Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[Big Boss]

All this seditious rhetoric over Donald ***** Trump of all people. It's mind boggling.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2020, 06:52 PM)Big Boss Wrote: All this seditious rhetoric over Donald ***** Trump of all people.  It's mind boggling.

And Trump's not even doing a good job of it.

The 5-years-under-indictment, currently-being-investigated-by-the-FBI Attorney General of Texas.

— Anita Gowen (@GowenAnita) December 9, 2020

[Au165]

Apparently, the TX lawsuit was ghost written by an attorney who also ghost wrote Trumps request to intervene. What makes this stranger is this lawyer has been involved in the shadows with trump for years. It’s almost as if Trump, who said weeks ago he wished he could file one big lawsuit to SCOTUS over this has found a way to do so. Now the question about Paxton’s motives become even more questionable. Trump’s team knows any state vs state lawsuits automatically go to SCOTUS and while TX probably doesn’t actually have standing, by intervening they could argue they do.

If he was approached by the administration to file for the sole purpose of giving Trump a vessel to intervene on with any hint of pardon you could have a crime that would be in fact unpardonable for Paxton and Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(12-09-2020, 11:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: Apparently, the TX lawsuit was ghost written by an attorney who also ghost wrote Trumps request to intervene. What makes this stranger is this lawyer has been involved in the shadows with trump for years. It’s almost as if Trump, who said weeks ago he wished he could file one big lawsuit to SCOTUS over this has found a way to do so. Now the question about Paxton’s motives become even more questionable. Trump’s team knows any state vs state lawsuits automatically go to SCOTUS and while TX probably doesn’t actually have standing, by intervening they could argue they do.

If he was approached by the administration to file for the sole purpose of giving Trump a vessel to intervene on with any hint of pardon you could have a crime that would be in fact unpardonable for Paxton and Trump.

The question over original jurisdiction came at a perfect time since I just taught jurisdiction today. There's really nothing unique in the case and other states and the Trump campaign piggybacking onto this could end up hurting Texas's claim that this is a unique legal challenge that needs to be heard by SCOTUS prior to making its way through the lower courts. 

This ghost writer part just adds to it. 

[Au165]

(12-10-2020, 12:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The question over original jurisdiction came at a perfect time since I just taught jurisdiction today. There's really nothing unique in the case and other states and the Trump campaign piggybacking onto this could end up hurting Texas's claim that this is a unique legal challenge that needs to be heard by SCOTUS prior to making its way through the lower courts. 

This ghost writer part just adds to it. 

At this point, any pardon for Paxton is pretty obviously a bribe to a state official (Lawsuit as a vehicle to SCOTUS for pardon). The thing with bribing state officials is that it is not just a federal crime but a state one as well. However, by doing it in a state like Texas Trump has insolated himself from any repercussions from the state.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 12:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The question over original jurisdiction came at a perfect time since I just taught jurisdiction today. There's really nothing unique in the case and other states and the Trump campaign piggybacking onto this could end up hurting Texas's claim that this is a unique legal challenge that needs to be heard by SCOTUS prior to making its way through the lower courts. 

This ghost writer part just adds to it. 

I listen to All the President's Lawyers which does a pretty good job of breaking down legal issues during the Trump presidency. They got into the original jurisdiction issue this week because, well, duh. Ken White (@Popehat on Twitter), who provides the legal expertise on the show discussed how the precedent right now is that SCOTUS doesn't have to accept the case, even, and they likely won't. Alito and Thomas will probably dissent because they have the position that the court must take up those cases, but that isn't something that logically or logistically would work. He went into how the evaluation on the cases has typically been that if the case could be brought by those other than the state bringing the case, then it should happen in that manner. Since pretty much the entirety of this case is in that realm because the issues have already been raised by others in different courts, it likely won't make the agenda.

He did say, though, that if the court did take up the case, the issue of standing would likely come up and could be a reason for dismissal or the case could drag out and be rendered moot.

[BmorePat87]

(12-10-2020, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: At this point, any pardon for Paxton is pretty obviously a bribe to a state official (Lawsuit as a vehicle to SCOTUS for pardon). The thing with bribing state officials is that it is not just a federal crime but a state one as well. However, by doing it in a state like Texas Trump has insolated himself from any repercussions from the state.

The number of ethical issues will put Biden in a delicate situation. How do you direct your DOJ to pursue some of the clearly illegal actions of the Trump administration without making Republicans view it solely as a witch hunt

(12-10-2020, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I listen to All the President's Lawyers which does a pretty good job of breaking down legal issues during the Trump presidency. They got into the original jurisdiction issue this week because, well, duh. Ken White (@Popehat on Twitter), who provides the legal expertise on the show discussed how the precedent right now is that SCOTUS doesn't have to accept the case, even, and they likely won't. Alito and Thomas will probably dissent because they have the position that the court must take up those cases, but that isn't something that logically or logistically would work. He went into how the evaluation on the cases has typically been that if the case could be brought by those other than the state bringing the case, then it should happen in that manner. Since pretty much the entirety of this case is in that realm because the issues have already been raised by others in different courts, it likely won't make the agenda.

He did say, though, that if the court did take up the case, the issue of standing would likely come up and could be a reason for dismissal or the case could drag out and be rendered moot.

Lacking standing, requesting relief outside the power of the court, having the incorrect defendants, not alleging any actual problem beyond wanting to change the election results. These lawsuits are just a mess. 

The one that always gets me is PA where two Trump voters in York and another county claim a violation of the equal protections clause because their counties didn't allow them to cure their mail in ballots but other counties that Biden won did. They list the other counties, not their own that actually denied them the chance to cure, as defendants and request that the relief for the violation is that those counties have to throw out millions of votes rather than their two counties allow them to cure their ballots lol.

[Au165]

(12-10-2020, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The number of ethical issues will put Biden in a delicate situation. How do you direct your DOJ to pursue some of the clearly illegal actions of the Trump administration without making Republicans view it solely as a witch hunt

At this point, the Republicans think (or pretend to) that the election was rigged, so caring what they think is pretty pointless as they believe whatever they want. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they land.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The number of ethical issues will put Biden in a delicate situation. How do you direct your DOJ to pursue some of the clearly illegal actions of the Trump administration without making Republicans view it solely as a witch hunt


Lacking standing, requesting relief outside the power of the court, having the incorrect defendants, not alleging any actual problem beyond wanting to change the election results. These lawsuits are just a mess. 

The one that always gets me is PA where two Trump voters in York and another county claim a violation of the equal protections clause because their counties didn't allow them to cure their mail in ballots but other counties that Biden won did. They list the other counties, not their own that actually denied them the chance to cure, as defendants and request that the relief for the violation is that those counties have to throw out millions of votes rather than their two counties allow them to cure their ballots lol.

The entire thing is a farce and the real damage is the Trump supporters who, as usual, don't understand and actually believe the Democrats cheated somehow.

Its the delusions I worry about.

For all the whining and marches in 2016 now we have people who say, out loud, they will shoot people who disagree with them.  Are they a small, vocal minority?  Of course.  Are they having their views and beliefs reinforced by a man sharing conspiracy reports from "news" sites like OANN and Newsmax?  Absolutely.

I have too many people I consider friends sharing those as "truth".

One, just yesterday posted this:




They still think the SC will intervene and reverse the election results because of "cheating".

This is why I've been asking Republicans who are NOT delusional to speak up and tell their fellow party members that this is over and to not be fooled.

I just don't see it happening.  Most have either disappeared or continue to say "let the courts decide" as if all of this is normal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2020, 01:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: At this point, the Republicans think (or pretend to) that the election was rigged, so caring what they think is pretty pointless as they believe whatever they want. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they land.

In a perfect world, sure.  The problem is if you go after the previous administration then you set precedent for it to happen in the future.  There's a reason Obama did absolutely nothing about the clearly contrived "evidence" that brought us into the Iraq war.  In a perfect world Dick Cheney would be spending the rest of his life in prison for conning us into a war that cost billions (trillions?) and killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands.  You go after previous administrations you open Pandora's Box because the other party is going to be in charge at some point and you damn well better believe they'll come after you then if this precedent is set.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a perfect world, sure.  The problem is if you go after the previous administration then you set precedent for it to happen in the future.  There's a reason Obama did absolutely nothing about the clearly contrived "evidence" that brought us into the Iraq war.  In a perfect world Dick Cheney would be spending the rest of his life in prison for conning us into a war that cost billions (trillions?) and killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands.  You go after previous administrations you open Pandora's Box because the other party is going to be in charge at some point and you damn well better believe they'll come after you then if this precedent is set.

Yet Trump is the exception to all rules.

NOW the Trump supporters want the new POTUS to follow the "norms" so they don't investigate him vs Trump claiming every day that everyone of his political opponents should be investigated and the DOJ actually investigating them.

So, to paraphrase something, if you're not guilty you shouldn't care about an investigation.  

But Trump will probably get a pardon anyway so it will be moot.

[GMDino]

The irony being that Trump and the Republicans are the ones casting doubt about the elections...because Trump lost.  No one else.  Just because Trump lost.

Last week, I asked that @realDonaldTrump instruct the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate election irregularities.

Now twenty-six Republican colleagues have joined me in calling for an independent investigation to restore faith in our elections!

(1/3) pic.twitter.com/Zk5Dxzk3fj

— Lance Gooden (@Lancegooden) December 9, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Here's what I mean, from his crazy 46-minute teleprompter rant last week – he deals with his inability to accept this election reality, his cognitive dissonance, by declaring it "statistically impossible." https://t.co/LpaajpKjlF pic.twitter.com/8daWR8ouy8

— Kurt Andersen (@KBAndersen) December 10, 2020

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2020, 01:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yet Trump is the exception to all rules.

Why?

Quote:NOW the Trump supporters want the new POTUS to follow the "norms" so they don't investigate him vs Trump claiming every day that everyone of his political opponents should be investigated and the DOJ actually investigating them.

Who are you referring to?

Quote:So, to paraphrase something, if you're not guilty you shouldn't care about an investigation.  

Oh sweet summer child, I can guarantee you there's something to uncover during every presidency that they'd rather remain hidden.

Quote:But Trump will probably get a pardon anyway so it will be moot.

From whom?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Something else for the more shortsighted amongst us to consider. If you investigate and charge Trump with anything, how do you think that will look to the 70m+ people who just voted for him? Will they see this as a fair and impartial investigation, regardless of if it is one or not? Do you not see how such a course of action would enflame an enormous section of our populace already teetering on the edge of believing that our next government is the result of massive fraud? If most of you are being honest with yourself (and by that I mean people who want Trump charged) you want this to satisfy yourself. The long term damage to our country would be immense and possibly irreparable.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why?

Because that is what the Trump supporters said. They claim he's "not a politician" and he does things his way because the "old ways don't work".

He is celebrated by his supporters for breaking the norms.

(12-10-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [/b]Who are you referring to?

Trump supporters. It's right there in the sentence.

(12-10-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh sweet summer child, I can guarantee you there's something to uncover during every presidency that they'd rather remain hidden.

Oh! So we shouldn't do investigations because we might find something? Hot take from someone who works in law enforcement.

(12-10-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From whom?

Either he will try to pardon himself or try to step down and have Pence do it. That's the rumor at least.

You either already know that just from being alive or you're being obtuse about it.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 01:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Something else for the more shortsighted amongst us to consider.  If you investigate and charge Trump with anything, how do you think that will look to the 70m+ people who just voted for him?  Will they see this as a fair and impartial investigation, regardless of if it is one or not?  Do you not see how such a course of action would enflame an enormous section of our populace already teetering on the edge of believing that our next government is the result of massive fraud?  If most of you are being honest with yourself (and by that I mean people who want Trump charged) you want this to satisfy yourself.  The long term damage to our country would be immense and possibly irreparable.

Yeah I mean just because we find that (as an example) Trump was selling pardons for his own personal gain we should be careful of the feeling of his supporters.

Nothing says MAGA like proving that the rich and powerful are above the law as long as they have a lot of popular support.

A lot of us, and I'm speaking for myself, want ANYONE who breaks the law investigated and punished no matter of party affiliation or public support.

I'd propose that investigating, charging and convicting someone who did something wrong is GOOD for the country as a whole.  But then I've never worked in law enforcement.  Maybe they can pick and choose based on the harm to public opinions.

"You can't do that because you will hurt people's feelings" is a strange way to look at it but I guess you do you.

[GMDino]

Back to the next SC ruling:

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Elie Honig

   
3h, 13 tweets, 3 min read[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)] Bookmark
 Save as PDF
 My Authors[/color]
I'm still seeing a lot of concern about the Texas Supreme Court filing, which is understandable. From a certain angle, it looks imposing.

So here, in sum, is why there's no need for alarm (thread): 


1) The case asks the Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction," skipping lower courts. The Court rarely does this. The Court *can* exercise this jurisdiction in state v. state disputes, but doesn't have to.

It takes 5 justices to hear this case, rather than the usual 4. 


2) Usually original jurisdiction applies to state v. state disputes over borders, etc. - for example when NJ and NY sued over control of Ellis Island (Jersey!).

The TX case is something else entirely and could have been heard in lower courts (many have rejected similar claims). 

3) The heart of Texas's claim is that it objects to election procedures used in four other states. This is unconstitutional and would lead to utter insanity.

First, The Constitution specifically gives each state the right to run its elections as it sees fit. Done and done. 


4) And to allow one state to sue over another state's processes would lead to absurd results. Any state could sue any other state over the election. NJ could sue Alabama, Alaska, Idaho. Arkansas could sue MA, NY, and CA. It would never end.

The Court won't countenance that. 


5) Texas does not base its claim on voter fraud, nor does it offer any viable proof. Its attention-grabbing "one in a quadrillion" statistical "analysis" assumes votes don't change from one election to another (Why even hold elections then? Just declare the last guy the winner). 


6) The statistical junk also assumes there's no such thing as different areas, different neighborhoods, tending to vote more one way or the other politically. And it ignores the inarguable fact that Dems voted by mail far more than GOP voters. 


7) Yes, 17 state AGs (all GOP) have signed onto the case. Here are some folks who have not: (1) many other Republican AGs, (2) the Solicitor General of TX itself, who often appears in the Supreme Court and has to maintain dignity and credibility, (3) the US Department of Justice. 


8) It's too late, in several respects. Texas easily could have filed this challenge well *before* the election. Yet it waited until not only after the election but after all states had certified the results. The Court can reject on this basis alone. 

(9) We are now past the Safe Harbor date (Dec. 8). So state certifications of election results are presumptively legally valid and binding on Congress. 


10) If the Court took the case now and overturned results, it would disenfranchise millions of votes and throw the political process into mayhem. Dem states would fire back with similar suits. The Court is famously (and rightly) reluctant to get involved in political matters. 


11) For example, earlier this week, the Supreme Court flatly rejected a different case seeking to overturn the election results in PA with a one-line rejection that noted zero dissents -- not from any of the conservatives, including the three justices appointed by Trump himself. 


12) So yes, there's a lot of chest-pounding in certain quarters about how this is the big one. I get why it looks scary.

But don't fear. The Court won't take this case and even if they do, they'll reject it on the merits. (END) 

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]• • •[/color]

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a perfect world, sure.  The problem is if you go after the previous administration then you set precedent for it to happen in the future.  There's a reason Obama did absolutely nothing about the clearly contrived "evidence" that brought us into the Iraq war.  In a perfect world Dick Cheney would be spending the rest of his life in prison for conning us into a war that cost billions (trillions?) and killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands.  You go after previous administrations you open Pandora's Box because the other party is going to be in charge at some point and you damn well better believe they'll come after you then if this precedent is set.

Completely agree. No president will want to set that precedent. Well, no president that is concerned about the continuation of our democratic society. This is actually one reason why someone put forth the idea that Trump going on a pardon spree at the last minute is a great thing for Biden. It means he doesn't have to make that decision as it has been made for him.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Back to the next SC ruling:

That Twitter thread actually made me think about this and how the TX case could set precedent. Specifically, this one:

Quote:And to allow one state to sue over another state's processes would lead to absurd results. Any state could sue any other state over the election. NJ could sue Alabama, Alaska, Idaho. Arkansas could sue MA, NY, and CA. It would never end.

The Court won't countenance that.

This could have effects reaching beyond election law. Say a driver licensed in one state does serious damage in another state. Say firearms from one state with looser gun laws are used repeatedly in crimes in another state with stricter laws. Say pollution from one state with fewer regulations ends up in another state. All of those things would fall under this precedent as damages to one state that the policies of another state could be deemed responsible for.

Obviously I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere, and none of those should occur, either, but if this case was heard and the state was found to have standing, those examples I gave could be the next things issued. We could see Illinois suing Missouri because of gun laws or Virginia suing West Virginia because of pollution. It would be a nightmare.