Pages

Monday, December 7, 2020

Briefly Noted: SWC Speculates Anew Re Alito's Date Change

Commenter Michael just pointed out to me a new article by Shipwreckedcrew. SWC attempts, again, to divine what might be behind Justice Alito's decision to move the date for Pennsylvania's reply forward by a day--thus ensuring (if this is, indeed, the reason) that the reply falls within the "Safe Harbor" deadline. In what follows I'll be quoting a Congressional Research Service report:


The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline


Since SWC believes that Alito's decision is to considered within the context of the Safe Harbor provision, I'll first paste in the report's version of that provision. As you read, bear in mind that the date Alito originally set was December 9th. He then changed that date to December 8th at 9:00 am--thus providing the rest of the day for deliberation:


December 8, 2020: The “Safe Harbor” Deadline

The U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. §5) provides that if election results are contested in any state, and if the state, prior to election day, has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, and the results have been determined six days before the electors’ meetings, then these results are considered to be conclusive, and will apply in the counting of the electoral votes. This date, known as the “Safe Harbor” deadline, falls on December 8 in 2020. The governor of any state where there was a contest, and in which the contest was decided according to established state procedures, is required (3 U.S.C. §6) to send a certificate describing the form and manner by which the determination was made to the Archivist as soon as practicable


Here is SWC's speculation--and he's explicit that his proposal IS speculative:


... if the Court was to grant injunctive relief against Pennsylvania’s naming of electors, but only did so after December 8, the question occurs ... how the Court would respond if Pennsylvania went forward with reporting 20 votes in the Electoral College for Joe Biden on December 14, and forwarded that information to Congress for its proceedings on January 6, 2021?

The mechanics of the Electoral College are not widely known.  The electors from each state do not leave their state and go to any particular location in or around Washington DC to meet.  They gather at a location in their state — the State Capitol normally — and complete ... the necessary documentation to be delivered to Congress by the appropriate state official, normally the Governor [in PA, a Dem].

 

Note: SWC doesn't discuss how electors are selected in PA. PA has a winner takes all system in which the winner of the election gets all the electors. When the election is certified the party slate of the winner is certified, and then the governor forwards that slate to Congress in Joint Session. So it's important to determine ... the winner of the election! Unspoken by SWC is the notion that it's important for Alito to keep PA's controversy going, to avoid the Safe Harbor provision leading to certification. What Alito may fear above all is action by the PA Dem governor. Without that action (certification) the problem that SWC raises in the next paragraph should not arise:


On January 6, 2021, Congress meets in a Joint Session of the House and Senate and reads the certifications of the votes of the Electors received from each state.  There is a process for “objections” to be made and resolved.  But, if the Electors were named prior to December 8, it is possible that Congress would not entertain any “objections” because of the language of the “safe harbor” statute.

The question that may have arisen among the Justices is whether — if they acted after December 8 — they would be creating a scenario where the Governor of Pennsylvania will have timely complied with the “Safe Harbor” provision in naming the State’s Electors, and Congress, led by the Democrat-controlled House, would simply ignore the Supreme Court’s injunction issued against Pennsylvania if it came on December 9 or later, on the basis that federal law — 3 USC Sec. 5 —  had been complied with and dictated the outcome.  The Congress would have to choose between following the statute or respecting the Court’s decision, and with partisanship where it stands, the answer to that question is in serious doubt.

 

The contrary argument here is that the Safe Harbor provision doesn't bind the SCOTUS, doesn't prevent the SCOTUS from deciding a challenge to the election. That argument is almost certainly legally correct--BUT this is politics. Is it possible that the Dem House would poke the SCOTUS in the eye--throwing the entire election into chaos? Of course it is. And that would be what Alito wants to avoid. The way to avoid this problem is to act before the Dem governor of PA can name the Dem slate of electors--to maintain the election in a state of controversy so that Safe Harbor doesn't apply. If the SCOTUS weighs in tomorrow, then the results of the controversy cannot be plausibly considered to have been "conclusively" resolved.

 

This puts the Court in the position that it has historically sought to avoid — “ordering” actions of co-equal branches of government that it has little power to enforce, and thereby running the risk that its Order will be ignored and the institutional authority of the Court undermined as a result.


This is the problem I raised earlier.

 

It [avoiding issuing "orders" to co-equal branches of government that can't be enforced by the SCOTUS] is the BASIC principle that underlies the entire concept of “judicial review” established in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall announced the principle that the decisions of the Executive were subject to review by the Court for their constitutionality, but in that particular case that Court determined that ordering the Executive to take corrective action was not needed, thereby avoiding the potential that Pres. Madison would simply ignore the Court.


That is the basic principle that John Marshall forgot about when he challenged President Jackson over Indian Removal. None of the current justices will have forgotten that lesson.

Normally the matter of objections to electors by the Joint Session is handled on a case by case basis--one elector at a time--but in this case the dispute would be over an entire slate of electors. If the Dem governor of PA is left in a position to choose the Dem slate before the SCOTUS acts--what could the SCOTUS do? Speak harshly to him? 

Here's the operative principle as I see it: The SCOTUS must not only be arguably in the right. It must act before the operative Safe Harbor date in order to avoid the argument entirely if it is to be seen by the country to be in the right. By the same token, by doing this, Alito and the SCOTUS will take the high ground of the law and place the Dem House in the position of having to justify itself or be seen to be acting lawlessly. But to place themselves in that favorable position, from which they can plausibly defend the country against a lawless and corrupt election, they must act before the Dem governor acts.

So, overall, SWC makes a good case. Although we may never know the truth of it.

ADDENDUM: I think what we're seeing is that there is at least a majority of five justices on the SCOTUS who are very concerned about the implications of allowing a fraudulent election to be certified. That is especially so given that the party that would "win" this fraudulent election is one that has been outspoken in its willingness to utterly transform our constitutional order--by whatever means work for them. Recall, that Pelosi has more than once asserted a primacy of the House over the rest of government. So, with all that in mind, the five justices may be resolved to act to the extent that they're able to do so. That's an important proviso because the deadlines are very short. But they will hopefully speak.


56 comments:

  1. Soooo, what happens if the Gov. certifies the electors at 0800?
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought of that, and I think the answer is that December 8 must PASS with all controversies conclusively resolved before certification can take place.

      Delete
    2. I read an article by Pam Bondi that said many of these s0-called deadlines are not supported by the Constitution and that the only date that counts is January 20, 2021.

      Her arguments seemed reasonable to me. She claimed to have read the law and the cases, and her that her position on the subject is irrefutable. To an honest judge, that may be true, but they ae in short supply.

      Delete
    3. The problem is that the arguments may be irrefutable in court, but if Congress refuses to accept them where are we? This is what I mean when I say this is a political crisis. John Marshall thought he had irrefutable arguments against Jackson's Indian Removal policy, but Jackson told Marshall to pound sand, and that was that.

      Delete
    4. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, Congress cannot remove Trump. Trump just has to state the the Supreme Court agreed that he won the election.

      Jackson was the President, so there was no way to force him to follow an edict of the Supreme Court short of impeachment.

      Delete
    5. That is why I believe, as soon as POTUS secures the SCOTUS' decision, without waiting anymore, should act.

      It's risky to expect all those RINOs to act honorably. And even if they do so, according to the TIP report, Demsheviks will play their violence card no matter what.

      Delete
    6. Please excuse my ignorance here. But Penn is just one state. Doesn't Trump need at least two of those in contest?

      Delete
    7. Go read the news and remedy your ignorance.

      Delete
    8. Why are you so prone to shit on people who ask a questions-which I just did.I have been reading your blog for about a year-obviously I find your blog has become an absolute read. I don’t, however, read just your writings. You’ve an impressive following-treat them as such

      Delete
  2. And what about the contested elections in other states? Georgia certified today, despite Powell’s appeal to SCOTUS. Not sure what is going on in Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It all depends on state laws.

      Delete
    2. Texas State just sued all of them, directly approaching SCOTUS.

      Delete
  3. Ignoring the court or not, I'm not sure PA's electors make that much of a difference in any of this.

    The 11th circuit seems impervious to hearing any of the other cases and keeps punting. (Wood and now Powell)

    If we had 6 months to unpack and unwind I could see us getting some where. But this seems to be designed to allow shoving fraud through on a partisan basis simply by saying there is no time for it.

    My fear is the Right when angry is about the best behaved bunch you could ask for. No one has any reason to fear law abiding polite citizens trapped in mortgage payments, family and having an income.

    I see no state intervention to fall back on besides lip service.

    The federal government is deaf, dumb, blind and playing completely stupid.

    Things like this tend to split nation's into pieces and we've been in deep-S territory for quite a long time now.

    Dismal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear you Devilman. There is one option for law-abiding , mortgage-bound, responsible human beings and that is join a political party that represents their interests. I get the feeling that Mr. "don't give up, don't give in, never surrender " DJT is not going to go quietly into post-presidential political retirement, I don't think that is how he is built, and I think he is a far better politician than the whole lot of them, I trust him to lead a movement (ahem) away from the uniparty and basically agree with Sundance on this. I just watched SP interview with Mike Huckabee and she is like the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind - she says it right out "They've been lying for a long time, the country is turning blue, its quite the opposite." I think dismal is turned right on its head when you embrace that and consider the fun and esprit de corps imaginable in a political party born out of the Maga movement. As all of the left's captured domains wither and die (media, hollywood, higher education, sports ) there will be more and more people looking for respite from the inexorable march to Utopia.

      Delete
    2. More than one option Sir... Most just dare not speak of the others.

      That will change now that Texas has stepped up to the plate, FINALLY!!!

      Delete
  4. Is it possible that SCOTUS issues a ruling that affects other states as well? For example, states must follow the procedures established by their respective legislatures or the results are invalid? After all, Dec. 8 is the safe harbor date for all of the states. And it is too late to adjudicate so many different kinds of fraud cases. This, at least, would have the virtue of simplicity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Their ruling should tell lower courts how they want them to rule.

      Delete
  5. Here is a radically different view of this SCOTUS action based on analyses by Jeffrey Prather and Mike Adams. I can provide basic links if anyone is interested.

    The long and short of it, as i have noted in other comments before, that we are in a state of national emergency based on the September 2018 EO; that pursuant to that Order, the President is mobilizing elements of the military and DIA, NSA, and loyal elements of other agencies to expose and arrest key figures clearly complicit in an undeclared cyber war by China and others to overthrow our republican form of government after exhausting every Constitutional avenue to thwart the electoral attack.

    That's very thumbnail. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the conservative justices have been discreetly provided with irrefutable evidence of Chinese/foreign interference and Democrat collusion. The message to these justices is simple: a military response *will* happen to prevent the CCP candidate from taking office but the Court can go a long way to minimize bloodshed and aid the nation by issuing a broad and definitive opinion that invalidates Biden's electors.

    This is happening. Trump cannot and will not allow Biden to take office. He and his team are doing their utmost to use the courts and the legislatures to enforce the landlside victory stolen from Trump. But make no mistake, if the legislatures refuse to do their duty and the courts turn a blind eye, Trump will reveal the stunning truth of the war waged against us and use the military to start mass arrests, military trials, and use of military to prevent the Left from implementing their TIP plan to create mayhem and secession. There is some intel of secret talks with Biden to concede in exchange for a full presidential pardon. That could spare us serious bloodshed. Or Trump could decide mot to pull the trigger. But does anyone think he will shirk his oath of office, particularly when it's certain that the Left will jail him and his family if he concedes.

    This is a literal death match. Only one side is coming out of this alive. Trump and his Patriot Base or the Chinese Mafia. Each one of us may be called upon to respond if the Left tries to cause major disruptions in our respective locales. Stock up on essentials. If you don't own a firearm... well ypu know what to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing that seems valid: the EO and its state of emergency must have been accompanied with close monitoring of the election.

      But we've heard almost nothing to engender hope for the drama that you describe.

      Delete
    2. From TGP. President Trump: “It’s a disgrace to our country. It’s like a third world country. These ballots pouring in from everywhere using machinery that nobody knows ownership, nobody knows anything about. They have glitches that aren’t glitches. They got caught sending out thousands of votes. All against me by the way. You know this was like from a third world nation. And I think the case has been made and now we find out what we can do about it. But you’ll see a lot of big things happening over the next couple of days."

      Sounds like something big is about to happen. We've been promised a lot so far, e.g. Sidney Powell and Rudy, to little avail. We shall see...

      DJL

      Delete
    3. @ mistcr

      "But we've heard almost nothing to engender hope for the drama that you describe."

      1. What sources are you looking to for your information?
      2. There are plenty of verifiable events happening that are consistent with the 'drama' as you describe it.
      3. What's your expectation? Do you think that CNN or the NYT (or Fox for that matter) will be covering this? (Actually, Steve Turley posted a video today talking about stories in the NYT and WaPo pre election warning about Trump staging what they called a coup if he lost to Biden. This was based on the Transition Integrity Project wargame that posited Trump trying a military option so the Left is very much thinking about it).
      4. You have to know what you're looking for. For example, people who monitor military flights (the ones that actually turn on their transponders) have noted an unprecedented spike in military air traffic since a few days after November 3d. Alot of that traffic involved Guantanamo Bay and DC. They also note a very large formation of mil cargo planes going into Nellis AFB. All consistent with something big in the works. Just a few examples.
      5. Seek out alternative sources of information. Be skeptical of course. Verify. But aren't we finally waking up to the lies of the mass media, the establishment politicians of both parties, and the absolute ruthlessness of the CCP? The dots are all out there. People with intel experience and connections to the military are connecting them.
      6. Worst case scenario: Trump decides not to pull the trigger and we fall under the dominion of a cruel and oppressive Chinese Mafia. Will we fight then?

      Delete
    4. Sense all of this started I have read the EO you're describing and even written about it here in a realistic sense.

      What the EO has been made into a a pure flight of internet fantasy.

      The EO for the most part asks the DNI for a report within 45 days of the election and authorizes the US Treasury to seize US assets of any foreign actors involved in election issues.

      And that's pretty much the beginning AND end of it...

      It's not a declaration of war, doesn't authorize the military to do diddly, doesn't put the US into some secretly declared state of emergency or any of these other crazy things being claimed.

      It's almost like the Q kids realize their gig was up and needed to jump another shark quickly the keep their minions at bay with a new shiny object.

      I would encourage anyone whom is going to go down this path to definitely NOT listen to guys like Mike Adams and just simply spend an hour or two reading the actual order for yourselves.

      We've got enough real issues here without intentionally injecting misnomers of molehills vs mountains.

      Delete
    5. @Tschifty, those people also say Ms. Haspel was flipped while in custody on a military flight to Guantanamo after she was captured in a fire fight in Frankfurt. Pretty crazy stuff. I suppose it should be easy to verify if she has been coming into work lately...

      All I'm saying is we've been promised a lot. Granted, there's still time. Sort of.

      I realize the dismissals in lower courts are largely expected, especially from Obama judges, but the Trump team has not inspired. They need to win both legally and politically, and they have to be fully transparent.

      If the military is in play, then there can be no secrets - all of the evidence justifying such an action must be fully publicly searchable. I don't think I could support less. I acknowledge that 1/3rd of the country will never accept any justification, but still anything less would be a disaster.

      You cannot force a people to be free.

      As for your uprising..I'm on the record on this site advocating for separation now-ish before things get bloody, but I know that's unlikely in the extreme. We forget how vast this country is, and the people who we're talking about live very far apart. There's only small pockets of conservatives who actively plan for this scenario and they're...crazy. Most people aren't motivated by abstractions like the rule of law; it's only when someone shows up at their door to take their guns or their children that they will rally, and by then it's too late.

      I've just started reaching out to some of my friends here in blue-land to start to sound out their preparedness and opportunities for collaboration. I believe we will fight, but there's a long way to go..

      Delete
  6. I tend to agree with your thoughts in the addendum. SCOTUS, if it does not act, will be permanently remade into another liberally biased government institution by these modern day communists. If these jurists do not see the danger to the republic should they fail to act, then history (written by the victors) will surely praise them for their shortsightedness that allowed fraud and lawlessness to win out over fairness and equality under the law. The descent into anarchy will begin if this election fraud is sanctified by the highest court in the land.

    DJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark, your reply above, makes me dare to hope again.
    Aletheia

    ReplyDelete
  8. Has no one considered the possibility that the first date was just a mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If SCOTUS acts in some way on the PA case about the constitutionality of the mail in vote does that portend anything with regard to other states? i saw AZ supreme court is hearing a case on mail in ballots.

    ReplyDelete
  10. https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11/18/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void-9-0-decision/

    This is an interesting argument.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And would be even more interesting if the case had involved a presidential election.

      Delete
  11. I read somewhere that Ted Cruz will be arguing for the Trump campaign on cases that are accepted by the Supreme Court. Could not be a better choice.

    Whatever happens, we will get to see if Roberts is a Democrat Judge/Justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cruz is well qualified for that role, having argued 9 cases before SCOTUS, going 5-4. Also, he recruited John Roberts for the Dubya legal team, so he knows Roberts well.

      Delete
    2. He has been one of the few speaking out fairly aggressively. He is positioning himself to assume the Trump mantel in 2024. In the meantime, I welcome his involvement.

      Delete
  12. https://youtu.be/YUnh9hZ25Ko?t=1800

    [Barnes' opinion is that the safe harbor date doesn't mean anything. He thinks Alito moved the date forward just to escape that controversy.

    Barnes was very complimentary about the Trump lawsuits in NV, AZ and WI. They were able to present evidence in a state court (but a Democrat judge ruled against them) that SCOTUS will be able to use to void the elections in those states. A similar lawsuit, based on actual evidence that the number of illegal ballots is up to 10 times more than the margin of victory, will be filed in GA this week.]

    ReplyDelete
  13. The five conservative justices have surely considered that a failure to act could result in the Court being packed with additional liberal justices. That should be motivation enough to take the case.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I had a thought...Mark, you've been disappointed with Barr due to his recent downplaying of election concerns. I am likewise disappointed. My thought about this is that Barr has a tendency to give head-fakes where not long before he does something that will benefit Trump, we hear of "his frustrations", that he is "thinking of resigning" and so on. The recent chatter about Barr thinking of resigning put me in this frame of mind. Last time there was chatter like this, it was not long before DOJ moved to drop Flynn charges.

    I think it is possible Barr's recent election fraud statement was an attempt by Barr to simply put some distance between Trump and him so he would feel he could legitimately act in a (justifiable way) that could benefit Trump.

    I don't assume Barr will come riding in and save the day or anything like that I just think that after hearing fake news about Barr's impending resignation, this has a familiar ring to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barr's failure to force any accountability for anybody but the smallest pawn on the board is how we wound up with nation-wide in-our-face election fraud. Democrats are certain there will be no accountability.

      Maybe after Barr is fired - "thank you for your service, Bill" - we'll get an AG (acting) like Grennel/Giuliani/Cruz who knows his job requires him to make many enemies in DoJ and purge them. Call it a January Massacre.

      Delete
    2. I think there might be some wisdom in your observations.

      In the TIP report Demsheviks issued covering 4 of their most viable scenarios, Barr is consistently and most frequently mentioned as the most dangerous Trump ally that could derail their plans.

      Also Trump answered recently a question from a reporter on whether he thinks Barr is trustable. His response was "ask me again in a few weeks". I think there is some important role still expected from Barr, however he might have been compromised already due to the perception that he is too important.

      Time will tell.

      Delete
  15. The Safe Harbor dates are meaningless. Whatever this Congress decides to do, it is unbound by the 1887 Electoral Counting Act and its amendments. If, on January 3rd, there are competing electoral slates, this Congress alone has the power to decide which to accept and which to not accept, and if goes to court under the assumption that the two Houses cannot come to an agreement, I am quite certain that SCOTUS will tell Congress that the House will have to select the President using the procedures laid down in the 12th Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I disagree - Barr is an institutionalist and protects the DOJ. The Clinesmith sentencing memorandum says it all. The Durham investigation is like the Huber investigation. A shiny thing to focus away from the other things going on. I am genuinely angry about this. It is time for a root/branch dismantlement of the Federal Government. The A Block of Tucker Carlson tonight (Dec 7th) points out how corrupt the whole thing is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sidney tonight on GA and MI appeals to the USSC by weeks end.

    https://youtu.be/GFNCCnpejdQ

    ReplyDelete
  18. I know I drone on about government being like a zombie you can't kill. However I wish they would stop proving me right.

    Amicus briefs AGAIN being sought in Flynn's case. 🙄

    There is a reason we need to abandon our current system and hit the flush valve. As painful as that might seem.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MMineiro_CNS/status/1336077252145139714

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MMineiro_CNS/status/1336077252145139714

    ReplyDelete
  19. Either way Barr is toast to 75 million Trump voters.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just saw on Citizens Free Press that the state of Texas has filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with the Supreme Court alleging unconstitutional changes to voting laws in these states based on the great pandemic scare. Perhaps Ted Cruz had something to do with this... CFP credits Breitbart.

    DJL

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark, any thoughts about Texas filing an election lawsuit against GA, MI, PA and WI at the Supreme Court?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Speaking of big things coming, this seems kinda big:

    "The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution."

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  23. God Bless Texas my home state!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. As I tossed and turned last night and tried to sleep...

    I couldn't shake the idea that the Sup Ct will order new elections in every state where material voter fraud is proven.

    But wait, you say, there isn't time to hold re-votes between now and the various deadlines, let alone the constitutionally-imposed deadline of January 20.

    But, if it comes down to either civil insurrection begun by the court-ordered losing side or a delay in the timeline, why wouldn't the Sup Ct take the easier (and more politically expedient) path and order new and 'fair' elections, even if it means delaying the timeline.

    But, you say, even if they delay the Congressionally mandated preliminary deadlines, they can't delay the constitutionally-mandated Inauguration Date.

    Perhaps so. But why not? Who's to stop them? The Supreme Supreme Court? (I can imagine someone saying the Sup Ct would run the risk of being disregarded, but if they were, the President inaugurated in spite of them would be substantially, if not absolutely, de-legitimized.)

    In this extraordinary situation, reversing results in enough of AZ, NV, GA, MI, PA and WI to change 37 electoral votes is fraught with political risk, even if the illegality is demonstrable. Foreclosing (but not reversing) the electoral vote of any state, which changes the overall result, is similarly fraught. In light of the accumulating evidence, the same is true if the Sup Ct fails to find sufficient fraud to change the result. In any result, the loser will allege that his votes were (effectively) not counted.

    New elections could be held in a matter of weeks (in late December or early January) with legal and constitutional safeguards imposed by the Sup Ct (and/or perhaps individual special masters appointed by the Sup Ct) and the several State legislatures. Counting would be overseen by federal election officials (if not also by the United States military). Results would be required prior to January 20 so that the Electoral College could do its mandated thing. As I say, if it takes a little time beyond January 20...so be it.

    This solution could also have the benefit of attracting the support of the Liberal Justices (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Roberts) so that a 9-0 unanimous decision could be presented to the American people.

    It works for me.

    ...Then I woke up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Texas suit increases the pressure on the SCOTUS exponentially--to take some sweeping and effective action.

      Delete
    2. Yes...because the claims in the Texas suit seem strong. How can they be disregarded?

      Delete
    3. 9 other states have chipped in, this in the PA case which Roberts made a mess of, see
      https://redstate.com/beccalower/2020/11/09/gop-attorneys-general-scotus-amicus-brief-pa-mail-in-ballot-2020-n277305 .

      If these states also join the TX suit, such pressure would be historic, doing much to push SCotUS to present a unanimous (or 8-1) solution, and thus do much to alleviate the worries about civil strife.

      I'd lean toward Cass' revote solution, but for (what Tschifty says about) "irrefutable evidence of *Chinese/foreign* interference and Democrat collusion."
      I don't like the prospect, of a repeat of the 1854 KS-NB strife, enhanced by Chinese input.
      And, I'll bet that, if moderate liberals' noses are rubbed, into evidence of ChiCom "interference" (by a 8-1 or 9-0 SCotUS), rioting etc. by SJWs will get hugely less moderate liberal backing, than antiFa/ BLM riots got this summer.

      Delete
  25. https://www.newsmax.com/politics/emmet-sullivan-pardon-federal-judge/2020/12/08/id/1000511/

    I posted this earlier on another thread and apparently it disappeared into the ether.

    Sullivan will go to his grave before he let's Flynn go.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I hate to keep breaking the mood about election events but I watched this today:

    https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/12/08/tucker-carlson-delivers-a-monologue-so-damning-that-president-trump-shares-it-n290942

    and my thoughts immediately went to this story:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-pentagon-defense-policy-board

    coincidentally, or not, published the day before Carlson's Chinese economists gave his talk. Connected or not? You decide.

    I think this move was much more important, especially for the ChiCom's, than the coverage it has received would indicate. Many of these people are also on the Atlantic Council and, I would bet, all are on Davos boards of one stripe or another. Neither Kissinger or Albright ever met a ChiCom Premier they didn't want to hug.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It seems SCOTUS denied injunction relief for this case, without explanation (the order is one line). Incredibly unfortunate, but it still leaves the new case brought by Texas. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-gop-pennsylvania-suit-overturn-election-results/

    ReplyDelete