U.S. Electile Dementia paralytica 2020

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Nick

Congratulations to all our friends in the US on a (reasonably) democratic election.

Thanks! I never thought we'd have a cult leader in the White House. It's a relief that he has, with (hopefully) some sense of finality, been awarded the Order of the Boot.

But that cult isn't going away. A Michigan State Representative named Gary Eisen gave a radio interview on WPHM in which he sounds completely unhinged. But I've heard similar things coming out of peoples' mouths face to face. I wonder if the Republic will survive until 2024.

On a brighter note, CNN has the following letter of resignation from the Republican Party by a US Representative here

December 14, 2020

Ms. Ronna McDaniel
Chair
Republican National Committee

310 First St, SE
Washington, DC 20003
—
Mr. Kevin McCarthy
Republican Leader
U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairwoman McDaniel and Leader McCarthy:

The weeks since the 2020 General Election have been traumatic for many in our nation, both voters and those of us who took an oath to serve this nation.

As you well know, my voting record in Congress over the past two terms has been in line with President Trump and the administration's policies more than 95 percent of the time. Further, I voted for President Trump in the 2020 General Election despite some reservations about four more years under his leadership. I felt that many policies achieved during the Trump administration had been positive for our nation, whereas the policies espoused by the Democratic Party were too radical and did not reflect my principles.

I have also worked hard to support each of you and your efforts. Ronna, you may recall that I spoke with you several times as you considered undertaking the role of RNC Chair. It was my strong belief that you could help lead our party and support its core principles, and I encouraged you to undertake the position. Kevin, I worked diligently with you as part of the Republican Leadership Team for both the 115th and 116th Congresses. I fervently whipped votes for our policies during both terms on some tough issues.

As an active supporter of the national GOP, the state GOP, the NRCC and individual candidates, I raised almost $800k in just 2 1/2 years for the NRCC to support Republican candidates supported by leadership. I have contributed personal funds, not simply PAC funds, to innumerable candidates at the Federal and state levels.

I agree that there have been some disconcerting aspects to this election. With more than 155 million people voting, both administrative errors and even some fraudulent voting likely occurred. Steps must be taken, by each state, to audit election results, validate ballots and process and report findings to ensure that every legal vote counts. Michigan clearly needs to do that, not just Wayne County. However, the president and his legal team have failed to provide substantive evidence of fraud or administrative failure on a scale large enough to impact the outcome of the election.

Ronna, you know Michigan politics well. President Trump did not lose Michigan because of Wayne County, but rather he lost because of dwindling support in areas including Kent and Oakland County, both previous Republican strongholds. In the 2020 election, President Trump lost Michigan by 154,000 votes, compared to 2016 when his margin of victory was slightly more than 10,700 votes.

I have stated publicly numerous times that when entering the political arena, a person must be willing to accept winning and losing with grace and maturity. Having personally experienced both winning and losing, the latter can be brutal.

Any candidate, including the president, is entitled to request recounts and pursue legal challenges they believe are appropriate if they possess evidence of wrongdoing. President Trump has undertaken or supported both of these options. Recounts have failed to significantly alter the vote outcome in any state and dozens of court cases have been summarily dismissed in both state and Federal courts across our nation.

It is unacceptable for political candidates to treat our election system as though we are a third- world nation and incite distrust of something so basic as the sanctity of our vote. Further, it is unacceptable for the president to attack the Supreme Court of the United States because its judges, both liberal and conservative, did not rule with his side or that "the Court failed him." It was our Founding Fathers' objective to insulate the Supreme Court from such blatant political motivations.

If Republican leaders collectively sit back and tolerate unfounded conspiracy theories and "stop the steal" rallies without speaking out for our electoral process, which the Department of Homeland Security said was "the most secure in American history," our nation will be damaged. I have spoken out clearly and forcefully in opposition to these messages. However, with the leadership of the Republican Party and our Republican Conference in the House actively participating in at least some of those efforts, I fear long-term harm to our democracy.

The stability and strength of our democracy has been an ongoing concern for me. I expressed strong concerns about the president's response to Charlottesville, the anti-immigrant "send them back" rhetoric, and even the racist comments of my own colleagues in the House.

I believe that raw political considerations, not constitutional or voting integrity concerns, motivate many in party leadership to support the "stop the steal" efforts, which is extremely disappointing to me. As elected members of Congress, we take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," not to preserve and protect the political interests of any individual, be it the president or anyone else, to the detriment of our cherished nation.

As a result, I am writing to advise you both that I am withdrawing from my engagement and association with the Republican Party at both the national and state level. I will support,
contribute to, and fundraise for individual candidates who reflect the principles I hold dear. Further, by copy of this letter I am also advising Ms. Laura Cox, Chair of the Michigan GOP of this decision.

I am also requesting that the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives change my party affiliation to Independent for the remainder of my term in office. While admittedly symbolic, we all know that symbols matter.

Sincerely,
Paul Mitchell
Member of Congress
—
CC Laura Cox, Chair, Michigan Republican Party
Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

[rogue]

So this ruling was still 4-3, with the voters winning. What should concern everyone is this:

The three dissenting conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said the court should have decided whether votes should have counted in each of the four categories, and clarified the law for future elections.

“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted,” Roggensack wrote. “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”

Per the first sentence I don't know if the judges wanted to toss the votes from this election or if they are telling the voters "we'll accept this time, but not the next time".

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

But that cult isn't going away.

Nope. And it doesn't really matter all that much anymore (at least, to those "away").

The smart money always modeled that the US of A was (or at least, was soon to be) in decline. Trump et al have just accelerated this natural progression.

[firejuggler]

Bill Barr sent home for christmass
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55312016

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

So this ruling was still 4-3, with the voters winning. What should concern everyone is this:

Per the first sentence I don't know if the judges wanted to toss the votes from this election or if they are telling the voters "we'll accept this time, but not the next time".

Decisions by courts of law are, ideally, determined by applying facts and the law to cases under considerations. I fail to understand why popular delusions should be considered a basis for a court's decision. And I think that any decision to consider the case on its merits in the situation at hand was without any basis in fact or law.

In this case, a suit disputing election procedures could, and should, have been brought when those procedures were adopted -- not after the election conducted under those rules had been over for weeks. The "doctrine of laches," if raised a defense, demands such a suit be dismissed out of hand without considering the possible merits.

It is also true that the federal lawsuit about the election in Wisconsin, though it could simply have been dismissed for that reason, was, for the sake of thoroughness and to refute any possible future claims of unfairness, actually considered on the merits (on an expedited basis) by Judge Brett Ludwig, who then found the complaints had failed in law and fact. I note that his Senate confirmation this year was on a 91-5 vote by the US Senate. This tells me that he was widely viewed as well qualified, and his nomination was uncontroversial. His conduct of the Wisconsin voting case amply confirmms this assessment.

The fact that the cases disputing election procedures were only brought after the outcome of the election was known, tells me all I need to know about their merits, or lack of merit.

[rogue]

My point is that there are three judges in Wisconsin that appear to be willing to change the outcome of elections. We haven't seen any other judges even consider this possibility. I do not know what they would have done if the other conservative on the court agreed with them.

I think that the dissenters want some of the election rules need to be changed to reduce the likelihood that people will view these contested votes as fraudulent in a future election.

[storm5510]

A little change of direction: I look for him [Trump] to slip out of the country in just about a month. He could disguise it as a trip to his golf resort in Florida in one of his private jets. Instead of landing in Florida, he could just keep on going south. To one of the Banana-Republic's perhaps. I suspect he has already moved most of his money to foreign banks.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by storm5510

I look for him [Trump] to slip out of the country in just about a month. He could disguise it as a trip to his golf resort in Florida in one of his private jets. Instead of landing in Florida, he could just keep on going south. To one of the Banana-Republic's perhaps.

LOL... An interesting theory on the end-game...

But please don't try that trick leveraging on Barbados. All legitimates welcome. All others, not so much...

We not only manage our COVID 19 responses well, but we also have sane transitions of power even during constitutional crisis (seriously; happened last cycle here).

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by chalsall

LOL... An interesting theory on the end-game...

But please don't try that trick leveraging on Barbados. All legitimates welcome. All others, not so much...

We not only manage our COVID 19 responses well, but we also have sane transitions of power even during constitutional crisis (seriously; happened last cycle here).

Actually, I had not considered Barbados because, the last I knew, several of the "Hurricane Hunter" planes from the U.S.are stationed there during hurricane season. An excellent example of cooperation for providing information to everyone who may find themselves in harm's way.

My theory on Trumpfus' plan is just that, an idea. It is a forgone conclusion he will be nowhere to be seen on January 20. The FAA could ground all his private jets at the behest of the DoJ at 12:01 PM EST that day. By then, he could already be long gone.

Bottom line: I do not think he will be sticking around anywhere near January 20.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by storm5510

<snip>
My theory on Trumpfus' plan is just that, an idea. It is a forgone conclusion he will be nowhere to be seen on January 20. The FAA could ground all his private jets at the behest of the DoJ at 12:01 PM EST that day. By then, he could already be long gone.

Bottom line: I do not think he will be sticking around anywhere near January 20.

The rumor has been mongered, that some time before Inauguration Day, the Great Leaver will take Marine One to wherever his plane is waiting, and fly to Mar-a-Lago. There he will stay until Inauguration Day, when he will hold some big shindig in order to draw attention away from the inauguration of the man who beat him in the election, possibly announcing he will run again in 2024.

There is another sort of "end game" WRT the 2020 election. Team Orange hasn't given up yet. As theorized here, they went through the charade of picking their own pet "electors" for a reason. They hope to invoke 3 U.S. Code § 2,

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

They are going with the idea that State Legislatures can, after the fact, any time up to January 6, simply ignore the results of an election run according to the laws in effect at the time, and without any basis in fact or law, arbitrarily declare the election was too ridden with fraud (or suspected to have been) to be trusted by the public, and therefore "failed to make a choice," and then equally arbitrarily substitute the electors chosen in the phony ceremony on December 14. Would the courts intervene? Unknown. Would all hell break loose? Almost certainly. And that seems to be what they're aiming for.

BTW, I have now read Judge Ludwig's Decision and Order in the last Wisconsin federal election suit. As pointed out in the National Review, something remarkable happened. Lawyers for both sides agreed on a "stipulated set of facts," and then argued the case on the legalities starting from those agreed-upon facts. That almost never happens. And all Team Orange was claiming was that the procedures followed in the 2020 election in Wisconsin departed greatly from state law. But their claims were nonsense. For example, the guidance to local election officials that they could correct witness addresses missing some (but not all) information had been in effect in the 2016 election, and nobody complained then. More substantively, the Election Commission's authority to issue such guidelines was given by Wisconsin state law. Judge Ludwig concluded:

Plaintiff’s Electors Clause claims fail as a matter of law and fact. The record establishes that Wisconsin’s selection of its 2020 Presidential Electors was conducted in the very manner established by the Wisconsin Legislature, “[b]y general ballot at the general election.” Wis. Stat. §8.25(1). Plaintiff’s complaints about defendants’ administration of the election go to the implementation of the Wisconsin Legislature’s chosen manner of appointing Presidential Electors, not to the manner itself. Moreover, even if “Manner” were stretched to include plaintiff’s implementation objections, plaintiff has not shown a significant departure from the Wisconsin Legislature’s chosen election scheme.

This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff “asks that the Rule of Law be followed.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been.

Andrew C. McCarthy concludes his National Review piece,

It has become an article of faith among ardent Trump followers that the election was stolen. The president continues to insist that this is the case, and these flames were further fanned by 19 Republican-controlled state governments, along with 126 Republican members of Congress, who joined the meritless Texas lawsuit, tossed out by the Supreme Court on Friday. The rationalization behind that stunt was that the president has been denied his day in court. But every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds. Why is that?

[Nick]

The Dutch public prosecutor has decided not to proceed against the Dutch hacker
who allegedly gained access to President Trump's twitter account in October.
They consider that he kept to the rules of responsible disclosure.
Press release (Dutch only): https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/202...niet-strafbaar