Yesterday, in a rather astonishing moment for a major media show, Maria Bartiromo made the following statement:
An intel source told me President Trump did, in fact, win the election. He says that it is up to the Supreme Court to hear suits from other cases across the country to stop the clock. This follows the high court’s refusal to hear the lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
It's not often in life that you get repeated chances to get something right, once you've screwed up big time. I'm pretty much on board with Robert Lopez (Will America Split? History Says ‘Yes’):
The curious case of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a short-lived but portentous controversy. Forty percent of the states joined forces to challenge the presidential election results maintained by roughly another 40 percent of states, with roughly 20 percent of states caught somewhere in the middle. The Supreme Court punted the case.
The Supreme Court seems to have made peace with its own irrelevance vis-à-vis the irremediable schism between two halves of the country.
Nevertheless, the SCOTUS--courtesy of the indefatigable Sidney Powell--is getting yet another chance to take a serious stab at fixing our broken constitutional order (h/t TGP):
It contains the forensic audit done in Michigan that proves systemic voter fraud occurred through the Dominion Voting System tabulation. It also has proof of at least 200,000 FRAUDULANT VOTES casted in the election.— CulturalHusbandry (@APhilosophae) December 17, 2020
Am I holding my breath? Of course not.
UPDATE: Looks like the SCOTUS is gonna take a pass on more chances to get it right:
The #SupremeCourt electronic filing system shows our EMERGENCY Petitions docketed for #Georgia & #Michigan but SLOW-walking w/ state response not due until JAN 14!— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) December 17, 2020
Today it FINALLY submitted our #Arizona & #Wisconsin EMERGENCY petitions filed Friday INEXPLICABLY rejected them pic.twitter.com/kALFK8DPJ2
SCOTUS might be paralyzed by the fear of causing violence.ReplyDelete
They need to understand that, their inaction will cause even bigger violance. And they will be responsible. There is no escape from this.
Better for them to act and not let it play by chance.
For SCotUS to get a hint, of how Righties may see violence as the only alternative to extinction, see Taibbi last week, onDelete
"The YouTube Ban Is Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire. Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters...."
He doesn't outright charge that to be the intent, but that post was before the latest news on the Biden staffer's reference to Repub's as "f*ckers".
For likely-typical Leftist spin on this story, see
I still think the right remedy is for the Supreme Court to (i) take Sidney Powell's cases, (ii) hear the found evidence of electoral fraud and illegalities, (iii) in states where sufficient fraud and illegality is established to change the result, void the election, and (iv) give the states with voided elections the opportunity to hold new elections, with safeguards, including DoJ and US military oversight. The January 20 inauguration date would be tolled (pushed out) to the extent necessary.Delete
I think this is a result an overwhelming majority of the country could accept. It would thus have the virtue of avoiding mass violence.
Do I think it will happen?
That's another question altogether.
Returning to "a better way to further radicalize Trump voters", all it'll take is, for one "radicalized Trump voter" to lay a finger on a Leftist, and the Biden MSM/ DS will use that as an excuse, to incarcerate/ liquidate all those whose doubts about the election have had the effect of "dissing our democracy".Delete
Nowhere in the Constitution do I see the Sup Ct mentioned regarding Electors. I do see CONGRESS and STATE LEGISLATURES and PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE mentioned.ReplyDelete
This entire mess is the responsibility of those above.
Are you suggesting no remedies should be available re lawless acts by politicians? Unless specified in the Constitution?Delete
I'm suggesting Dem pols created the problem and GOP pols refuse to fix it. Sup Ct may be trying to stay out of the fight. GOP pols don't need the Sup Ct's permission to reject the fraud. (It would be nice if the Sup Ct told the GOP pols what to do. But I don't see that happening)Delete
If that's what you intend to say, you should just say it.Delete
I believe Mike Pence can save the nation by refusing to accept electoral-vote certificates from states in dispute.Delete
According to (3 U.S.C. §15) The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber.
dfp21: I don't know if Pence doing that will "save the nation". We are in a very unfortunate spot right now. No matter what the outcome is the division will remain, and I can see no case where Trump remaining in office will not cause the turmoil to escalate. So it might give us a little more time to clean things up but the ride will be as bumpy as ever. And I fear that if the clean up does occur it will not happen in time to stop the Georgia runoff from giving control of the Senate to the Dems.Delete
GOP got de-pantsed if you really think about it.Delete
What makes you believe the GOP pols WANT to fix it?
Honest question and here's why.
I think the GOP's actions are even keel where they have been through out Trump's presidency. Which has been to stop him at every opportunity.
Imposing my own beliefs or desires upon what the GOP should or should not do is no more effective than thinking the same towards the DNC.
These are big big lessons taught to between 2016-2018. The uniparty has always been there, like most they've just become more blatant and less worried about the perceptions of their actions.
You are IMHO correct in your thoughts about 3 U.S.C. §15 but my money is on Pence not lifting a finger. You MAY see one or two congress critters raise objection, they MAY force a vote in the safety that they know it can't be won. But they will do so add drama, flair and street cred to their deceptiveness.
If a solid majority of voters in a single state -let's say IL- vote to elect Governor Candidate A, but the Chicago machine commits mass fraud (let's say they let a couple hundred thousand illegals, felons and unregistered voters vote) so that Candidate B officially gets more votes: do all those people and local govts outside of Chicago have no standing to have their complaints heard before the IL Supreme Court?Delete
If enough of the illegal votes that actually happened cannot be definitively proven to have happened (as is normally the case), so that Candidate A can't overcome his deficit with just those votes, shouldn't the IL Supreme Court still be able to take a big picture look at what happened and then perhaps order that a closer look be taken?
I think it should have that right and exercise it, and I think the right of states to be heard in a similar matter is even stronger, given the nature of our national compact.
The fact that state-level R legislators won't do anything hardly should mean that SCOTUS is therefore barred from taking a look at the wrong itself. Especially since it happened across several states, making it more naturally handled by SCOTUS than by several distinct state legislatures.
Have you seen Lin Wood's latest tweets?ReplyDelete
I'm not going to enable utterly unsourced stuff as linked in your other comment.Delete
I understand. I thought it fit into this Blog post though.Delete
Isn't he officially on the legal team?
Lin Wood is officially doing his own thing.Delete
Lin Wood does not inspire confidence. I know he's had a couple of big successes as a lawyer, but he comes off as unhinged.Delete
Sidney Powell is a different story.
I think there is internal conflicts within the IC and a battle of sorts is being waged there -- leaks friendly to PDJT and the effort to quash the ODNI report or minimize it with the SolarWinds/Orion hacking "scandal". You can see some desperation in the fact that they're trying to tie the hacking to Russia as if this year's shenanigans are of a piece with 2016's faux shenanigans. My guess is "resistance" actors within the IC are trying to cover what they did and some Pro-Trump in the IC are trying to expose it. Too little too late or as Sidney Powell has suggested, there are in fact some things more important than the outcome of a particular presidential election...ReplyDelete
Didn't the preliminary reporting from DNI attribute 2020 actions to Russia, Iran and China? I admit the news reporting gleefully isolated the charges to Russia alone.Delete
@Gothamite - it did. But the Solar Winds data breach case blew up in the news, but especially in the tech world after that announcement. Just today I saw a "tech geek" article about how Microsoft is doing battle with the exploit/hackers and how it is reputed to be the same "Cozy Bear" Russian Intelligence cutout that "hacked" the DNC emails! You wanna talk about insidious? and here's the WaPO advancing the narrative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russian-government-spies-are-behind-a-broad-hacking-campaign-that-has-breached-us-agencies-and-a-top-cyber-firm/2020/12/13/d5a53b88-3d7d-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.htmlDelete
That's the same thing I said the other day. WaPo is full of $hit!
No way, no how could anyone know yet.
And I'm so burnt on Russia, Russia, Russia that if it comes back with Cyrillic in the coding I'm just blaming the CIA because... Why not!!!
"it is reputed to be the same "Cozy Bear" Russian Intelligence cutout that "hacked" the DNC emails!"Delete
It has yet to be proven that the DNC was even hacked let alone by Russia. Further, attributions on hacks are based upon code fragments invented or first used by hackers.
Once these hacks are used, those code fragment are in the wild, which means anybody can repackage and use them again. So a code fragment originally used by 'Cosy Bear' doesn't prove the source of the hack.
Hope we have a senator with the spine to challenge electors on Jan 6 along with rep Mo Brooks to put election to debate and vote in House. If so however, I doubt state Republican reps have the spine to trust and re-elect Trump and face the consequent blowback. If they don't, the blowback will unfortunately be much worse. For all.ReplyDelete
Let us all pray for coming profiles in courage. May constituents speak loudly in the meantime.
Of course, someone could kidnap a dozen or so Democratic Congress-critters on January 6. But then, they'd also have to kidnap Romney. I don't see either of those happening.ReplyDelete
An alternative that might work is for there to be objections, the House votes to accept the Electors, the Senate votes to reject them, and Pence declare that, as VP, he gets to break the tie. Let the Dems walk out -- good riddance of really rotten rubbish. Then confirm the Republican electors, confirm Trump and tell those who don't like it where the exit door is. Make it quite clear that if SF, LA, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NY, Philadelphia, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Boston and maybe most of New England want to form a new nation, not conceived in liberty, not dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, then they are free to leave -- after they pay their pro rata share of the national debt.
Tie Romney to the roof of the station wagon?Delete
"after they pay their pro rata share of the national debt."Delete
I'd be so relieved to be rid of them, I'd let 'em walk away from the debt.
See my post on super-zips, at Mark's page today on One Zipcode To Rule Them All ...
Cavuto just had Rand Paul on, calling the election stolen, ripping the courts for using standing etc. to duck the substance of the evidence, predicting that Biden will be PotUS next month, and fearing that the GA Sec. State is still breaking GA law on mail-ins etc.ReplyDelete
His big pitch was, to press for stopping Sec. States etc. from usurping state election laws.
Too bad Rand didn't say, if he'll object to counting the Biden EVs on 6 Jan.
When Rand called the election stolen, Cavuto didn't show the contempt I'd have expected, let alone parrot the Dem line that Rand was "attacking our democracy".Delete
(He did have Warner on after the break, but I didn't strain myself to watch that.)
Here is a straightforward question: why don’t the members of the IC community who maintain that Trump won the election go public with their information? If it is credible, would that not be a game changer? And where is Ratcliffe’s report?ReplyDelete
If parts of the IC are deliberately stonewalling, why doesn’t he call them out?
What am I missing?
The media will hide that info.Delete
According to Kevin McCullough of KMC Radio (ex- Moody Broadcasting's Chicago flagship station):Delete
"It appears that China’s attempt to interfere in the elections of 2020, was so intense that it may take a bit longer to codify and report on.
Significant since they are so close to the Biden’s, the left, & @dominionvoting"
I don't know what weight to give this.
All the hype about the 2018 EO on foreign interference I. Elections, and now that 45 day post election deadline to report will quietly pass.Delete
Nunes on Newsmax tonight was not prepared to challenge electoral college vote on Jan 6. He is waiting for the Supremes to do something.
NUNES! One of the bravest men in politics and he can’t commit.
And every day, the public becomes more accustomed to the changing order.
The whole thing will be gone next month. Someone posted an excerpt from Georgia law that said you can only vote in the runoff if you voted in November. The Dems are bragging about all the ballots they're collecting. I'm assuming that not all of these "voters" voted in November. They're riding around with buses being used as voting stations with people coming out of their homes to vote.ReplyDelete
All of this seems very illegal, but if the heist on Nov, 3 has shown anything it is that once you stuff those ballots in the machine no one will do anything about it no matter how obvious or huge in number the fraud is!
It's time for the Supremes to close up shop. They are useless. The country needed them to draw a line that it's illegal for governors, secretaries of state, judges and local election officials to randomly change the laws to facilitate fraud. They refused to do so. We don't need them anymore. The law is officially dead. We will be ruled by the return of Obama's THUGOCRACY after the presidency is stolen along with the Senate.
As an unenrolled voter I feel like a jack-azz voting republican all these decades.
I will be shocked if the Supremes do anything else but shoot down Powell’s lawsuit on standing or whatever. If they do not do a short, terse denial like last time, I expect them to go full on, in detail denial.ReplyDelete
What will have to happen is for the GOP to cheat just like the Dems. I mean, it’s not like both haven’t been doing anyway, just small scale till now.
Chief Justice John Roberts is a statist, nothing more, nothing less. Kind of like a lot folks, for what it’s worth.ReplyDelete
From the newneo ...
“ What do I really think is happening with Roberts? The same thing I’ve thought almost from the start, which is that for most situations if he can find any way to avoid changing the status quo he will. For him, it seems to have little to do with the policy itself and whether it’s conservative or liberal, it’s about refusing to try to change things that have already occurred. For example, Roberts turned himself into a pretzel with the tax/penalty question in order to avoid the disruption of overturning or curtailing Obamacare.
No doubt there are exceptions to the rule, but the recent Texas case certainly isn’t one of them. Even without riots, even without threats, Roberts would go with the low energy state of letting things slide along the way they’ve been going. To do anything out of the ordinary and even hear the case Texas raised – which is, among other things, a case of first impression – goes utterly against Roberts’ grain. Hearing the Texas case could have had immense consequences and could even have ended up ultimately leading to state legislative actions that overturned the results of the 2020 election.
You might say that Roberts is a “conservative” judge if you define (or redefine) “conservative” as meaning keeping things the way they are. The irony is that, in this case. the consequences of keeping things as they are (Biden declared the winner) might end up leading to an enormous and fundamental change in America by utterly empowering the activist left. It might even lead to changes in the composition of SCOTUS itself – court-packing – that one would think Roberts wouldn’t want. Then again, perhaps he’d welcome the dilution of personal responsibility that would go with a greatly expanded number of justices on the Court.
[NOTE: Recall also that in Bush v. Gore the Court voted to keep the status quo; Bush had already been ahead when the Court halted the counting Gore had demanded.]“