been formally asked to take the case. Of course, given this ruling, a petition for writ of cert might never get filed.
Here’s the link.
https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/constitutional-law-attorney-either-doesnt-understand-there-isnt-a-rep-kelly-petition-pending-or-shes-lying/
But the specific statement to which I was responding was: She was correct that the order only denied the injunction, not cert.
As for being “still on the SCOTUS docket,” a case docket is not automatically closed by the Court’s order. In all cases I’m aware of, it’s closed by the clerk, and for various reasons, that doesn’t necessarily happen immediately.