U.S Election 2020

Originally Posted by Damien

Which they could only do in the unlikely event one of these cases manages to even reach them and, if it does, even a partisan court will only break for Trump in a tight decision. The Justices of either side wouldn't want to completely undermine the court for Trump by overturning a result - in multiple states - without very good reason to do so.

Guess which two now Supreme Court Justices that were on President George W. Bush's legal team during the Al Gore fight in 2000?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barratt.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: Current Senator Majority leader, Mitch McConnell has thrown his support behind President Trump, declining to recognise Joe Biden's victory. U.S Attorney General, Bill Barr was seen entering and leaving his office, ignoring media reporters questions.

They are quite entitled to do that, go to court and produce the evidence if it exists.

So far we have (not all but a couple) of accusations of "tremendous corruption and fraud” being perpetrated by Democratic officials in Georgia which has a Republican governor, Republican legislature and Republican officials who oversee voting.

Republican attorneys general across the US filing a joint brief to the US Supreme Court contesting vote counts in Pennsylvania.

The officials argue that the state's court "overstepped" when it allowed ballots post-marked by 3 November but received after the date to be counted. When Pennsylvania's mail voting law was approved last year by the state's Republican-majority legislature.

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, the states also have their own supreme courts. That’s not my point - which is simply that it makes no difference who accepts the results or whether Trump concedes. His presidency will end regardless, as a matter of constitutional process.

Trump’s failure to make a concession speech will simply be consistent with the sort of graceless behaviour he is now well known for.

But it is totally graceless, the Democrats entering an election they intend to cheat in, with dead people voting, and I have seen today that somebody's dog was given voter registration and had apparently voted in this election.

It is a legal process to contest dodgy dealings and the Democrats do have form Chris, especially when the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier.

Originally Posted by Mick

Guess which two now Supreme Court Justices that were on President George W. Bush's legal team during the Al Gore fight in 2000?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barratt.

And that might help them in a close decision but these two justices are lifetime appointments now and I don't see them doing anything too outlandish.

The only way I see Trump overturning the election is via evidence of a wide-ranging and coordinated fraud at a federal level.

At the moment it seems like a pick and mix attempt to find problems with ballots in some of these close states to overturn enough until Trump can hit 270. He'll find problems, there always are, but coordinated fraud involving tens of thousands of ballots in multiple states is a harder task.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

And that might help them in a close decision but these two justices are lifetime appointments now and I don't see them doing anything too outlandish.

The only way I see Trump overturning the election is via evidence of a wide-ranging and coordinated fraud at a federal level.

At the moment it seems like a pick and mix attempt to find problems with ballots in some of these close states to overturn enough until Trump can hit 270. He'll find problems, there always are, but coordinated fraud involving tens of thousands of ballots in multiple states is a harder task.

No, "wide-spread fraud" is a red herring, it is not done that way because it is pointless in a electoral college system. You need only discount enough votes to swing battleground states. The fraud need only be from certain officials or even just ground level workers.

Originally Posted by Mick

Guess which two now Supreme Court Justices that were on President George W. Bush's legal team during the Al Gore fight in 2000?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barratt.

Even senior British judges have political friends and former political activities in their pasts. The nature of the British media and our view of the judiciary is such that these considerations don’t really get an airing.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the significance of an individual US Supreme Court judge’s political sympathies. Whether they err to the conservative or the liberal/progressive side will come out in the way they interpret legal questions against the constitution. It doesn’t mean they’re going to make nakedly political judgments that result in overturning the prospective presidency of a man who secured five million more votes than his opponent. Yes, these people are conservative leaning, but they take the job because they believe in the stability of the USA’s constitutional democracy and they are well aware of the long-term damage they would cause by interfering in elections.

For them to set aside enough votes to materially affect the outcome will require far more than being friends with a former republican president. It will require massive evidence of systematic ballot rigging, of the sort that simply did not happen.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

But it is totally graceless, the Democrats entering an election they intend to cheat in, with dead people voting, and I have seen today that somebody's dog was given voter registration and had apparently voted in this election.

It is a legal process to contest dodgy dealings and the Democrats do have form Chris, especially when the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier.

Mick, you are stating as fact nothing that has as yet been proven, if it does subsequently have the evidence rather than an allegation put forward then and only then can the result be called into question. It's like the dead voting if it did happen then it is up to Trump and his team to present the evidence at court.

I await with baited breath.

BTW nice to see you providing links to these accusations.

Anyway, we'll see. I don't care too much about the court cases because they'll work themselves out eventually either way.

There are more pressing questions though such as does Trump allow his White House to work with the transition team? At the moment that seems an open question. https://apnews.com/article/election-...747fde8e01319c

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

No, "wide-spread fraud" is a red herring, it is not done that way because it is pointless in a electoral college system. You need only discount enough votes to swing battleground states. The fraud need only be from certain officials or even just ground level workers.

Has there ever been tens of thousands of ballots thrown out in US History? That would have to happen in multiple states and then the Democrats will be finding reasons to reject Republican votes too.

These cases would eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

Remember Flordia was less than 2,000 votes and look at the mess there. 10,000+ votes in multiple states. Don't see it.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Mick, you are stating as fact nothing that has as yet been proven, if it does subsequently have the evidence rather than an allegation put forward then and only then can the result be called into question. It's like the dead voting if it did happen then it is up to Trump and his team to present the evidence at court.

I await with baited breath.

BTW nice to see you providing links to these accusations.

With that attitude you can go find them yourself.

---------- Post added 10-11-2020 at 00:19 ---------- Previous post was 09-11-2020 at 22:45 ----------

BREAKING: U.S Attorney General William Barr authorizes federal prosecutors to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities in the 2020 U.S Elections.

[jfman]

If such allegations of substance exist.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

If such allegations of substance exist.

Indeed. The court's decision-making will make for cringe-worthy TV viewing. it will be like watching a box set of The Office.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

With that attitude you can go find them yourself.

---------- Post added 10-11-2020 at 00:19 ---------- Previous post was 09-11-2020 at 22:45 ----------

BREAKING: U.S Attorney General William Barr authorizes federal prosecutors to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities in the 2020 U.S Elections.

I don't see the point in chasing fairy tales.

BTW you missed a bit from your breaking news.

Attorney General William Barr has authorized federal prosecutors across the U.S. to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities, if they exist, before the 2020 presidential election is certified, despite little evidence of fraud.

Link

This also is good news for not delaying certification:

He said any allegations that would “clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election” should be delayed until after those elections are certified and prosecutors should likely open so-called preliminary inquiries, which would allow investigators and prosecutors to see if there is evidence that would allow them to take further investigative measures.

Means some of this smaller stuff can't be used to delay the process.

[Mr K]

This maybe intended as showmanship to rally his base for the next election, but its going to end up causing him more damage. Putting personal pride before your country won't end well. It's already alienating mainstream Republucans.

Anyway in 4 years time he'll be too old and surely have dementia. There are signs he isn't being too rational already, don't know if anyone's noticed ?

[Pierre]

I don’t doubt that there was many fraudulent ballots, it happens here too.

But I don’t think they’ll be able to evidence that it was on a scale to overturn or nullify the election.