US Election

As an Admin person I wondered what you thought about someone joining a football site; only ever posting something that purports to be about politics - though in reality it’s actually just nonsense- and then never, on any occasion that I can see putting one single post on about Barnsley FC, Football or sport in general

Now, I quite like the politics that gets posted on the site, alongside the more familiar Reds stuff. But not one single post about the subject for which the site was established. I not saying it’s wrong just very weird.

Serious question. Do you have a view as an ‘Admin’.

 

The Texas affidavit has now been published.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...7887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot 2020-12-07 FINAL.pdf

Allow me to summarise the “smoking gun”

Biden got more votes than Clinton, therefore it was rigged

More Biden votes were counted in the later stages, therefore they can’t have been randomly counted, therefore rigged (they were not counted in random order...)

More mail in ballots should have been rejected (rejection rate was basically identical to 2016)

Biden won all battleground states. That’s impossible (Trump did so in 2016)

 

Craziest post in this thread so far.

 

My first instinct upon reading that was that surely the state of Texas has no standing to interfere legally in the processes of another state's election arrangements. Sure enough, on reading The Guardian's report, I find:

Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.

But if Texas get past the hurdle of being granted a hearing in the Supreme Court, we come back to the old issue of actually having evidence. To overturn the elections of four other states I am just suspecting a little bit that there might need to be more evidence than presented in Texas's petition. That is even assuming that the witnesses they present actually stand up to what would inevitably be severe cross-examination. Should Texas get past that hurdle, there is the problem that the relief sought is grossly disproportionate to the issues alleged. To overturn the legitimate votes of several million electors on the basis of (comparatively) a handful of pro-Republican 'witnesses' is simply out of all proportion, and would surely be rejected by the Supreme Court in the unlikely event that it agrees to hear Texas's petition. Even Trump's partisan appointees to the Supreme Court are legal scholars of some repute, albeit of very conservative leanings. They may favour the conservative view in some of the big constitutional issues coming before them but in my view they would be very unlikely to want to play along with Trump's constitutionally dangerous charade on the basis of flimsy evidence.

It's my hope that after 20 January the Republican Party will quietly begin to distance itself from the embarrassment that Trump has brought upon it. Democracy requires the consent of the loser, not the raising of spurious objections and the incitement of a volatile support base. There are enough problems around in the world without this idiot endangering democracy and stirring up class and racial tensions.

 

You’ve always got to take it too far

 

Louisiana and Arkansas have added their support to Texas’ motion and Florida is being tipped to follow suit later today. I’m no legal expert but the ‘Safe Harbour’ isn’t looking as ‘safe’ to me now. If more states join the law suit today SCOTUS will have to give the request to overturn the results serious consideration.

 

To add their support they would have to apply to the Supreme Court to be joined as a party to the action. I think (although I'm no expert in US constitutional law) the Court would be likely to want to consider first whether Texas had any standing to bring the action in the first place, which I doubt. It will be interesting to see how that one plays out. But in any event, the idiot is clutching at straws here, and I think an increasing number of influential people - including some on his own side - are coming to that view.

 

SCOTUS have given Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania until 3pm tomorrow to respond to the suit filed by Texas so it would appear likely that it will be hearing the case.

 

What's your source on that one, Cas? I wonder if that signifies that they have been allowed to join the action or whether the deadline is to provide argument as to whether they should be so joined? Interesting, either way!

 

There again Cas, it could be that the short deadline is so that they can chuck out the suit as quickly as the one from Pennsylvania!

Supreme court rejects Republican bid to overturn Biden's Pennsylvania victory | Law | The Guardian

 

Someone on Twitter posted a screenshot of the SCOTUS daily schedule. I haven’t checked the SCOTUS website to verify it but I don’t have any reason to believe it is ingenuine.

 

I think you might have only got half of the story there. According to one of the lawyers acting on the Pennsylvania case, the injunction request was denied but SCOTUS will still be taking the case.

 

That’s just administrative formalities. Means absolutely nothing.

And the safe harbour deadline is a federal statute. It’s over. Trump has lost and there’s no legal way for that now to be overturned. Congress is required to accept those results now, for every state except Wisconsin, who have yet to certify. The only exception being faithless electors, however following 2016 many states passed laws to hopefully make faithless electors not a thing this year.

Next Monday the electoral college will meat and officially vote for Biden, at which point Trump has claimed he will concede. But I think he’ll see a bit more money to be squeezed out of his cult members so he’ll try and drag it on a bit longer.

 

You can keep telling yourself that but it doesn’t necessarily make it true.

Ask yourself this.... if it’s a done deal why is SCOTUS bothering to hear a case brought by Texas (and other states) requesting that the results be overturned? What you are talking about are rules that apply under ‘normal’ circumstances but I think it is fair to say that states raising law suits against other states alleging serious election fraud constitutes an ‘abnormal’ situation and I would be surprised if the usual rule book doesn’t go out of the window.

Either way, I suspect we will find out over the course of the next few days and it will all hinge on the validity of the evidence illustrated to the court. I suspect the Dominion servers seized in Frankfurt could contain some pretty damning evidence... but I’m only speculating. The next few days will certainly be interesting.

 

SCOTUS have not agreed to anything on the Texas case. All that’s happened so far is administrative formalities. Most legal experts agree that the Texas case is pure theatre.

This is the Texas attorney general who has filed the claim. Seems very legitimate.

 

What about leprechauns? Are you anti-Irish?

 

Well, if that is what most legal experts are saying I suppose it must be true. I'm starting to enjoy a bit of political theatre anyway so I will keep an open mind and see how it plays out.

 

PELOSI admits playing politics while unemployed Americans starve , she is one evil woman