monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Have you considered attacking Harris on her public record as a senator and as a district attorney? There is plenty to attack her on; one of my more liberal friends does not like her due to her lack of reforms in the San Francisco criminal justice system.

It is pretty lazy to label her as promiscuous based on nothing.

The Supreme Court was *never* going to hand the election to Donald Trump

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 7:17 PM ET, Tue December 8, 2020

(CNN)In a single sentence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday unraveled Donald Trump's grand plan to overthrow the 2020 election.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," wrote the Court in rejecting an attempt by Pennsylvania Republicans -- with the President's blessing -- to block the certification of the 2020 election results in the commonwealth.

President-elect Joe Biden beat President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania by just more than 81,000 votes.

Thus ends a month-long effort by Trump and his legal team to find some complaint -- any election complaint -- that the Supreme Court would consider and, in so doing, pry open the door to him somehow winning an election he quite clearly lost.

"Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated," Trump said in a statement on November 7, the same day CNN and most other major news outlets projected Biden would be the 46th president of the United States.

From that moment onward, the Trump team filed a slew of lawsuits in states as far flung as Arizona, Georgia and, yes, Pennsylvania, designed to lean on judges that he had appointed over his first term to deliver a delay or a redo of the election.

The ultimate goal for Trump was to get one of those cases of alleged election fraud in front of the Supreme Court, a court where he had appointed three conservative justices -- most recently Justice Amy Coney Barrett -- and where the President clearly believed he could expect a favorable ruling.

That plan, it quickly became clear, was deeply flawed.

In late November, a federal appeals court flatly rejected the campaign's efforts to challenge the results in the state.

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy," wrote Stephanos Bibas, a Trump-appointed federal judge, in the appellate court decision.

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

The Trump strategy utterly failed before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, failing to even convince a single justice to write a word of explanation (or dissent) for why the case would not be considered.

How did Trump (and his legal team) miscalculate so badly? Simple.

Trump believed that the Supreme Court operates the same way he does: Purely transactionally.

See, in Trump's mind, he had GIVEN Supreme Court seats to Barrett as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They wouldn't have been on the court without him (true!) and, therefore, they owed him.

That is, of course, not how the Supreme Court works. The justices are appointed by presidents who identify with one or the other of the major parties in the country, yes. And Republican presidents tend to pick justices who will offer conservative opinions from the bench while Democratic president choose judges with more liberal track records.

But, the Supreme Court isn't an elected body. The nine members are purposely meant to be kept at a remove from the day-to-day political considerations that elected officials -- from the President on down -- have to calculate.

And, we know that the justices take that above-politics mission very, very seriously.

"When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms," Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2019.

"That's not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise."

Unless forced to consider political matters -- as the court was in Bush v. Gore in 2000 -- the justices want to stay as far away from politics as possible.

Then there is the fact that the case Pennsylvania Republicans had appealed to the Supreme Court had already been dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The only thing the Supreme Court may dislike more than getting in the middle of a political squabble is injecting itself unnecessarily into a matter that has already been considered and dismissed by a lower court.

Add it up and you can see that Trump's strategy of simply getting a case to the Supreme Court was always doomed to fail. Three of the nine justices may have been appointed by Trump and six of the nine may align with the conservative bloc on the high court.

But they were never going to get in the middle of overturning the clearly stated will of the people because of those facts. That Trump couldn't understand that speaks to how incapable he is of understanding anyone who doesn't operate from a purely transactional place.

Kill them off like Ollie and C J have been.preaching.

Texas asks SCOTUS to toss Biden electors, Ted Cruz offers to present case

Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general, has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court.

“I’ve publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA,” Cruz tweeted Monday night.

“Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari. I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument.”

Cruz really wants in on this.

Quote:

Cruz really wants in on this.

Anyone with more than one firing synapse knows that Biden/Harris are a Trojan horse and cart scenario.

They live in a post truth world.

Quote:

They live in a post truth world.

Demonstrating just how easily led by the mass media fear and loathing campaign. Baaaaaa baaaaaa.

Everyone is already wearing a mask. They just don’t work.

The idea that not enough Americans are wearing masks is detached from reality. And we have the data to prove it.

The Delphi group at Carnegie Mellon University has developed a very informative, consistently updated mask compliance tracker. It shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans across the nation are wearing masks. And in virtually every major population center in the United States, especially in areas where COVID-19 cases are rising, mask compliance levels are off the charts high, with most major metro areas registering well over 90 percent compliance.

snood wrote:

So if SCOTUS rejects this Texas appeal, it’s over for Trump’s legal challenges. You good with that?

I think the right just loves to lose, makes their day, it do!

As far as the left, how many times has Biden won this Presidency now? Winning is so, so good!

This Isn't a Lawsuit. It's Rube Bait.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—still under indictment—has aimed this flaming zeppelin straight at the Supreme Court.

Paxton faces three counts: two for securities fraud, and another for acting as an investment advisor or representative without registering. The indictments were unsealed Monday. They allege that Paxton offered to sell two people more than $100,000 worth of stock in a McKinney technology company, but didn’t disclose that the company was compensating him. Paxton also didn’t make clear that he hadn’t personally invested in the company, the indictments allege. He received 100,000 shares, but that was in the form of compensation, according to the indictment.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34905362/texas-sue-other-states-2020-election/

AP Sources: FBI is investigating Texas attorney general

DALLAS – The FBI is investigating allegations that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton broke the law in using his office to benefit a wealthy donor, according to two people with knowledge of the probe.

Federal agents are looking into claims by former members of Paxton's staff that the high-profile Republican committed bribery, abuse of office and other crimes to help Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, the people told The Associated Press. They insisted on anonymity to discuss the investigation because it is ongoing.

Confirmation of the criminal probe marks mounting legal peril for Paxton, who’s denied wrongdoing and refused calls for his resignation since his top deputies reported him to federal authorities at the end of September.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/texas/2020/11/18/ap-sources-fbi-is-investigating-texas-attorney-general/

He is already a defendant in a lawsuit.

Rep. Jim Jordan Says There Is ‘No Way’ Trump Should Concede the Election

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is speaking out, saying that Trump should not concede yet.

Jordan was asked by CNN if Trump should concede next Monday, to which he said, “No. No way, no way, no way.”

The Republican lawmaker added, “We should still try to figure out exactly what took place here. And as I said that includes, I think, debates on the House floor — potentially on January 6.”

On Jan. 6, 2021, there will be a joint session held by the Senate and House of Representatives, where a lawmaker may challenge the electoral vote returns.

As CNN pointed out, supporters of the losing presidential candidate have previously taken their case to the House floor, including following the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential races.

There have been 27 Congressional Republicans who have said Biden won the election, according to The Washington Post’s recent reporting. Roughly 88% of Republicans who serve in Congress have not said who won the election.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is speaking out, saying that Trump should not concede yet.

Jordan was asked by CNN if Trump should concede next Monday, to which he said, “No. No way, no way, no way.”

The Republican lawmaker added, “We should still try to figure out exactly what took place here. And as I said that includes, I think, debates on the House floor — potentially on January 6.”

On Jan. 6, 2021, there will be a joint session held by the Senate and House of Representatives, where a lawmaker may challenge the electoral vote returns.

As CNN pointed out, supporters of the losing presidential candidate have previously taken their case to the House floor, including following the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential races.

There have been 27 Congressional Republicans who have said Biden won the election, according to The Washington Post’s recent reporting. Roughly 88% of Republicans who serve in Congress have not said who won the election.

What does all this amount to?

The “no evidence of voter fraud” mantra is a lie according to epistemology and is meant only to silence dissent. Properly phrased, this claim boils down to the claim that the proposition expressed as “there was no voter fraud on Election Day” was not evident at the time (or since) for anybody, which is patently absurd. This proposition was evident at the time for the people who falsified ballots, flipped votes, and so on.

Of course, they won’t admit that. They got paid to do it and to shut up or lie if asked about it. It’s a bit late for a grand jury to ferret the truth.

“This is all very well, Arnold,” you might reply, “but you must now tell us what epistemology has to say about the analysis of ‘being evident for a person at a time.’”

I wish I could. I can’t, not here, because things got very complicated in epistemology back in the 1960s owing to something called “the Gettier Problem.” The best I can do is recommend a slim volume titled Theory of Knowledge by Roderick M. Chisholm, which contains an analysis of “being evident for a person at a time,” along with analyses of other key concepts in epistemology. Chisholm writes clearly and succinctly.

I will make two final points. First, the “no evidence of voter fraud” mantra is unconstitutional gibberish as well as a lie. We can’t discuss the evidence problem that way, whether in law or in epistemology. Doing so forces us into accepting the “winner by popular vote” nonsense the left has been pushing, hoping to do away with the Electorate College. The only way to look at the matter that is consistent with the Constitution is one state at a time. That massive fraud occurred in Georgia is evident for me having read Sidney Powell’s brief.

Second, when the Supreme Court examines the issue of voter fraud, let’s hope they do so one disputed state at a time and rule only after due diligence for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. taken singly.

So, ladies and gentlemen, pretend you’re epistemologists. Ignore the phony, politicized certifications coming in, and realize that it is evident for you that massive voter fraud occurred in those states, Conclude that the right thing to do is to send Joe Biden back to his basement, Kamala Harris back to the Senate, and keep President Trump right where he is. The future of this nation depends on it.

Statistician in Texas Lawsuit Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Says Probability of Biden Winning Election Was One in a Quadrillion!

USC and former Harvard statistician determines that the possibility of Joe Biden winning the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were basically statistically impossible.

We reported on a case this morning coming out of Texas challenging 2020 Presidential election actions of four states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania:

Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 1,000,000,000,000,0004).

This analysis by a world respected statistician is shocking and it agrees with what we previously reported. The results of the election in these states and others were basically impossible:

Everyone knows Joe Biden did not receive more votes than Barack Obama, let alone the most popular President in US history, President Donald Trump.

Congressman asks AG Barr to appoint special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden

"This investigation is critical to defending the integrity of our republic and ensuring a potential Biden Administration will not be the subject of undue foreign interference," Buck wrote. "Americans have the right to know whether Mr. Biden's reported ties to foreign governments will make him the subject of blackmail attempts or other nefarious efforts to undermine U.S. national security or otherwise improperly influence American foreign policy."

An IT investigator enters the Antrim County Building on Sunday to inspect the Dominion voting machines. (Record-Eagle)

After 8 hours, the collection was complete. With 16 CF cards (similar to SIM cards), 16 thumb drives, and forensic images of the Dominion voting machines in hand, the IT team was escorted to the local Antrim County Airport by two Antrim County Sheriff vehicles, where they boarded their jet plane with evidence in hand.

Two of the patriots followed attorney Matthew DePerno for at least half of his long drive home. Like many Americans, these patriots simply wanted to ensure the safety of a man who has risked so much to protect our right to free and fair elections.

Mr. DePerno expects to have the results of the study sometime tomorrow. He explained the forensic images of the thumb drives and the master computer would tell if machines were connected to the internet—and if they were, who were they communicating with? DePerno said the examination would be able to determine the algorithms used by the computer and will provide the number of ballots read through the machine compared to the actual number of paper ballots.

Everyone knows Joe Biden did not receive more votes than Barack Obama, let alone the most popular President in US history, President Donald Trump.