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:

Briefly Noted: Alito Moves Up PA Deadline

I just picked this up at Zerohedge:

Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene 

Recall that there's been a lot of speculation on what was behind the original deadline that was set one day after the expiration of the Safe Harbor deadline. Some argued that this meant there was no majority on the SCOTUS to hear the case on its merits, and so Alito was allowing the case to "die on the vine." Others, however, spurred by William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection (and others), argued that Alito was not one to play such games--that there must be something else going on behind the scenes. This is an especially important consideration because, as Jacobson (and the others) have maintained (IMO, FWIW, correctly), in the case of a fraudulent election the SCOTUS is not bound by the statutory Safe Harbor provision. Thus, Jacobson argued that the extended deadline was simply to allow the SCOTUS justices to write their opinions up, since the PA reply was very unlikely to raise issues that the justices would not have long since anticipated--they could hardly have been interested in what PA would reply. We can only speculate--has one of the justices come around to Alito's way of thinking (Alito and three other justices were in favor of addressing the substantive issues before the election)? Have the justices finished writing? We'll find out soon enough, because Alito moved the deadline up one day--to Tuesday the 8th, which is the Safe Harbor deadline. Here's Zerohedge in excerpt:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.

Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requires that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.

According to Kelly's filing, the 'no-excuse mail-in' voting scheme should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated - along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.

SWC: Is SCOTUS Preparing To Drop A MOAB On PA?

Here's a highly recommended and provocative article on the situation with regard to Pennsylvania, written by Shipwreckedcrew. It's long and complicated so I won't attempt to summarize it in any detail, although I will give a bare outline:

Is There Another Scenario That Makes Justice Alito's Dec. 9 Response Date Meaningful in Different Way?

 

The basic argument runs like this.

Yes, it's true that Alito gave PA until the day after the Safe Harbor provision is triggered.

But ... the SCOTUS isn't bound by the Safe Harbor provision if it believes the legal challenge to the election has merit.

That means they could still enjoin the state from sending electors to the Electoral College meeting.

Now, with that in mind--Why would Alito give PA so much time to respond? 

Perhaps, in view of the fact that a totally politicized Supreme Court of PA behaved in a shamefully political manner and, by their lawless actions, deprived the citizens of PA of a free and fair election, the SCOTUS is preparing to drop a legal MOAB on PA.

What would that legal MOAB consist of? This is the argument of William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection (short version):

Where Does The SCOTUS Stand On Pennsylvania?

The short answer is that we don't know for sure, but that the Court is almost certainly divided. Shipwreckedcrew--whom I take to task in another respect--has a detailed explanation that's worth studying. 

Justice Alito (who handles PA for the SCOTUS), no doubt after extended consultation with the other justices, has directed the attorneys for PA to reply to the Trump side's request for injunctive relief (to prevent certification). HOWEVER ...

The deadline for the reply is the day after the slate of electors will be basically set in stone (the "safe harbor" date).

Is there any hope from this? Possibly. 

Obviously the PA attorneys will delay until the slate of electors is set.

Nevertheless, this decision pertains only to the request for injunctive relief. There appears to be a steady flow of substantial evidence of fraud that is being uncovered. Here's how SWC sees it:

A Mathematician's Evaluation Of Absentee Ballots In PA

Commenter Yancey Ward has, on another thread, been advocating for Matt Braynard's analyses of absentee voting in the 2020 election. John Solomon has an article out today that offers support for Braynard, coming from a well respected academic mathematician:

In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots

Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trey Trainor says new analysis by professor Steven Miller "adds to the conclusions that some level of voter fraud took place in this year's election."

All of the ballots in question are absentee ballots, and Miller used PA data gathered by Braynard. Matt Braynard believes Professor Miller's study supports his own conclusions and is sending Miller the data that Braynard has gathered from other states as well. 

You can read Miller's sworn statement here. Bearing in mind that the current margin is about 82,000 votes and that Miller's study pertains solely to absentee ballots and no other category of ballots, here are two key statements drawn from Miller's declaration:

"I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801," Miller said in the sworn statement provided to Just the News.

...

In addition to his two base estimates, Miller also offered two estimates with broader ranges and higher confidence intervals. "Almost surely, the number of ballots requested by someone other than the registered Republican is between 37,001 and 58,914," Miller writes. "Almost surely the number of ballots requested by registered Republicans and returned but not counted is in the range from 38,910 to 56,483." 

Studies like these--both Braynard's as well as Miller's, plus others--are reasons why I think conservative carpers demanding EVIDENCE NOW need to chill. There are numerous anomalies and indicia of various types of fraud across multiple states. The public, as the Rasmussen survey shows, is manifestly distrustful of what happened in the election--and some of the dodgy recounts and other maneuverings are not increasing trust. Conservatives need to let this challenge go forward. It's simply unreasonable to expect hard results in a short time period.

So This Is What Lindsey Graham Was Talking About

This morning Lindsey Graham spoke out about a ballot harvesting operation in Pennsylvania nursing homes. As he noted, ballot harvesting is illegal in Pennsylvania. Repeat: Illegal.  He referred to 25,000 ballots that were returned all on the same day. You know that Lindsey knew more than he was giving away. It's interesting to note how up front and Trump-supportive Lindsey has been. I doubt that Mitch McConnell would have let Lindsey go way out on a limb. Think about that, and think about this: Yesterday Bill Barr turned local USAs loose on election fraud and then went to talk to Mitch. Today Gina Haspel, CIA Director turned up at Mitch's office, late in the day (h/t EZ). Who thinks Barr and Mitch aren't on the same page? Because Mitch, too, has been supportive of Trump.

Here, courtesy of CFP, is what Lindsey was talking about:

Pennsylvania smoking gun…

Posted by Kane on November 10, 2020 3:56 pm

Pennsylvania:
Nearly 35,000 ballots were returned on the same day they were mailed out.

23,000 have an impossible return date—earlier than the sent date.

More than 9,000 have no sent date.https://t.co/hHq2y0Bl11

— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) November 10, 2020

More than 100,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have questionable return dates.

Nearly 35,000 ballots were returned on the same day they were mailed out.

23,000 have an impossible return date — it is earlier than the ‘sent date.’

More than 9,000 have no sent date.

More than 100,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have unlikely or impossible return dates, based on a researcher’s analysis of the state’s voter database.

Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out—an extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000 were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have an impossible return date—earlier than the sent date.

Full story at Epoch Times…

PA And MI Updates

I know everyone is picking up news here and there. However, Red State has three particularly worth updates on what's going on with election fraud research - investigation - litigation in PA and  MI.

First, Pennsylvania. The update is handled by Shipwreckedcrew. Please note in the title the words "New Lawsuit". This lawsuit is in addition to the lawsuit that is already being addressed by the SCOTUS:

New Lawsuit By Trump Campaign In Pennsylvania Challenges Handling of Mail-In Ballots in Seven Counties -- Seeks to Prevent Certification of Outcome

You may have seen earlier today that Lindsey Graham was pointing a finger at the way mail-in ballots were handled at PA nursing homes--25K mail-in ballots. The article doesn't discuss that, but that situation may be one part of the new lawsuit. 

The article itself is long and detail dense from a legal standpoint--the complaint is over 100 pages long. I won't try to summarize it, but these excerpts should give you a good overall idea of what's going on:

Justice Alito Orders

 Justice Alito--who knows PA and Philly all too well--has weighed in. See the order here.

Shannon Bream

@ShannonBream

BREAKING FROM SCOTUS:  Justice Alito has issued an Order than any ballots received after after 8pm on election day in PA be segregated and secured - and if counted, counted separately. There is a petition pending before SCOTUS.  Alito orders opposing side to reply by 2p Saturday.

Alito order:  "... neither the applicant (PA GOP) nor the Secretary has been able to verify that all boards are complying with the Secretary's guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally binding on them."

Many of you have rightly noted that this segregating/securing was already supposed to be happening.  PA GOP told SCOTUS today neither it nor the PA Sec of Commonwealth could get all the county boards of election to confirm they were actually complying. Now there's a SCOTUS Order.