2020 Political Chatter

[Corso]

Maybe if you told us what you stand for - your views on policy issues, etc. - we could have a conversation.

I've been here for years gang, I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs.

Wishing you all a great Holiday Season, and I truly hope the new administration does well for our country,

[BBB]

What does "accused of without recourse" mean? Did you meant to say "accused without evidence", or did you meant to say you have no one to whom plead your case.



I'll list each one of these separately and address how I (would approach it if I were the owner of a forum); note, that this is not me leveling criticism at the mods here.

1). Solid critical points. Those stay.
2). 4th grade "humor". Those go. I recall someone making the implication that the first lady (however liable she is to valid criticism) is a pet/dog. That's uncalled for, when there are so many other valid criticisms of her.
3). Anti-Trump links from the Onion and late night comedians. If those links don't fall into category 2) above, they stay. The best politics-based comedy routines are those that expose hypocrisy, cake-ism, etc. They elicit a laughter in the way of, well this is truly messed up, but at least we can still have a laugh at it. I'll further note that when someone links to the Onion, people (at least people here) know it's satire and not to be taken seriously.

Re your 2...that was me and I did respond at the time that it was a satirical view. An older wealthier man marrying a younger attractive woman is pitiful on both sides, more so in this case when the man has had an affair months after their child was born exposed in the teeth of an election campaign and the pay-off to try and keep it quiet has subjected people to legal jeopardy.

[BBB]

Originally I was in, as in "anyone but Hillary". I've adjusted my opinion, and a believe a few of you who actually read what I post (vs transposing your hatred) know that.

Biden won. And Biden (like President Obama) will be gently treated by the press. No one in the White House press corp will attack him. It will be the polar opposite as it is now.

And we'll all live happily ever after.

Yes you have adjusted your views, as I recall following an attack by Trump on Colin Powell.

However, being concerned at the attitude of some of the press to Trump seems to be a bit of a red herring (imo). Do you honestly believe it is undeserved? Pre-election 2016...the attacks, name-calling, pussy grabbing, affair and pay-off and then of course the Russian entanglement. Yes people have had affairs before and politics is full of rough and tumble, but your circle courting the Russians because it might prove to be politically advantageous? The Russian business of course continued through out Trump's time in office resulting in multiple convictions (again, not normal) and a number of instances of obstruction of justice. The name-calling et al continued through out. Then into 2019 the Ukraine mess came to the surface. Biden was going to run for President, so Trump and his team decided to subvert foreign policy to require an investigation into a political opponent by a foreign country (again, not normal). This resulted in an impeachment. Finally, 2020 saw a global pandemic. This was labelled as a hoax by dear leader. Maybe this set the tone, but almost 300,000 people are dead, which is damning for a sophisticated western nation. There are many other things as well; Trump's shady business record, the number of legal actions he or his companies have been involved in, real or perceived racism, use of Trump properties throughout office, hiring and firing on the basis of a loyalty to Trump as opposed to country or constitution and finally, the extended tantrum because he lost an election. Is it any wonder the press had a field day???

Biden or Obama were far from perfect, but Trump's actions were called out by the press and rightfully so. IMO of course.

[classtimesailer]

Which news sources would be considered BS left leaning? I'm honestly asking. It's hard to argue there's bias in media. Always has been, always will be. I know where the WSJ, WaPo, NYT, Politico, The Atlantic, BBC and the other big ones stand. But none of those are bullshit left or right leaning, though most of them sometimes run editorials that we could all do without. But which news sources that get shared are BS?

None of the named, big ones are BS. They own the news. They all say the same thing, hence, it cannot be BS. They dominate and create the news while they ignore/extinguish/denigrate/dismiss the conspiracy theories and leave me sounding like a mad man. (I ordered brakes plus bits and pieces for a 650b wheel set for my son's 89 Ironman.)

[ides1056]

Heather Cox Richardson
December 11 at 2:40 AM ·
December 10, 2020 (Thursday)
Today more than half of the Republicans in the House of Representatives signed onto Texas’s lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 election and install Trump, rather than the legitimately elected Joe Biden, into the White House.
Democrat Biden won the election by more than 7 million votes and by 306 to 232 electoral votes. Trump has lost 55 of the 56 court cases he has brought to change the election’s outcome, and all 50 states have certified their election results. This election is not close; attempts to overturn it reject the central concept of democracy: that voters choose their leaders.
The story is this: Texas’s Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the Supreme Court to hear an original case between the states—which it can do, but it’s rare—arguing that Texas was harmed by voting procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Essentially, Paxton is arguing that mail-in voting in those states, which Democrats used more extensively than Republicans did after Trump insisted it was insecure, stepped on Texans’ rights. This will be a hard sell.
If the Supreme Court does say Texas can sue, Paxton is hoping that 5 justices will then decide to toss out the electoral votes—but not the votes in the downballot races-- from those states. This would take away Biden’s victory in the Electoral College, handing the election to Trump.
After Texas filed the lawsuit, Trump filed a request to join it.
This is a crazy lawsuit. As Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) said: “It’s just simply madness…. The idea of supplanting the vote of the people with partisan legislators is so completely out of our national character that it’s simply mad…. [T]his effort to subvert the vote of the people is dangerous and destructive of the cause of democracy.” University of Texas Law School Professor Steve Vladeck was more succinct: “In a nutshell the President is asking the Supreme Court to exercise its rarest form of jurisdiction to effectively overturn the entire presidential election.”
It is possible—likely, even—that Paxton is advancing this nonsense because he has been under indictment since 2015 for securities fraud, is now under investigation by the FBI for bribery and abuse of office, and is hoping to impress Trump enough to get a presidential pardon. Just today, the FBI issued at least one subpoena for records from Paxton’s office. Knowing that this lawsuit has virtually no chance of winning, he could file it and win points with Trump while also knowing it would go nowhere.
But this moment has grown far beyond Paxton’s lawsuit into a fight over the future of the Republican Party and, ultimately, over the future of democracy.
States have squared off on both sides of Paxton’s lawsuit. Last night, seventeen other states supported the suit to hand the election to Trump, including Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. Later, Arizona joined them.
Today, the four states named in the suit made it clear they are standing up for democracy. Pennsylvania’s brief notes that Trump has “flooded” the courts “with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election.” Adding to “the cacophony of bogus claims,” Texas is trying to throw out four state elections because it doesn’t like their results. Its demand “is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.” The brief warns, “Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”
“[T]his case is not ordinary,” the Wisconsin brief says. “Texas is asking this Court to overturn the will of the people of Wisconsin—and the nation—based on meritless accusations of election fraud. If this Court agrees to do so, it will not only irreparably harm its own legitimacy, but will lend fuel to a disinformation campaign aimed at undermining the legitimacy of our democracy.”
Twenty-three Democratic-led states and territories, along with the Republican Attorney General of Ohio, Dave Yost, today signed a brief supporting the four states Texas is attacking. The District of Columbia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington all backed the states whose votes Texas is trying to throw out.
But six states—Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah—joined Texas’s lawsuit today. Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly filed a brief supporting Texas and Trump, signing on to the idea of taking the vote away from their own people.
Then the 106 Republican members of Congress jumped aboard the lawsuit, signing a brief in support of it. Trump worked the phones and enlisted Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA) head of the Republican Study Committee, the party caucus of social conservatives in the House, to hold members’ feet to the fire. Johnson sent around an email saying that Trump had “specifically asked me to contact all Republican Members of the House and Senate today and request that all join on to our brief.” Johnson noted that Trump “will be anxiously awaiting the final list to review,” in order to see who was on his team and who was not. Only ninety House Republicans refused to sign.
What on earth is going on?
First: Trump is throwing at the wall anything he can in hopes of staying in office. The more chaos it creates, the happier he is. The lawsuit crisis has, for example, muted the story that at least 2,923 Americans died today of Covid-19, and 223,570 cases were reported, a 28% increase in the weekly average of cases since two weeks ago.
It has also diverted attention from the fact that there is no deal, and no real sign of a deal, on a coronavirus relief bill. A bipartisan group of senators has managed to hammer out a $908 billion deal but Republicans refuse to allow its $160 billion for aid to state and local governments and Democrats refuse to agree to shield businesses from liability for coronavirus injuries. The bipartisan group tried to put the two things together, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that’s a non-starter. Meanwhile, 26 million Americans say they don’t have enough to eat.
Second: There is a war underway for control of the Republican Party. While a losing incumbent president usually loses influence in the party, Trump intends to continue to call the shots. He wants to run again in 2024, or at least to anoint a successor, rather than letting the Republican National Committee pick a presidential candidate. There is a struggle going on to control the RNC and, as well, to figure out who gets control of the lists of supporters Trump has compiled. Trump also controls a lot of the party’s money, since he has been out front as its fundraiser without a break since he decided to run for office. He was the first president ever to file for reelection on the day of his inauguration, permitting him to hold “rallies” and to raise money throughout his presidency.
So Republican lawmakers are willing to swear loyalty to him, either because they want to attract his voters in future elections, or because they want access to the cash he can raise, or both. They no longer defend traditional policy positions; they defend Trump.
This loyalty requires contortions. In Georgia, the Republican Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr called the Texas lawsuit “constitutionally, legally and factually wrong.” But Georgia’s two senators, Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, have backed it. The senators are facing a runoff election in January against Democrat challengers Jon Ossoff and the Reverend Raphael Warnock, and they need Trump’s support. So they are taking a stand against their own voters. So are nearly half of Georgia’s Republican congressional delegation, despite the fact that this position logically would overturn their own elections.
Third: Texas’s lawsuit and the Republican Party’s embrace of it is an unprecedented attempt to destroy the very foundation of our democracy. Since the 1980s, Republican leaders have managed to hold onto power by suppressing votes, promoting propaganda, gerrymandering states, gaming the Electoral College, and stacking the courts.
Now, so unpopular that even gaming the mechanics of our system is not enough, they have abandoned democracy itself.

[Matthew Strongin]

None of the named, big ones are BS. They own the news. They all say the same thing, hence, it cannot be BS. They dominate and create the news while they ignore/extinguish/denigrate/dismiss the conspiracy theories and leave me sounding like a mad man. (I ordered brakes plus bits and pieces for a 650b wheel set for my son's 89 Ironman.)

Did I misunderstand or is your assertion that the larger media outlets are essentially colluding to only cover stories that align to their agenda while the real news gets suppressed?

[vertical_doug]

I will post this from the National Review which is still conservative. The article highlights the 'facts' that Trump, his legal team, and supporters may tout in the media, have nothing to do with the factual matters they are trying to argue.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...of-team-trump/
NATIONAL REVIEW
The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court’s rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that’s been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court’s workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

"With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court."

A “stipulated set of facts,” in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp’s common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, too.
Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking. Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: “The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!” The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would “show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried” (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we’ve been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.

So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”


The legal arguments were not much more weighty than the vacant factual presentation.

The Trump team started out as audaciously on claimed constitutional violations as it had been on public allegations of fraud. It claimed Wisconsin officials had run roughshod over the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment — the array of allegations they’ve made in other battleground states as well. When it became clear, however, that the court was willing to entertain the president’s case but would scrutinize it closely, the Trump team quickly dropped the First Amendment and Due Process claims. In addition, as Ludwig recounts, the president’s counsel “offer[ed] no clue of a coherent Equal Protection theory,” and “offered neither evidence nor argument to support such a claim.”

So the challenge boiled down to this: Wisconsin had allegedly flouted the Electors Clause, which empowers states legislatures to prescribe the manner of conducting elections, by allowing bureaucrats to change election law under the guise of applying it. The state was said to have done this in three ways. First, it allowed election boards to correct errors and omissions in regard to the addresses provided by witnesses vouching for absentee ballots. Second, as the pandemic tightened its grip, election officials issued guidance informing voters in the elderly and “at-risk” health categories — not all voters — that they might qualify for absentee voting under the state’s “indefinite confinement” exemption. Third, they authorized drop boxes for the submission of ballots.


Ludwig rejected these claims on the merits. As a general matter, he explained that the Constitution gives each state legislature power to prescribe the manner of conducting an election; he concluded that the Trump team was confounding this with the means by which this prescribed manner is carried out.

In Wisconsin (as across the country), the manner of conducting the election is by popular vote, which was done. The means of conducting the popular election has some variations from county to county, but that inevitability has never been of constitutional significance. Even if it were, Wisconsin’s election bureaucracy was created by the state legislature precisely to administer elections and provide procedural guidance for conducting them. Ergo, the fact that the election commission may go beyond the letter of statutes does not mean it is violating state law; it is carrying out the mission state law created it to accomplish: complementing (not contradicting) baseline statutory requirements with administrative procedures.

As for the three specific complaints:

Ludwig noted that the practice of allowing election officials to use available information to correct faulty witness-address information began in 2016. That was when Trump won the state by close to the 20,000-vote margin he lost it by this time; and back then, just as this time around, he made no objection to address-correction. The court found the guidance, which apparently affected “at least some absentee ballots,” to be consistent with state law, which disqualifies ballots if the entire address is missing, but does not prohibit correcting flawed addresses.
The application of the “indefinite confinement” exemption, which was used by 240,000 of the 3.3 million voters, was in harmony with both state law permitting the election commission to issue guidance and with a ruling by Wisconsin’s state supreme court.
In employing 500 drop boxes, the commission relied on guidance from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security.
In connection with each of these claims, Ludwig observed that the doctrine of laches (sitting on one’s rights too long) could have been applied because the campaign easily could have raised and litigated them pre-election. Nevertheless, the court found there was no need to resort to laches because the Trump complaints, at most, involved “disputed issues of statutory construction” that did not involve “any significant departure from the legislative scheme” for conducting elections.

The lack of a significant claim was especially noteworthy because the campaign’s claims for relief were, Ludwig said, “extraordinary” (emphasis in original). The Trump team was asking the court to declare that 50,000 ballots were “likely” tainted (a comedown from the 100,000 counsel touted in public statements). More eye-poppingly, the campaign was asking the court to invalidate the popular vote (i.e., disenfranchise 3.3 million voters) and remand the case to the state legislature (GOP-controlled) to appoint electors (i.e., to seat the Trump rather than Biden slate to cast the state’s 10 electoral votes) — even though state officials had already certified Biden’s victory in the manner prescribed by state law.

As has been the case since Election Day, the mismatch between the improprieties alleged and the remedy sought was vast, wholly apart from the court’s rejection of the allegations.

Nor can it be ignored that this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court. In Pennsylvania, just days before the date a federal judge had set aside for a hearing on the Trump campaign’s complaint, the campaign dropped its fraud charges and agreed that no hearing would be necessary. In Michigan, the campaign dropped its lawsuit after a federal judge threatened to dismiss it for failure to prosecute — nearly a week after filing the case with great fanfare, the campaign had still not served its complaint on the secretary of state.

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?


So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”
Motivates Voters



Election officials process absentee ballots at a central count facility on Election Day in Kenosha, Wis., November 3, 2020. (Daniel Acker/Reuters)
What a Wisconsin federal court’s order turning back another campaign lawsuit tells us about the election-rigging case.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court’s rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that’s been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court’s workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court.

A “stipulated set of facts,” in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp’s common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, too.

Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking. Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: “The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!” The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would “show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried” (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we’ve been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.


So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”



The Trump team started out as audaciously on claimed constitutional violations as it had been on public allegations of fraud. It claimed Wisconsin officials had run roughshod over the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment — the array of allegations they’ve made in other battleground states as well. When it became clear, however, that the court was willing to entertain the president’s case but would scrutinize it closely, the Trump team quickly dropped the First Amendment and Due Process claims. In addition, as Ludwig recounts, the president’s counsel “offer[ed] no clue of a coherent Equal Protection theory,” and “offered neither evidence nor argument to support such a claim.”

So the challenge boiled down to this: Wisconsin had allegedly flouted the Electors Clause, which empowers states legislatures to prescribe the manner of conducting elections, by allowing bureaucrats to change election law under the guise of applying it. The state was said to have done this in three ways. First, it allowed election boards to correct errors and omissions in regard to the addresses provided by witnesses vouching for absentee ballots. Second, as the pandemic tightened its grip, election officials issued guidance informing voters in the elderly and “at-risk” health categories — not all voters — that they might qualify for absentee voting under the state’s “indefinite confinement” exemption. Third, they authorized drop boxes for the submission of ballots.


The most telling aspect of the Wisconsin federal district court’s rejection of another Trump campaign lawsuit on Saturday is so obvious it is easy to miss. And no, it is not that the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge, Brett H. Ludwig, or that it was done on the merits.

After all that’s been said over the last six weeks, this fleeting passage near the start of the court’s workmanlike, 23-page decision and order should take our breath away (my highlighting):

With the Electoral College meeting just days away, the Court declined to address the issues in piecemeal fashion and instead provided plaintiff with an expedited hearing on the merits of his claims. On the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts and then presented arguments to the Court.

A “stipulated set of facts,” in this context, is an agreement between the lawyers for the adversary parties about what testimony witnesses would give, and/or what facts would be established, if the parties went through the process of calling witnesses and offering tangible evidence at a hearing or trial.

In a real controversy, in which one or both of the parties are making hotly disputed factual claims, there are few if any stipulations. For example, a defendant who vehemently denies that he committed stock fraud may be willing to stipulate that 20,000 shares of XYZ Corp’s common stock were sold on December 14; but other than that, the defendant will demand that the adversary call the fact witnesses who claim he defrauded them so he can cross-examine. He will call his own witnesses to show what really happened, and they will be aggressively questioned, to

Publicly, the Trump campaign has been claiming there was extensive vote fraud and law-breaking. Specifically with respect to Wisconsin, President Trump tweeted on November 28: “The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally . . . We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!” The campaign further maintained that the recount it demanded would “show somewhere around 100,000 illegal ballots in the two counties that Biden carried” (i.e., Milwaukee and Dane).

This is in addition to the innumerable times the president and his surrogates have asserted that they were being systematically prevented from proving massive fraud and illegality. The courts and state officials, we’ve been told, have invoked legal technicalities, such as the supposed lack of standing to sue, in order to stop the campaign from calling witnesses and introducing voluminous documentary evidence.



Ludwig rejected these claims on the merits. As a general matter, he explained that the Constitution gives each state legislature power to prescribe the manner of conducting an election; he concluded that the Trump team was confounding this with the means by which this prescribed manner is carried out.

In Wisconsin (as across the country), the manner of conducting the election is by popular vote, which was done. The means of conducting the popular election has some variations from county to county, but that inevitability has never been of constitutional significance. Even if it were, Wisconsin’s election bureaucracy was created by the state legislature precisely to administer elections and provide procedural guidance for conducting them. Ergo, the fact that the election commission may go beyond the letter of statutes does not mean it is violating state law; it is carrying out the mission state law created it to accomplish: complementing (not contradicting) baseline statutory requirements with administrative procedures.

As for the three specific complaints:

Ludwig noted that the practice of allowing election officials to use available information to correct faulty witness-address information began in 2016. That was when Trump won the state by close to the 20,000-vote margin he lost it by this time; and back then, just as this time around, he made no objection to address-correction. The court found the guidance, which apparently affected “at least some absentee ballots,” to be consistent with state law, which disqualifies ballots if the entire address is missing, but does not prohibit correcting flawed addresses.
The application of the “indefinite confinement” exemption, which was used by 240,000 of the 3.3 million voters, was in harmony with both state law permitting the election commission to issue guidance and with a ruling by Wisconsin’s state supreme court.
In employing 500 drop boxes, the commission relied on guidance from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security.
In connection with each of these claims, Ludwig observed that the doctrine of laches (sitting on one’s rights too long) could have been applied because the campaign easily could have raised and litigated them pre-election. Nevertheless, the court found there was no need to resort to laches because the Trump complaints, at most, involved “disputed issues of statutory construction” that did not involve “any significant departure from the legislative scheme” for conducting elections.

The lack of a significant claim was especially noteworthy because the campaign’s claims for relief were, Ludwig said, “extraordinary” (emphasis in original). The Trump team was asking the court to declare that 50,000 ballots were “likely” tainted (a comedown from the 100,000 counsel touted in public statements). More eye-poppingly, the campaign was asking the court to invalidate the popular vote (i.e., disenfranchise 3.3 million voters) and remand the case to the state legislature (GOP-controlled) to appoint electors (i.e., to seat the Trump rather than Biden slate to cast the state’s 10 electoral votes) — even though state officials had already certified Biden’s victory in the manner prescribed by state law.

As has been the case since Election Day, the mismatch between the improprieties alleged and the remedy sought was vast, wholly apart from the court’s rejection of the allegations.

Nor can it be ignored that this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court. In Pennsylvania, just days before the date a federal judge had set aside for a hearing on the Trump campaign’s complaint, the campaign dropped its fraud charges and agreed that no hearing would be necessary. In Michigan, the campaign dropped its lawsuit after a federal judge threatened to dismiss it for failure to prosecute — nearly a week after filing the case with great fanfare, the campaign had still not served its complaint on the secretary of state.

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?

[classtimesailer]

Did I misunderstand or is your assertion that the larger media outlets are essentially colluding to only cover stories that align to their agenda while the real news gets suppressed?

That's crazy talk.
Growing up, I read a bunch of Herman/Chomsky. In the 80s, I observed it in real time. Collusion and suppression aren't necessary or desired as those tactics are like a big f'ing hammer that likely leave a mark. Sometimes, the hammer is swung but over time the marks are just patina. Who really cares if global warming is rarely mentioned and in its place is the nebulous climate change.

[mzilliox]

Double dog dare you to begin constructive narratives about conservative politics which is not centered on what about XYZ.

This is not a criticism, only a suggestion for engaged conversations.

conservative politics? how about biden?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2fda0efb877fa6

[sine]

Such a thing does not exist. There is only the position of reactivity. Conservative (aka., regressive) politics are simple to explain: they are anti-living wage, anti-human rights, anti-dignity, anti-voting, anti-liberty, anti-clean air, anti-clean water, anti-health care, anti-freedom....ad nauseum. Effectively anti- anything that seeks to lift up all citizens regardless of race, gender, religion, or economic station. They don't think their life can be improved and simply want vengeance for grievances they've been told exist. And they are literally willing to die to support a system that keeps them insecure and ensures their lot in life will continue to degrade as time goes by to the benefit of the grifter class.

Change my mind.

Wow.

[mzilliox]

I've been here for years gang, I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs.

Wishing you all a great Holiday Season, and I truly hope the new administration does well for our country,

A usual. Happy holidays. You can celebrate knowing this admin would have to really makes attempts to be worse than the last... i mean look at the appointed help already, adults in service to the country instead of grifters and cheating business men. people with experience and expertise instead of gut calls and cronies. plus no more Guiliani. the last monster in the closet is mcconnel, hes the guy we are all mad at, the one who screws the country over time and again.

[theflashunc]

The GOP can no longer credibly be relied upon to defend and support the institutions of democracy in this country.

My concern isn't the next month, it's four, eight, 12 years down the line when someone far more savvy than Trump is seeking to overturn an election, and can actually rally party machinery to his or her cause in a credible way. This proto fascism isn't leaving us anytime soon.

[ides1056]

The GOP is not interested in governing.

They want to rule.

[vertical_doug]

As Trump declares his candidacy for 2024, the GOP will continue to serve his purposes in Congress not wanting to anger the mad king.
Buckle up for the post-presidency lunacy

[gregl]

As Trump declares his candidacy for 2024, the GOP will continue to serve his purposes in Congress not wanting to anger the mad king.
Buckle up for the post-presidency lunacy

One can hope that Trump falls into irrelevancy much like Joseph McCarthy did after he was censured by the Senate in 1954. Trump was essentially censured by the voting public. Unfortunately, I don't see today's Republican leadership having the strength of character to ignore Trump.

Greg

[BBB]

I still struggle to see what Trump gets out of wanting to carry on. He has lost the popular vote in two elections by a combined 10m votes. His administration has had one problem (probably a kind descriptor) after another, usually with him in the thick of things. He has hated the press reporting on these problems. He seemingly does not have a lot of interest in rolling up his sleeves and doing the hard yards that the job demands. Even if he does carry on, he faces legal problems in NY. Why bother?

[gregl]

I still struggle to see what Trump gets out of wanting to carry on. He has lost the popular vote in two elections by a combined 10m votes. His administration has had one problem (probably a kind descriptor) after another, usually with him in the thick of things. He has hated the press reporting on these problems. He seemingly does not have a lot of interest in rolling up his sleeves and doing the hard yards that the job demands. Even if he does carry on, he faces legal problems in NY. Why bother?

You’re trying to apply logic to someone with a significant personality disorder. Logic doesn’t apply. I’ve dealt with this with a family member for years. I can assure you that Trump won’t have an epiphany and give up his quest for affirmation and power.

Greg

[vertical_doug]

He loves to be the center of attention plus he has been able to raise money like crazy with this election fraud gambit. He loves money.
I expect him to be commenting all the time on twitter on how bad Biden is and how much better he was as president.

I am afraid now that Barr has resigned we get someone totally unqualified in the acting AG spot to do 37 days of dirty work.

[AngryScientist]

i donno. my bet/hope is this presidency has taken a major toll on him, and the crushing loss this year, despite his clawing for any glimmer of hope failed added to that. i dont think his overall health and mental state will support another run at the big office in 4 years.


better yet, maybe he'll be in jail!

[BBB]

You’re trying to apply logic to someone with a significant personality disorder. Logic doesn’t apply. I’ve dealt with this with a family member for years. I can assure you that Trump won’t have an epiphany and give up his quest for affirmation and power.

Greg

I suppose I can only approach the issue logically and while I get what you are saying about Trump...what does that say about the 70m or so that voted for him?