Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Politics'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Buffalo Stampede
    • The Rick Serafin Buffalo Sports & Political Forum
    • The Meathead Technical Service Center

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

How long have you been a Buffalo fan?

Found 1,261 results

  1. — in county that doesn’t exist President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Sidney Powell has made another humiliating error in her legal filing. After misspelling “District Court” twice in her Georgia filing, it turns out Powell cited a source about a non-existent county in Michigan. “For example, in PA, President Trump’s lead of more than 700,000 county advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours, which does not occur in the real world without an external influence,” the legal filing said. “I conclude that manually feeding more than 400,000 mostly absentee ballots cannot be accomplished in a short time frame (i.e., 2-3 hours) without illegal vote count alteration. In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud.” First, Biden couldn’t have received more than 100 percent of the vote anywhere. But he really couldn’t have received more than 100 percent of the vote in Edison County, MI because there is no Edison County, MI. Second, there is an Edison Township in Middlesex, New Jersey. There is also a city named Edison in Georgia and a “historic hamlet” exists in Doylestown Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Maricopa County, Arizona has a large field called Edison Park. There are only 12 places in the world named Edison, and the closest one to Michigan is in Ohio. Given the rivalry between Michigan and Ohio, it would be a huge mistake to confuse the two. This isn’t the first time a Trump lawyer has confused Michigan with another state. “Celebrity” lawyer Lin Wood confused the state with Minnesota in a Georgia lawsuit. While Powell is filing these confused suits, she’s also begging for “millions of dollars” to defend “the republic” on her website.
  2. Trump’s Disgraceful Endgame President Trump said the other day that he’d leave office if he loses the vote of the Electoral College on December 14. This is not the kind of assurance presidents of the United States typically need to make, but it was noteworthy given Trump’s disgraceful conduct since losing his bid for reelection to Joe Biden on November 3. Behind in almost all the major polls, Trump stormed within a hair’s breadth in the key battlegrounds of winning reelection, and his unexpectedly robust performance helped put Republicans in a strong position for the post-Trump-presidency era. This is not nothing. But the president can’t stand to admit that he lost and so has insisted since the wee hours of Election Night that he really won — and won “by a lot.” There are legitimate issues to consider after the 2020 vote about the security of mail-in ballots and the process of counting votes (some jurisdictions, bizarrely, take weeks to complete their initial count), but make no mistake: The chief driver of the post-election contention of the past several weeks is the petulant refusal of one man to accept the verdict of the American people. The Trump team (and much of the GOP) is working backwards, desperately trying to find something, anything to support the president’s aggrieved feelings, rather than objectively considering the evidence and reacting as warranted. Almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged has withstood the slightest scrutiny. In particular, it’s hard to find much that is remotely true in the president’s Twitter feed these days. It is full of already-debunked claims and crackpot conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems. Over the weekend, he repeated the charge that 1.8 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out, yet 2.6 million were ultimately tallied. In a rather elementary error, this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned. Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States. Elected Republicans have generally taken the attitude that the president should be able to have his day in court. It’s his legal right to file suits, of course, but he shouldn’t pursue meritless litigation in Hail Mary attempts to get millions of votes tossed out. This is exactly what he’s been doing, it’s why reputable GOP lawyers have increasingly steered clear, and it’s why Trump has suffered defeat after defeat in court. In its signature federal suit in Pennsylvania, the Trump team argued that it violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution for some Pennsylvania counties to let absentee voters fix or “cure” their ballots if they contained an error while other counties didn’t. It maintained that it was another constitutional violation for Trump election observers not to be allowed in close proximity to the counting of ballots. On this basis, the Trump team sought to disqualify 1.5 million ballots and bar the certification of the Pennsylvania results or have the Pennsylvania General Assembly appoint presidential electors. By the time the suit reached the Third Circuit, it had been whittled down to a relatively minor procedural issue (whether the Trump complaint could be amended a second time in the district court). The Trump team lost on that question, and the unanimous panel of the Third Circuit (in an opinion written by a Trump appointee) made it clear that the other claims lacked merit as well. It noted that the suit contained no evidence that Trump and Biden ballots or observers were treated differently, let alone evidence of fraud. Within reason, it is permissible for counties to have different procedures for handling ballots, and nothing forced some counties to permit voters to cure flawed absentee ballots and others to decline to do so. Not that it mattered. The court pointed out that the suit challenged the procedures to fix absentee ballots in seven Democratic counties, which don’t even come close to having enough cured ballots to change the outcome in the state; the counties might have allowed, at most, 10,000 voters to fix their ballots, and even if every single one of them voted for Biden, that’s still far short of Biden’s 80,000-plus margin in the state. The idea, as the Trump team stalwartly maintains, that the Supreme Court is going to take up this case and issue a game-changing ruling is fantastical. Conservative judges have consistently rejected Trump’s flailing legal appeals, and the justices are unlikely to have a different reaction. Trump’s most reprehensible tactic has been to attempt, somewhat shamefacedly, to get local Republican officials to block the certification of votes and state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in clear violation of the public will. This has gone nowhere, thanks to the honesty and sense of duty of most of the Republicans involved, but it’s a profoundly undemocratic move that we hope no losing presidential candidate ever even thinks of again. Getting defeated in a national election is a blow to the ego of even the most thick-skinned politicians and inevitably engenders personal feelings of bitterness and anger. What America has long expected is that losing candidates swallow those feelings and at least pretend to be gracious. If Trump’s not capable of it, he should at least stop waging war on the outcome.
  3. Simple enough. Give us your best reasoning as to why or why there was not fraud that affected the election. I think the statistical analysis done in the article I'll link is about as conclusive as you can get that there's no way this was legitimate. https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/definitive-case-proves-donald-trump-won-election/ If Joe Biden taking the lead in Michigan and Wisconsin was the moment the dynamic of the Presidential race changed, this may be the moment the dynamic changes again. A thorough and damning new analysis just published calls the legitimacy of this critical period into question and shows just how completely ridiculous and far-fetched the core of Joe Biden’s comeback really was in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. It flags four individual vote dumps critical to Joe Biden’s “victory” in these states and shows, convincingly, that their ratios of Biden votes to Trump votes were profoundly anomalous when compared to other dumps in those states and virtually every other vote dump across the country. The report is written in dry and academic language, filled with graphs, footnotes, and various hedges, but its implications could not be more obvious. Indeed, if the authors were less tepid, they might have fairly titled it: Joe Biden’s Victory Was Not Legitimate. And Now We Can Prove it. Because that’s exactly what the report does. It looks at election data and shows what many would expect: the states and cities that had the most suspicious circumstances on election night and into the next day are precisely where the analysis flags extreme anomalies. Summary and Background of the Report It starts out with the background on Michigan and Wisconsin — the famous “vote spikes” that were plainly ridiculous and fundamentally changed both the electoral reality and the narrative. The report reminds us of the infamous vote spikes in Michigan and Wisconsin. Michigan Wisconsin: The report is based on an analysis of the difference between successive updates in each state, each of which it calls “vote updates.” In online discourse, these are often referred to as “vote dumps” or “vote batches.” It examines them across states and, controlling for how big a state is and how Democratic it is, does the following: Defines, mathematically, what a “vote spike” is Shows just how rare those are Shows how, during a five-hour period, four particularly extreme vote spikes arrived favoring Joe Biden Shows how crucial these were to Joe Biden’s election in MI, WI, and GA Most damningly, shows how Joe Biden likely would have lost these states — and the election — were these only more “spiky” than 99% of all vote dumps The report describes a measurement for showing the relationship between the number of votes Biden wins by (or loses by) in any given vote dump, and how well he did as a ratio of Trump’s votes in that vote dump, while controlling for size and political lean of a state. It thus normalizes the data across states, allowing for apples to apples comparisons. The key mathematical reason why these vote spikes are anomalous is that for every large vote dump heavily favoring Biden in any given area, you also would expect to have smaller vote dumps in the same area which favor him by similar margins. Quoting from the report: It goes on to describe how the same logic applies for the other updates as well. Large ballot dumps which heavily favor a candidate make sense, if there are also smaller ones which favor the candidate more. The “standardization” process used by the researchers here takes care of that, and shows how points up and to the right of the graph are the more “co-extreme” vote dumps, in the language of the report: That dotted black line at the top is the 99.5th percentile. In other words, only one out of every two-hundred points are above it. The four vote dumps in question are all at or above the 99.92th percentile. With these ratios, if they were at the 99th percentile only, they would each be dragged down to the middle of the three lines shown. Critically, they account for more than the margin of victory in all three states, and thus forty-two electoral votes, and with them, the Presidency. Making Sense of This The analysis is incredibly dense but contains several key points, which American Patriots must remember in the coming days and weeks. The most important points are: Four of the seven most extreme vote dumps decided the election for Joe Biden. This alone is bizarre and fundamentally cuts against his narrative of moderate increases in suburban and exurban areas. Moreover, the distribution is “heavy-tailed” and these vote dumps are vastly more “co-extreme” than even the points around the 99.5th percentile (the dotted black line in the graph above). These four vote dumps were quantifiably far more extreme than virtually every other vote dump, with only a few others as extreme in their aberration from the inverse pattern observed elsewhere. The odds of these three states (GA, WI, MI) being so well-represented at the top of the distribution is just over 1%. And when you factor in that a vote dump in GA is the 9th most extreme point, the odds that these three states have five of the top ten most extreme vote dumps drop to less than 1%. Clearly, there’s something different about these states than others, including other blue states, or even other Midwestern states where a deep-blue urban population offsets the red rest of the state (e.g. Illinois, Minnesota), or states like Colorado, Texas, or Oregon, where the urban areas are also vastly more Democratic than the rest of the state. These vote spikes all occurred in the same five-hour period. Wisconsin and Michigan both spent around eighteen hours counting votes, and the count took several days in Georgia. We have since learned that the “pipe burst” story in deep-blue Georgia was never in fact true. This five hour period remains a period of great controversy surrounding how the vote counting was “stopped.” Recently, we learned that the story of a “pipe bursting” in Georgia was in fact not true. Combine that with the results shown in this piece, and an obvious picture comes into view: In all three states, the count was “stopped” to give cover for electoral fraud on the scale of hundreds of thousands of votes which were released in the middle of the night, hoping few would notice. The burden of proof is now on Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Democratic party, and their various urban machine operatives to defend these results as legitimate. The on-the-ground circumstances in these states had been suspicious for weeks and warranted investigation in their own right. We now have the math to confirm our suspicions. This report, in winding sentences and hedged language, lays it bare for all of us to see: Joe Biden’s election “victory” relied on a fraudulent counting process in the dead of night. The media has no interest in covering this, and indeed are trying actively to suppress it. An attempt to Google search for “precincts that stopped the count” makes this clear. The steal of this election, perpetrated in the middle of the night in several states, was allowed to happen only because of the extraordinary assistance given to the Democrats by Big Media and Big Tech. Nonetheless, thanks to what appears to be an anonymous group of researchers, we can definitively state what we knew all along: President Donald J. Trump is the legitimate winner of this election. Republican state legislators in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia must refuse to seat electors for Joe Biden until a complete forensic audit has been conducted. Never give up. Never back down. And never concede.
  4. I'm hearing the rumor at least. Upstaging Senile Joe Biden on his "big day"??? LOL. That would be very cool. Thoughts?
  5. For me, the 2020 election was always about the environment. I felt that that was far and away the most important issue. In the past I've referred (lovingly of course) to Donald's fans as being part of a death cult. This is because the policies of crass, money-centric exploiters and rapists of the earth like Donald pose an existential threat to all life forms. The only exception I can think of is maybe cockroaches, who can survive anything and would, in all likelihood, at some point mutate into radioactive Godzilla-sized monstrosities, after which they would begin their million-year reign of terror as earth's dominate life form and no mistake. For Donald fans and non-Donald fans who prize money above all else and fuss over their 401-Ks and the health of their stock portfolios and their ability to buy the latest stuff they think they need in their lives even as the world burns, I don't understand you. You, or your priorities in life, don't make sense to me. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, after a long string of bad news related to the environment, here at last is some good news. With the election of Biden and the return to policies that are not designed to fast-track the destruction of the environment, the earth might just survive after all. Now, I don't know what Biden's exact policies on the environment will be --I already take it for granted that it could be much better -- but at least it's a start in the right direction. P.S.: For Donald's fans who enjoy seeing his image, you can skip straight down to the end of this article to see him now. . Climate Change: Temperature Analysis Shows UN Goals 'Within Reach' A new analysis, seen by the BBC, suggests the goals of the UN Paris climate agreement are getting "within reach." The Climate Action Tracker group looked at new climate promises from China and other nations, along with the carbon plans of US President-elect Joe Biden. These commitments would mean the rise in world temperatures could be held to 2.1C by the end of this century. Previous estimates indicated up to 3C of heating, with disastrous impacts. But the experts are worried the long-term optimism is not matched by short-term plans to cut CO2. For more than a decade, researchers from the Climate Action Tracker have kept a close eye on what countries' collective carbon-cutting pledges mean for our warming world. After the failed Copenhagen summit in 2009, the group estimated that global temperatures would rise by 3.5C by the end of this century. But the creation in 2015 of the Paris climate agreement, which was designed to avoid dangerous warming of the Earth, made a considerable impact. As a result of the international deal, countries slowly started to switch away from fossil fuels. In September this year, the group concluded that the world was heading for warming of around 2.7C by 2100. This figure was still far above the 2C goal contained in the wording of the Paris pact, and nowhere near the more challenging 1.5C target that scientists endorsed as the threshold to destructive warming in 2018. Their new "optimistic analysis" now suggests a rise of 2.1C by 2100. So what's really changed? The past three months have seen some key developments. In September, China's President Xi Jinping told the UN that his country will reach net zero emissions by 2060, and that its emissions will peak before 2030. According to the CAT researchers, this could reduce warming by 0.2 to 0.3C by the end of the century. Japan and South Korea have both followed suit, pledging to reach net zero by 2050. South Africa and Canada have also announced their own net zero targets. The other significant change is the election of Joe Biden in the US. Tackling climate change is a major part of his agenda. He has promised to bring the US to net zero emissions by 2050. That move would reduce global temperatures by 0.1C by 2100. "We now have north of 50% of global emissions covered by big countries with a zero emissions by mid-century goal," said Bill Hare from Climate Analytics, who helped lead the Climate Action Tracker analysis. "When you add all that up, along with what a whole bunch of other countries are doing, then you move the temperature dial from around 2.7C to really quite close to two degrees." "It's still a fair way off from the Paris Agreement target, but it is a really major development," he told BBC News. Potential difficulties The CAT researchers say they have taken a fairly conservative approach but they readily acknowledge that their optimistic analysis comes with some major caveats. The biggest problem as they see it, is that the near-term plans to cut carbon by 2030 are just not up to the job. "Countries have not yet adjusted their short-term actions to be on a pathway towards the long-term target," said Niklas Höhne, from the NewClimate Institute, who also works on the Climate Action Tracker. "Long-term targets are easier, they are far away. But short-term actions are happening right now and they affect citizens, they affect voters. And that's why this is much more difficult," he told BBC News. The countries that have signed up to the Paris agreement are expected to lodge new carbon-cutting plans for 2030 by the end of this year. It's expected that a number will do so, including the UK and the EU. But there are several countries who are still reluctant to set goals, and many poorer nations are still looking to invest in coal. "There are countries that still remain bad actors, including Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Australia, Russia, and a few others," said Bill Hare. "And we also have a pipeline of coal plants in the region where I'm working now in Asia. It has not collapsed, it has not gone away, so yes, there's much to be concerned about. And there's much that can go wrong." What about the response to Covid-19? According to observers, the response of countries to the Covid crisis is a huge opportunity to focus their short-term spending on renewable energy and increased decarbonisation. "The pandemic opened a window to not only get countries to outline their long-term goal, but to actually move onto the right path so that they can actually achieve the long term goal," said Dr Maisa Rojas, who is the director of the Center for Climate and Resilience Research at the University of Chile in Santiago. "Are we going to harness that opportunity? My impression is that many, including the EU, are harnessing it." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55073169 .
  6. President’s delusional breakdown: 'Like Mad King George, muttering, ‘I won. I won. I won.' President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the fact that he lost the 2020 presidential election was the focus of a Washington Post deep-dive published online Saturday night. The story, by Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Amy Gardner, was titled, “20 days of fantasy and failure: Inside Trump’s quest to overturn the election.” “The facts were indisputable: President Trump had lost. But Trump refused to see it that way,” the newspaper reported. “Sequestered in the White House and brooding out of public view after his election defeat, rageful and at times delirious in a torrent of private conversations, Trump was, in the telling of one close adviser, like ‘Mad King George, muttering, ‘I won. I won. I won.’’” ... The report was based on “interviews with 32 senior administration officials, campaign aides and other advisers to the president, as well as other key figures in his legal fight.” “The result was an election aftermath without precedent in U.S. history. With his denial of the outcome, despite a string of courtroom defeats, Trump endangered America’s democracy, threatened to undermine national security and public health, and duped millions of his supporters into believing, perhaps permanently, that Biden was elected illegitimately,” the newspaper reported. “All the while, Trump largely abdicated the responsibilities of the job he was fighting so hard to keep, chief among them managing the coronavirus pandemic as the numbers of infections and deaths soared across the country. In an ironic twist, the Trump adviser tapped to coordinate the post-election legal and communications campaign, David Bossie, tested positive for the virus a few days into his assignment and was sidelined.” “The 20 days between the election on Nov. 3 and the greenlighting of Biden’s transition exemplified some of the hallmarks of life in Trump’s White House: a government paralyzed by the president’s fragile emotional state; advisers nourishing his fables; expletive-laden feuds between factions of aides and advisers; and a pernicious blurring of truth and fantasy,” the newspaper reported. “Though Trump ultimately failed in his quest to steal the election, his weeks-long jeremiad succeeded in undermining faith in elections and the legitimacy of Biden’s victory.”
  7. Sorry. No. Not happening. Unify? Not happening either. Not after the last four years. Time for some turnabout. Some "what goes around comes around". Payback for what I was forced to endure from the libs and MSM? Sure. You betcha. Right on and why not? I don't like a single thing the dems want to accomplish so fuck that "unify the country" noise. Big first step is winning the two Senate seats down in GA. Keep the Senate and block the leftist agenda. Frustrate the fuck out of the libs until Harris/Obama/Biden is replaced in 2024. Sounds like a reasonable and sound plan to me. Thoughts?
  8. When one party becomes detached from reality. In a recent Monmouth University survey, 77 percent of Trump backers said Joe Biden had won the presidential election because of fraud. Many of these same people think climate change is not real. Many of these same people believe they don’t need to listen to scientific experts on how to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. We live in a country in epistemological crisis, in which much of the Republican Party has become detached from reality. Moreover, this is not just an American problem. All around the world, rising right-wing populist parties are floating on oceans of misinformation and falsehood. What is going on? Many people point to the internet — the way it funnels people into information silos, the way it abets the spread of misinformation. I mostly reject this view. Why would the internet have corrupted Republicans so much more than Democrats, the global right more than the global left? My analysis begins with a remarkable essay that Jonathan Rauch wrote for National Affairs in 2018 called “The Constitution of Knowledge.” Rauch pointed out that every society has an epistemic regime, a marketplace of ideas where people collectively hammer out what’s real. In democratic, nontheocratic societies, this regime is a decentralized ecosystem of academics, clergy members, teachers, journalists and others who disagree about a lot but agree on a shared system of rules for weighing evidence and building knowledge. This ecosystem, Rauch wrote, operates as a funnel. It allows a wide volume of ideas to get floated, but only a narrow group of ideas survive collective scrutiny. “We let alt-truth talk,” Rauch said, “but we don’t let it write textbooks, receive tenure, bypass peer review, set the research agenda, dominate the front pages, give expert testimony or dictate the flow of public dollars.” Over the past decades the information age has created a lot more people who make their living working with ideas, who are professional members of this epistemic process. The information economy has increasingly rewarded them with money and status. It has increasingly concentrated them in ever more prosperous metro areas. While these cities have been prospering, places where fewer people have college degrees have been spiraling down: flatter incomes, decimated families, dissolved communities. In 1972, people without college degrees were nearly as happy as those with college degrees. Now those without a degree are far more unhappy about their lives. People need a secure order to feel safe. Deprived of that, people legitimately feel cynicism and distrust, alienation and anomie. This precarity has created, in nation after nation, intense populist backlashes against the highly educated folks who have migrated to the cities and accrued significant economic, cultural and political power. Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center calls this the “Density Divide.” It is a bitter cultural and political cold war. In the fervor of this enmity, millions of people have come to detest those who populate the epistemic regime, who are so distant, who appear to have it so easy, who have such different values, who can be so condescending. Millions not only distrust everything the “fake news” people say, but also the so-called rules they use to say them. People in this precarious state are going to demand stories that will both explain their distrust back to them and also enclose them within a safe community of believers. The evangelists of distrust, from Donald Trump to Alex Jones to the followers of QAnon, rose up to give them those stories and provide that community. Paradoxically, conspiracy theories have become the most effective community bonding mechanisms of the 21st century. For those awash in anxiety and alienation, who feel that everything is spinning out of control, conspiracy theories are extremely effective emotional tools. For those in low status groups, they provide a sense of superiority: I possess important information most people do not have. For those who feel powerless, they provide agency: I have the power to reject “experts” and expose hidden cabals. As Cass Sunstein of Harvard Law School points out, they provide liberation: If I imagine my foes are completely malevolent, then I can use any tactic I want. Under Trump, the Republican identity is defined not by a set of policy beliefs but by a paranoid mind-set. He and his media allies simply ignore the rules of the epistemic regime and have set up a rival trolling regime. The internet is an ideal medium for untested information to get around traditional gatekeepers, but it is an accelerant of the paranoia, not its source. Distrust and precarity, caused by economic, cultural and spiritual threat, are the source. What to do? You can’t argue people out of paranoia. If you try to point out factual errors, you only entrench false belief. The only solution is to reduce the distrust and anxiety that is the seedbed of this thinking. That can only be done first by contact, reducing the social chasm between the members of the epistemic regime and those who feel so alienated from it. And second, it can be done by policy, by making life more secure for those without a college degree. Rebuilding trust is, obviously, the work of a generation.
  9. Rush Limbaugh, Michigan, GSA Hammer Nails Into Coffin of Trump's Election Fraud Claims Michigan's Republican Officials resisted intense White House pressure to certify Joe Biden's election victory on Monday while the Chief administrator of the executive branch finally relented and began the transition to the president elect. Still, it was Rush Limbaugh who dealt the heaviest blow to President Donald Trump's campaign to cast doubt on his election loss. The terminally ill radio host became the most influential conservative to dismiss voter fraud claims that have routinely been thrown out of court. "They promised blockbuster stuff, and then nothing happened," Limbaugh said on Monday. "And that's just, that's not—well, it's not good. You call a gigantic press conference like that, one that lasts an hour, and you announce massive bombshells, then you better have some bombshells, there better be something at that press conference other than what we got." Limbaugh's grim news dealt a sobering blow to conservatives around the country. GSA administrator Emily Murphy informed President-elect Joe Biden that the president's administration was ready to formally start the transition process. The letter sent to Biden came two weeks after most media outlets declared him the winner of the 2020 election and was the first solid acknowledgement from the Trump administration of the president's defeat. Trump needed to flip at least three states to pull his current total past the winning line, but with Michigan having certified, his path to victory has narrowed to virtually non-existent. https://www.newsweek.com/rush-limbaugh-michigan-gsa-hammer-nails-coffin-trumps-election-fraud-claims-1549692 bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa hey hey hey, buh bye now here magats, some parting gifts to show there are no hard feelings. with every properly filled pre-paid return box received you get a free used don diaper!
  10. A Trump Judicial Appointee's Blistering Opinion Is a Reality Check for Republicans Who Still Think Biden Stole the Election In a blistering opinion by a Donald Trump appointee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on Friday rejected the president's challenge to Pennsylvania's election results, saying his campaign had failed even to allege a cognizable constitutional claim. "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy," writes Stephanos Bibas, whom Trump picked for the appeals court in 2017. "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." Appealing another scathing decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, the Trump campaign asked the 3rd Circuit to override Brann's refusal to allow a second amended complaint. The appeals court says Brann did not abuse his discretion when he dismissed the case with prejudice, given the looming certification of Pennsylvania's vote (which happened last Tuesday), the campaign's "delays and repetitive litigation," and the likelihood that the proposed complaint would be "futile." The Trump campaign argued that Pennsylvania's election procedures violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection in two ways. First, Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar urged counties to let voters "cure" mistakes on their absentee ballots that otherwise would have been rejected. Some counties followed that suggestion, while others did not. Second, the campaign alleged that election officials in some counties kept poll watchers too far away from the vote counting to see what was happening. The 3rd Circuit notes that neither of those practices violated state or federal law. Nor does the variation between counties amount to unconstitutional discrimination under the 14th Amendment, it says. "The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination," Bibas writes. "Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes….A violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires more than variation from county to county. It requires unequal treatment of similarly situated parties." The president and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have insisted for weeks that Joe Biden stole the election through systematic voting fraud. Giuliani began a November 17 hearing before Brann by claiming "widespread nationwide voter fraud." But he later conceded "this is not a fraud case," noting that the campaign's complaint "doesn't allege fraud." Despite the campaign's failure to even claim illegal voting, the appeals court notes, "the Second Amended Complaint seeks breathtaking relief: barring the Commonwealth from certifying its results or else declaring the election results defective and ordering the Pennsylvania General Assembly, not the voters, to choose Pennsylvania's presidential electors. It cites no authority for this drastic remedy." Bibas pulls no punches in describing the arguments that the campaign wanted to make. "The Campaign's claims have no merit," he writes. "The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised." Although the campaign "suspects that many of the 1.5 million mail-in ballots in the challenged counties were improperly counted," the 3rd Circuit says, "it challenges no specific ballots," and "it never alleges that anyone except a lawful voter cast a vote." Of the seven counties that were named as defendants because they allowed voters to cure their absentee ballots, "four (including the three most populous) represented that they gave notice to only about 6,500 voters who sent in defective ballot packages. The Campaign never disputed these numbers or alleged its own. Even if 10,000 voters got notice and cured their defective ballots, and every single one then voted for Biden, that is less than an eighth of the margin of victory." In short, the appeals court says, "The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit. It conceded that it is not alleging election fraud. It has already raised and lost most of these state-law issues, and it cannot relitigate them here. It cites no federal authority regulating poll watchers or notice and cure. It alleges no specific discrimination. And it does not contest that it lacks standing under the Elections and Electors Clauses. These claims cannot succeed." A Morning Consult poll conducted from November 6 through November 9 found that 70 percent of Republicans thought the 2020 presidential election was not "free and fair." The results were similar in a Ipsos survey conducted a week later, which also found that 52 percent of Republicans believed Trump "rightfully won" the election. To continue believing that, Trump supporters have to accept something like the following story. Democratic election officials in multiple battleground states conspired with the Biden campaign to deny Trump his rightful victory, assisted by Dominion Voting Systems, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and the Venezuelan, Cuban, and Chinese governments. That vast international conspiracy evidently also includes Bibas, appointed by Trump himself, plus the two other judges on the unanimous 3rd Circuit panel, D. Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares, both of whom were nominated by George W. Bush. For no obvious reason, that scheme has been aided and abetted by Brann, described by Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.) as "a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist"; all of the other judges who have been unimpressed by the Trump campaign's legal claims; Republican election officials across the country; Republican members of Congress; and heretofore Trump-friendly news outlets such as the New York Post and Fox News. To believe this story, you would also have to accept that Giuliani, who says the conspiracy is "easily provable," has solid evidence to back up his wild claims but for some reason has not managed to produce it in court. The alternative to buying all of that is to conclude that Trump has refused to admit defeat, either for personal or political reasons, and has resorted to increasingly baroque explanations for Biden's soon-to-be-official victory. That hypothesis is consistent with everything we know about Trump from his decades in public life, including his disdain for the truth, his enormous yet fragile ego, and his allergy to accepting responsibility. It is also consistent with the yawning gap between Trump's public assertions and the claims his campaign has made in its lawsuits, which the 3rd Circuit's decision highlights once again.
  11. ....is 4oo million dollars in debt, tied to foreign banks with their own ties to Russian Oligarchs, is angry with the US Government and has a history of revealing US Secrets? Revealed Classified Information to Isreal Tweeted an Iranian Missile launch Pubicly claimed that the US has a secret Nuclear Weapon According to the US National Security agencies, a security risk. As an ex-president, Trump could disclose the secrets he learned while in office, current and former officials fear As president, Donald Trump selectively revealed highly classified information to attack his adversaries, gain political advantage and impress or intimidate foreign governments, in some cases jeopardizing U.S. intelligence capabilities. As an ex-president, there’s every reason to worry he will do the same, thus posing a unique national security dilemma for the Biden administration, current and former officials and analysts said. All presidents exit the office with valuable national secrets in their heads, including the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, intelligence-gathering capabilities — including assets deep inside foreign governments — and the development of new and advanced weapon systems. But no new president has ever had to fear that his predecessor might expose the nation’s secrets as President-elect Joe Biden must with Trump, current and former officials said. Not only does Trump have a history of disclosures, he checks the boxes of a classic counterintelligence risk: He is deeply in debt and angry at the U.S. government, particularly what he describes as the “deep state” conspiracy that he says tried to stop him from winning the White House in 2016 and what he falsely claims is an illegal effort to rob him of reelection. White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump “Anyone who is disgruntled, dissatisfied or aggrieved is a risk of disclosing classified information, whether as a current or former officeholder. Trump certainly fits that profile,” said David Priess, a former CIA officer and author of “The President’s Book of Secrets,” a history of the top-secret intelligence briefings that presidents and their staff members receive while in office. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. As president, Trump has access to all classified information in the government and the authority to declassify and share any of it, for any reason. After he leaves office, he still will have access to the classified records of his administration. But the legal ability to disclose them disappears once Biden is sworn in January. Many concerned experts were quick to note that Trump reportedly paid scant attention during his presidential intelligence briefings and has never evinced a clear understanding of how the national security apparatus works. His ignorance may be the best counterweight to the risk he poses, they said. “A knowledgeable and informed president with Trump’s personality characteristics, including lack of self-discipline, would be a disaster. The only saving grace here is that he hasn’t been paying attention,” said Jack Goldsmith, who ran the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in the George W. Bush administration and is the co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.” “He probably doesn’t know much about collection details. But he will have bits and pieces,” said retired Brig Gen. Peter B. Zwack, who served as a military intelligence officer and was the senior U.S. defense attache to Russia from 2012 to 2014. The chances are low that Trump knows the fine details of intelligence, such as the name of a spy or where an intelligence agency may have planted a surveillance device. But he almost certainly knows significant facts about the process of gathering intelligence that would be valuable to adversaries. “The president is going to run into and possibly absorb a lot of the capacity and capabilities that you have in intelligence,” said John Fitzpatrick, a former intelligence officer and expert on the security systems used to protect classified information, including after a president leaves office. The kinds of information Trump is likely to know, Fitzpatrick, said, include special military capabilities, details about cyberweapons and espionage, the kinds of satellites the United States uses and the parameters of any covert actions that, as president, only Trump had the power to authorize. He also knows the information that came from U.S. spies and collection platforms, which could expose sources even if he did not know precisely how the information was obtained. In a now infamous Oval Office meeting in 2017, Trump told Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador to the United States about highly classified information the United States had received from an ally about Islamic State threats to aviation, which jeopardized the source, according to people familiar with the incident. By bragging about intelligence capabilities, Trump put them at risk. And he has been similarly careless when trying to intimidate adversaries. In August 2019, he tweeted a detailed aerial image of an Iranian launchpad. Such photos are among the most highly guarded pieces of intelligence because they can reveal precise details about technical spying capabilities. Using publicly available records, Internet sleuths were able to determine which satellite took the image and identify its orbit based on the image Trump disclosed. Experts worry that Trump’s braggadocio may lead him to spill secrets at a rally or in a tête-à-tête with a foreign adversary. One former official imagined Trump boasting about the technical features of Air Force One or where the United States had dispatched spy drones. Trump has also demonstrated a willingness to declassify information for political advantage, pushing his senior officials to reveal documents from the 2016 probe of Russian election interference and possible links to Trump’s campaign. Last month, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist, made public a set of handwritten notes and a referral to the FBI concerning intelligence that the United States had obtained on Russia and its belief that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign would try to tie the hacking and leaking of Democratic Party emails to Russia to deflect from the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server. Those declassified documents were heavily redacted. But according to people familiar with their contents, they may have revealed enough information to point the Russian government to a valuable source of intelligence the United States has and is now at risk of losing. Experts agreed that the biggest risk Trump poses out of office is the clumsy release of information. But they didn’t rule out that he might trade secrets, perhaps in exchange for favors, to ingratiate himself with prospective clients in foreign countries or to get back at his perceived enemies. When he leaves office, Trump will be facing a crushing amount of debt, including hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that he has personally guaranteed. “People with significant debt are always of grave concern to security professionals,” said Larry Pfeiffer, a veteran intelligence officer and former chief of staff to CIA Director Michael V. Hayden. “The human condition is a frail one. And people in dire situations make dire decisions. Many of the individuals who’ve committed espionage against our country are people who are financially vulnerable.” As a practical matter, there’s little that the Biden administration can do to stop Trump from blurting out national secrets. Former presidents do not sign nondisclosure agreements when they leave office. They have a right to access information from their administration, including classified records, said Fitzpatrick, who served as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives and Records Administration, which houses former presidents’ records. They’re expected to safeguard information, as they did while in office. “But outside the confines of the Presidential Records Act, there is no boundary except the president’s behavior,” he said. As president, Biden could refuse to give Trump any intelligence briefings, which ex-presidents have received before meeting with foreign leaders or embarking on diplomatic missions at the current president’s request. “I think that tradition ends with Trump,” Priess said. “It’s based on courtesy and the idea that presidents may call on their predecessors for frank advice. I don’t see Joe Biden calling up Trump to talk about intricate national security and intelligence issues. And I don’t think Biden will send him anywhere as an emissary.” The last line of defense, like so many chapters in Trump’s presidency, would pose unprecedented considerations: criminal prosecution. The Espionage Act has been successfully used to convict current and former government officials who disclose information that damages U.S. national security. It has never been used against a former president. But as of Jan. 20, 2021, Trump becomes a private citizen, and the immunity he enjoys from criminal prosecution vanishes.
  12. Made me fit to puke. The fake sincerity was disgraceful. So transparent. Good luck uniting the country you yourself helped divide, Senile Joe. Screw you. Not happening. Thoughts?
  13. HERE IS THE EVIDENCE Add it to your bookmarks people! The list is growing longer each hour.
  14. A new twist has occurred! Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution The case has been somewhat under the radar, because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief. The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections. Earlier in the week, Judge Patricia McCollough issued a temporary halt to the certification process, and that now is on appeal to the PA Supreme Court. The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending futher hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal: As this Court’s November 25, 2020, Order of an Emergency Preliminary Injunction has been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this opinion shall set forth the basis for said Order and shall also satisfy the requirements of Rule 1925 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925…. Here is the Judge’s description of the claim: In the Petition, Petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (Act 77), which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),1 is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Petitioners allege that Article VII, section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election: (1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and (2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the requirements of one of the four, limited exclusive circumstances under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania constitution. (Petition, ¶16.) Petitioners allege that mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority. Id., ¶17. Petitioners argue that in order to amend the Constitution, mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section 1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in each county, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment. According to Petitioners, the legislature did not follow the necessary procedures for amending the Constitution before enacting Act 77 which created a new category of mail-in voting; therefore, the mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is unconstitutional on its face and must be struck down. Id., ¶¶27, 35-37. As relief, Petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration and/or injunction that prohibits Respondents from certifying the November 2020 General Election results, which include mail-in ballots that are permitted on a statewide basis and are allegedlyimproper because Act 77 is unconstitutional. The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added]: Accordingly, in careful consideration [on November 25] of the exigencies and time constraints in this matter of statewide and national import, and the longstanding constitutional mandate that every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary [on November 25] to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot…. Based upon the record before it, this Court has sufficient grounds to enjoin Respondents from further certification activities on an emergency preliminary basis, pending the results of the evidentiary hearing it had scheduled for this date, after which the Court would have determined if a preliminary injunction should issue.4 Since the Court is sitting in equity it has the power to fashion such relief as it is vitally important that the status quo be preserved pending further judicial scrutiny…. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim. The Judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional, so even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it’s not clear if that would change the result: That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election. The Judge concluded: For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing. This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules. Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.
  15. Clearly Beijing Biden is the messiah anomaly in all of US Election history. We must unite under this man! 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least. In all the excitement among objective journalists for Joe Biden’s declared victory, reporters are missing how extraordinary the Democrat’s performance was in the 2020 election. It’s not just that the former vice president is on track to become the oldest president in American history, it’s what he managed to accomplish at the polls this year. Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012. Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now. While Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals in every urban county in the United States, he outperformed her in the metropolitan areas of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Even more surprising, the former VP put up a record haul of votes, despite Democrats’ general failures in local House and state legislative seats across the nation. He accomplished all this after receiving a record low share of the primary vote compared to his Republican opponent heading into the general election. Clearly, these are tremendous and unexpected achievements that would normally receive sophisticated analysis from the journalist class but have somehow gone mostly unmentioned during the celebrations at news studios in New York City and Washington, D.C. The massive national political realignment now taking place may be one source of these surprising upsets. Yet still, to have pulled so many rabbits out of his hat like this, nobody can deny that Biden is a first-rate campaigner and politician, the likes of which America has never before seen. Let’s break down just how unique his political voodoo has been in 2020. 1. 80 Million Votes Holy moly! A lot of Americans turned out for a Washington politician who’s been in office for nearly 50 years. Consider this: no incumbent president in nearly a century and a half has gained votes in a re-election campaign and still lost. President Trump gained more than ten million votes since his 2016 victory, but Biden’s appeal was so substantial that it overcame President Trump’s record support among minority voters. Biden also shattered Barack Obama’s own popular vote totals, really calling into question whether it was not perhaps Biden who pulled Obama across the finish lines in 2008 and 2012. Proving how sharp his political instincts are, the former VP managed to gather a record number of votes while consistently trailing President Trump in measures of voter enthusiasm. Biden was so savvy that he motivated voters unenthusiastic about his campaign to vote for him in record numbers. 2. Winning Despite Losing Most Bellwether Counties Biden is set to become the first president in 60 years to lose the states of Ohio and Florida on his way to election. For a century, these states have consistently predicted the national outcome, and they have been considered roughly representative of the American melting pot as a whole. Despite national polling giving Biden a lead in both states, he lost Ohio by eight points and Florida by more than three. For Biden to lose these key bellwethers by notable margins and still win the national election is newsworthy. Not since the Mafia allegedly aided John F. Kennedy in winning Illinois over Richard Nixon in 1960 has an American president pulled off this neat trick. Even more unbelievably, Biden is on his way to winning the White House after having lost almost every historic bellwether county across the country. The Wall Street Journal and The Epoch Times independently analyzed the results of 19 counties around the United States that have nearly perfect presidential voting records over the last 40 years. President Trump won every single bellwether county, except Clallam County in Washington. Whereas the former VP picked up Clallam by about three points, President Trump’s margin of victory in the other 18 counties averaged over 16 points. In a larger list of 58 bellwether counties that have correctly picked the president since 2000, Trump won 51 of them by an average of 15 points, while the other seven went to Biden by around four points. Bellwether counties overwhelmingly chose President Trump, but Biden found a path to victory anyway. 3. Biden Trailed Clinton Except in a Select Few Cities Patrick Basham, a pollster with an accurate track record and the director of the Democracy Institute in D.C., highlighted two observations made by fellow colleagues, polling guru Richard Baris of Big Data Poll and Washington Post election analyst Robert Barnes. Baris noted a statistical oddity from 2020’s election returns: “Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.” Barnes added that in those “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.” In the states that mattered most, so many mail-in ballots poured in for Biden from the cities that he put up record-breaking numbers and overturned state totals that looked like comfortable leads for President Trump. If Democrats succeed in eliminating the Electoral College, Biden’s magic formula for churning out overwhelming vote totals in a handful of cities should make the Democrats unbeatable. 4. Biden Won Despite Democrat Losses Everywhere Else Randy DeSoto noted in The Western Journal that “Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.” Now that’s a Biden miracle! In 2020, The Cook Political Report and The New York Times rated 27 House seats as toss-ups going into Election Day. Right now, Republicans appear to have won all 27. Democrats failed to flip a single state house chamber, while Republicans flipped both the House and Senate in New Hampshire and expanded their dominance of state legislatures across the country. Christina Polizzi, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, went so far as to state: “It’s clear that Trump isn’t an anchor for the Republican legislative candidates. He’s a buoy.” Amazingly, Biden beat the guy who lifted all other Republicans to victory. Now that’s historic! 5. Biden Overcame Trump’s Commanding Primary Vote In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners. Political analyst David Chapman highlighted three historical facts before the election. First, no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election. Second, President Trump received 94 percent of the primary vote, which is the fourth highest of all time (higher than Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, or Obama). In fact, Trump is only one of five incumbents since 1912 to receive more than 90 percent of the primary vote. Third, Trump set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent when more than 18 million people turned out for him in 2020 (the previous record, held by Bill Clinton, was half that number). For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head. Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out.
  16. INFOGRAPHIC: The Shocking Allegations of Mass Vote Fraud Made by Sidney Powell in Georgia: So easy to consume, even Democrats can understand...
  17. There was a Politico article that is a long read, but talked in some detail about the presidential election in Michigan. I'm going to rant about the dishonest behavior of many Republicans and then provide quotes from the article. Many Republicans have been repeating lies about the elections based on a false narrative the Republicans and their allied media have spread. These lies undermine not just this election, but also the idea of elections as our way of choosing leaders. This has been willful by some Republicans who know better but do it anyway. Republicans have attacked other Republicans who refuse to go along with lie. That's very bad for conservatives unless they actually want to turn into a fascist bloc. Maybe what angers me the most is the many Republicans who don't respect the votes of others, but tout their own voting as sacred. What the fuck? Am I a lesser human or lesser American because of how I vote? If you think so, you ought to reexamine some of the founding tenets of this country. Too many Republicans have been gleeful about invalidating millions of votes from citizens. Again, what the fuck? Do you want fair elections or not? Fair elections mean YOU CAN LOSE. Finally, if you're going to resort to screaming 'voting fraud' without evidence as your justification for not believing YOU LOST, you are a baby, not an adult. Don't shout fraud, don't assume fraud. Don't assume procedures you don't understand are wrong and fraudulent. Show strong evidence (strong evidence, not speculation, not weak evidence) and check your evidence with someone who knows what the election procedures are, like Republicans with years of elections experience. Like..... maybe Raffensperger in GA. So, the high points from the article about Michigan. The Inside Story of Michigan’s Fake Voter Fraud Scandal (Politico) ... the drama in Lansing raised deeper questions about the health of our political system and the sturdiness of American democracy. Why were Republicans who privately admitted Trump’s legitimate defeat publicly alleging massive fraud? In conversations with more than two dozen Michigan insiders—elected officials, party elders, consultants, activists—it became apparent how the state’s conditions were ripe for this sort of slow-motion disaster. Michigan is home to Detroit, an overwhelmingly majority Black city, that has always been a favorite punching bag of white Republicans... Perhaps most important, Trump’s allies in Michigan proved to be more career-obsessed, and therefore more servile to his whims, than GOP officials in any other state he has cultivated during his presidency... ...the president’s efforts here were aimed not at overturning the results, but rather at testing voters’ faith in the ballot box and Republicans’ loyalty to him. “We have to see this for what it is. It’s a PR strategy to erode public confidence in a very well-run election to achieve political ends,” Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in an interview last week. The irony of Michigan’s electoral meltdown is that Election Day, in the eyes of veteran clerks and poll workers across the state, was the smoothest it had ever been... There were no documented instances of voter intimidation. No outcry over precincts opening late or closing early. Heck, in the state’s biggest and busiest voting jurisdictions, there were no lines to complain about. The day was eerily uneventful. Because state law prohibited the processing of absentee votes until 7 a.m. on Election Day—preventing workers from getting a head start with the time-consuming work of opening envelopes, removing ballots and preparing them for tabulation—everyone understood the state would face a historic backlog of votes to count once the polls closed at 8 p.m... ...More than half of Michigan’s voters chose to vote absentee, the result of a new law that predated the deadly Covid-19 pandemic that scared many people away from voting in-person. For this reason, Michiganders were not congratulating themselves when the polls closed on election night. They knew the real gantlet lay ahead. ...But many Republicans didn’t believe the election would be terribly close to begin with... The common expectation was that the president would lose comfortably, by at least 4 or 5 points, a margin that would render any controversy about absentee voting meaningless. ...around 10 p.m. on election night... Trump had built a lead of nearly 300,000 votes on the strength of same-day ballots that were disproportionately favorable to him. ...Michigan Republicans scrambled to protect that lead. Laura Cox, chair of the state party, began dialing prominent lawmakers, attorneys and activists, urging them to get down to the TCF Center, the main hub of absentee vote counting in Detroit. She was met with some confusion; there were already plenty of Republicans there, as scheduled, working their shifts as poll challengers. It didn’t matter, Cox told them. It was time to flood the zone. ...Now, in the early morning hours of Wednesday, things were going sideways. Groups of Republican poll challengers were clustering around individual counting tables in violation of the rules. People were raising objections—such as to the transferring of military absentees onto ballots that could be read by machines, a standard practice—that betrayed a lack of preparation. By five o’clock on Wednesday morning, it was apparent Trump’s lead would not hold. His cushion over Biden had been whittled down to 70,000 votes. There remained hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted in the large, Democratic strongholds of Detroit, Lansing and Flint. The math was simply not workable for the president. Just before 9:30 a.m., Biden overtook Trump in the tally of Michigan’s votes... The true insanity was saved for Detroit... Cox, the party chair, tweeted out a video of her comrades standing outside the locked-up downtown building. “Republican poll challengers blocked from entering the TCF Center in Detroit! This is egregious!” she wrote. Truly egregious was Cox’s dishonesty. At the time of her tweet, several hundred of her party’s poll challengers, attorneys and representatives were already inside the TCF Center monitoring the count. By law, Republicans were allowed to have 134 challengers in the room, one for each tabulation table. In reality, the GOP had far more than that, according to sworn testimony from nonpartisan poll watchers inside the TCF Center. Another chapter ---- Revenge for certifying the vote “Principled conservatives who respect the rule of law and speak out suddenly find themselves outcasts in a party that is no longer about conservativism but Trumpism.” [The statewide certification a few weeks later] ...Within minutes of Van Langevelde’s vote for certification... the fires of retaliation raged. In GOP circles, there were immediate calls for Van Langevelde ... to lose his job in the House of Representatives; to be censured on the floor of the Legislature and exiled from the party forever. Actionable threats against him and his family began to be reported. The Michigan State Police worked with local law enforcement to arrange a security detail. ...Trump’s legacy will be his unprecedented assault on the legitimacy of the ballot box... [The] GOP will make casual insinuations of voter fraud central to the party’s brand... ... There is little cause for optimism. If the majority of GOP politicians couldn’t be bothered to do the easy work of debunking crackpot conspiracy theories, how likely are they to do the hard work of hardening our democracy?... Another interesting fact from the article: There were valid concerns about some inconsistencies in the balancing of Detroit’s poll books... [BUT] Livonia, which is 95 percent white, had more poll-book irregularities than Detroit, which is 80 percent Black.
  18. ‘Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear’ The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit brought about by Congressman Mike Kelly, and other allies of Donald Trump, attempting to invalidate the state’s mail-in ballots from the 2020 election. State attorney general Josh Shapiro called the decision “another win for democracy” describing it as an attempt to throw out the votes of 2.5 million Pennsylvanians and halt certification fo the election results. The court said that the “Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner" was the basis of the decision. Plaintiffs cited issues with Act 77 and its “universal mail-in ballot provisions” but waived their opportunity to challenge the law before the election. Justice David Wecht wrote: “It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters. Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.” The court dismissed the case “with prejudice” meaning that it cannot be refiled. A group of eight Republicans, including Congressman Kelly, brought the cases against the Republican-majority Pennsylvania general assembly, the state's governor Tom Wolf, and the Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, alleging legislation allowing mail-in voting in the state is unconstitutional. Act 77 — which allows mail-in voting in the state — was passed with a majority of Republican support in the state's Republican-majority general assembly in 2019. It passed Pennsylvania's House 138-61, with only one Republican voting no. Every Republican senator voted yes on the legislation. Thus far, every legal challenge brought on behalf of Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election by invalidating legally cast votes has been thrown out of court. The lawsuit alleges that in order for the state to expand its mail-in voting allowances, it would have had to amend its constitution, which it did not do. As a result, the lawsuit argues, all mail-in ballots are illegal.
  19. Wow. What a bunch of retread, corrupt, dishonest losers. Quite a crew Senile Joe is being told to pick by his puppet masters. Vomit central. Surely the worst is yet to come. This will not end well. As the stock market soars under President Trump. This will soon be considered the best of times and the good old days. Will be moving a lot of my portfolio into much safer places very soon before Biden & Company can fuck everything up. I suggest everyone follow suit. LOL
  20. Federal appeals court dismisses Trump campaign lawsuit over Pennsylvania voting procedures A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump campaign over Pennsylvania's voting procedures on Friday, paving the way for the issue to escalate all the way up to the Supreme Court. Despite Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani arguing to a lower court that widespread voter fraud occurred in a state where President-elect Joe Biden won by over 80,000 votes, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said “the campaign’s claims have no merit.” The Trump campaign has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency injunctive relief, which would go to Justice Samuel Alito, who would then likely ask his eight colleagues to weigh in. "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud. We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature. On to SCOTUS!," Jenna Ellis, Trump's attorney and campaign adviser, said in a statement on Twitter after the court ruling. Friday's ruling upheld U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann's take on the Trump campaign’s error-filled complaint, which Brann said, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together." The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law school professor, wrote in his ruling. The decision is the latest blow to Trump's efforts to prove the election outcome in several battleground states where he lost were "rigged." Giuliani held a public hearing alongside Trump on Wednesday and alleged that Republicans were denied the opportunity to observe the canvassing process, with Trump claiming they have "hundreds and hundreds of affidavits" of witnesses' personal stories to back their argument up. However, the so-called proof has not been presented during numerous court hearings, with judges repeatedly ruling against the Trump campaign. In addition to Pennsylvania, Giuliani claimed that similar schemes also took place in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-pennsylvania-voting-procedures
  21. How much is Bathhouse Barry on the hook for? Carter Page Sues DOJ, FBI, James Comey, And Others Behind Crossfire Hurricane FISA Abuse In an eight-count complaint filed Friday in the D.C. District Court, Carter Page seeks damages of no less than $75 million from the U.S. government, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and individuals responsible for obtaining four illegal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders against Page. Page’s 59-page complaint lists as defendants a veritable “Who’s Who” of the SpyGate scandal, including former FBI Director James Comey, Assistant Director Andrew McCabe, and the disgraced team of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Also singled out were Kevin Clinessmith, who earlier this year pleaded guilty to falsifying an email to hide Page’s past service as a source to the CIA, and FBI Agents Joe Pientka, Stephen Somma, and Brian Auten, with additional defendants identified merely as John Doe 1 – 10 and Jane Doe 1 – 10. (Sack Note: Barry and Hillary perhaps?) ­The first four counts of his complaint allege claims under FISA, with one count seeking damages for each of the four FISA court orders the defendants obtained against Page. FISA provides a private right of action to allow “an aggrieved person. . . who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed,” to sue those responsible. In addition to stating a civil claim for damages under FISA, Page’s attorneys note in the complaint that FISA makes it a criminal offense to illegally “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law.” While only the government can prosecute a criminal violation of FISA, the allegation is a stark reminder that other than Clinesmith, no criminal cases have resulted from the illegal targeting of Page and the Trump campaign—at least not yet. Page’s fifth cause of action alleges a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act which provides that the United States is liable for civil wrongs “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” In other words, Page can sue the government and its agents for wrongful conduct, just as he could a private person. This count seeks damages for the individual defendants who “committed an abuse of process because they acted with an ulterior motive in using the FISA warrant process to accomplish an end unintended and not permitted by law, to wit, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign by unlawfully invading the privacy of Dr. Page without probable cause.” And yes, contrary to the corporate media’s continued denial, the Obama-Biden Administration intended to, and did, spy on the Trump campaign, including by obtaining the illegal FISA orders to surveil Page. In his sixth cause of action, Page alleged what is called a Bivens claim, after the Supreme Court case of the same name. In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to damages from the individual government actors responsible for violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, when the defendants act willfully, knowingly, or with a reckless disregard for the truth—which describes precisely what the Crossfire Hurricane team did in submitting the four false and misleading FISA applications to the FISA court. The final two claims seek a remedy for Page under the federal Privacy Act. The first Privacy Act complaint seeks to force the Department of Justice to update Carter Page’s “individual records” and states that the Department of Justice rejected Page’s request to correct Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, or even conduct a review as required under the Privacy Act, and accordingly Page seeks an injunction to compel the government to do so. His final claim, also under the Privacy Act, seeks damages for the harm he suffered when “he was falsely portrayed as a traitor to his country,” as well as court costs and attorney fees. Page’s D.C.-based attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon, a principal with McAdoo Gordon & Associates, told me, “Carter’s life has been seriously damaged by the false accusation that he was a Russian spy. It is high time that he receives compensation for the gross and deliberate violations of his civil liberties by government officials.” In addition to McAdoo Gordon’s counsel, Page is represented by John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge P.C. from Los Angeles, California, K. Lawson Pedigo from the Dallas, Texas firm of Miller Keffer & Pedigo, and Timothy Parlatore, from the Parlatore Law Group in New York. The next step will be for the defendants to be served with the complaint, for their attorneys to file their appearances, and respond. Then the fun will begin—discovery!
  22. Judge tosses Trump campaign federal court suit challenging PA election results. 'Strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. "This complaint, Like Frankenstein's monster, was haphazardly stitched together..... You cannot get gutted by a judge worse than this:
  23. Listen up MAGATs! There is no way he was not purposely set up like this to look ridiculous and damn does he ever look *Ridiculous*. The staff is getting its revenge!
  • Create New...