Trump 2020

[1972Shocker]

A couple of interesting developments. Whether they go anywhere remains to be seen:

Eight More States Join the Texas SCOTUS Case

https://redstate.com/streiff/2020/12...s-case-n291313

Texas is suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin over the constitutionality of there elections. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, & South Dakota have all announced that they will be joining Texas in the suit. More to come perhaps.

Elections undecided by midnight (on election day) are void & preempted by federal law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Supreme Court Decision)

https://yournews.com/2020/12/08/1956...ight-are-void/

This 2nd article is quite a long article but the author's conclusion is:

Reading Foster v. Love, together with the 9th Circuit’s analysis in Voting Integrity Project v. Keisling, we know that consummating an election before federal Election Day is prohibited, and that early voting is not prohibited, as long as the election is finally consummated on Election Day. If that be the case, then statutory construction makes it obvious that elections consummated after Election Day are preempted by the federal Election Day statutes.

It’s crucial now that this argument gets to the United States Supreme Court. Multiple State elections failed to consummate their elections on Election Day and are now void. There is no election. The State Legislatures have exclusive plenary authority to determine the manner in which the presidential electors shall be appointed. But their road will be so much smoother if the Supreme Court voids the elections first. This strategy gives another pathway to a true Constitutional resolution.

Not sure if Texas et. al. will bring up the Foster v Love decision but the advantage of this approach is that it does not require establishing election fraud. It is simply a question of legality/constitutionality of the elections with a 9-0 precedent to consider. And legal conflicts between the states go directly to the Supreme Court. They do not have to pass through lower courts.

Of course Supreme Court may simply decline to hear the case. I think the USSC has docketed a response on December 10th which I assume they will decide on whether or not they will hear the case.

BTW, Alan Dershowitz, while giving Texas an A+ for creativity, doesn't think this gambit will work.

[1972Shocker]

Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...g-2020-12-09-1

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton (Texas AG) said in a statement.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...g-2020-12-09-1

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton (Texas AG) said in a statement.

In case you don't know, and that is quite possible, because you do not live in Texas, but Paxton is currently under felony indictment AND being investigated by the FBI over his relationship with Nate Paul. Seven members (all the administrators reporting to him) reported him for ethical violations (they are required to report any crimes they witness), and all of them were fired.

These weren't your normal career civil servants, these were appointed (i.e. Republican) positions, members of his own party and inner circle who reported him:

https://www.startribune.com/ap-explains-the-fbi-is-investigating-texas-ag-ken-paxton/573155131/

There have been a number of retaliation lawsuits filed over this.

He was indicted for securities fraud, for a bill he wrote:

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2020/10/05/texas-ag-ken-paxton-on-bond-for-securities-fraud-charges-faces-jail-if-charged-with-new-crimes/?slreturn=20201109125607

He tried to get his wife, who is a state senator to write a bill to wipe that indictment off the books:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/What-about-ethics-Angela-Paxton-s-bill-could-13635148.php

He's also the chairman of lawyers for Trump.

The intent and purpose of this exercise in tilting at windmills is to obtain a pardon from Trump for his involvement with Nate Paul:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/12/08/texas-ag-paxton-challenges-election-result-in-four-key-battleground-states/

In short, this is fake news. This lawsuit will get thrown out of court. The rationale behind it is to protect a crook and it is not the first time he has done this. Paxton makes Jim Mattox look like a
Boy Scout.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

He sounds like a democrat.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

He sounds like a democrat.

I absolutely agree with you on this. In Cali, the dems are as thick as the republicans in Texas, so your comparison is apt. Anytime single-party governance gets entrenched, this is a potential result. It is not an actual result until you get someone like Newsome or this guy to start greasing the skids.

[SB Shock]

I absolutely agree with you on this. In Cali, the dems are as thick as the republicans in Texas, so your comparison is apt. Anytime single-party governance gets entrenched, this is a potential result. It is not an actual result until you get someone like Newsome or this guy to start greasing the skids.

The Texas solicitor general is Kyle Hawkins. He is usually the one who argues supreme court cases for Texas. He is not on this filing. Do you have any insight of why not?

My hunch is this lawsuit is just a stunt and he doesn't want his name involved, but maybe there is something else.

[WstateU]

Wonder why the U.S. recount is taking so long? Check out this evidence!!

[ShockerPrez]

Can't beat a good Benny Hill clip.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc-skip-trump-coronavirus-vaccines-biden-gaffe

CNN, MSNBC skip Trump’s historic remarks on coronavirus vaccines, opt to air Biden remarks

President Trump on Tuesday said the forthcoming coronavirus vaccines “will end the pandemic,” saying the U.S. is just “days away” from the first “safe and effective vaccine” to combat COVID-19 – but anyone who relies on CNN and MSNBC for news didn’t catch his remarks live as the liberal networks didn’t bother to air the historic event.

The president, during the vaccine summit at the White House, touted Operation Warp Speed – his administration’s public-private partnership that was created over the summer to create a vaccine “at breakneck speed.”

I'm 100% cool with that. Don't give the clown any more air time. We risk him saying something irresponsible about vaccines in hopes of extending his media cycle. I could just see him say, "Go ahead and take the vaccine if you want, I'm not going to."

Pfizer created a fantastic vaccine and didn't take a dime from this initiative. It was finished shortly after the virus was sequenced. All this time has been for testing.

[ShockerFever]

Censorship is a great thing. They have you just about all wrapped up around their little fingers now.

[Shockm]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-ms...es-biden-gaffe
Pfizer created a fantastic vaccine and didn't take a dime from this initiative. It was finished shortly after the virus was sequenced. All this time has been for testing.

Wrong Again Clod
Pfizer struck a separate agreement with the government with the US government agreeing to buy a certain number of doses without any guarantee that the vaccine would work. In return, Pfizer was guaranteed a large amount of money whether the vaccine worked or not.

We will see if the Pfizer Vaccine is fantastic or not. There were some Red Flags on day 1 in UK. But either way Pfizer is guaranteed Millions of dollars for those doses that the government has already purchased.

[wufan]

Wrong Again Clod
Pfizer struck a separate agreement with the government with the US government agreeing to buy a certain number of doses without any guarantee that the vaccine would work. In return, Pfizer was guaranteed a large amount of money whether the vaccine worked or not.

We will see if the Pfizer Vaccine is fantastic or not. There were some Red Flags on day 1 in UK. But either way Pfizer is guaranteed Millions of dollars for those doses that the government has already purchased.

It just has to be approved.

[1972Shocker]

A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/a_summary_of_texas_election_lawsuit_.html

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

The Texas solicitor general is Kyle Hawkins. He is usually the one who argues supreme court cases for Texas. He is not on this filing. Do you have any insight of why not?

My hunch is this lawsuit is just a stunt and he doesn't want his name involved, but maybe there is something else.

I think it has something to do with the stink surrounding Paxton. Even U. S. Rep Chip Roy, who worked for Paxton before he was elected a Congressman, has stated Paxton should resign.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/rep-chip-roy-ken-paxtons-former-1st-assistant-calls-for-texas-attorney-general-to-resign/

If Paxton gets a pardon from Trump for carrying his water (and this is not just my premise, a lot of other people think this is possible), the people left holding the bag of poo are the ones who signed onto this gambit with nothing (relatively speaking) to win or lose.

Kyle Hawkins has nothing to win or lose personally from this. Paxton does, provided he gets a pardon that effectively kills the FBI investigation into his conduct.

Of course, there's always the possibility that whatever investigation the FBI has already been performed gets forwarded to the Travis County District Attorney, as I would think that there is a quid-pro-quo here.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Court-records-depict-how-investor-Nate-Paul-15709060.php

Paxton had a girlfriend (he was sleeping around on his wife) and he interceded to get her a job with Nate Paul's real estate development company:

https://apnews.com/article/us-news-ken-paxton-extramarital-affairs-austin-texas-dc0c309fc829e62e5132aab56bcc686f

[1972Shocker]

There is a Compelling Theoretical Case Behind the Complaint Texas Wants to File in the Supreme Court

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/10/there-is-a-compelling-theoretical-case-behind-the-complaint-texas-wants-to-file-in-the-supreme-court-n292078

About the author: Shipwreckedcrew served 22 years as a federal prosecutor; six years private practice.

All the commentators dismissing this action by Texas as not being serious are failing to consider one fact — in my opinion — which is crucial to the question of whether the Supreme Court will allow this matter to go forward. In cases of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is the fact-finder in the first instance. The evidence upon which Texas claims supports the allegations would be presented to the Supreme Court in a trail-like proceeding with the nine Justices serving as both Judge and Jury. Maybe they would be wholly unimpressed by the nature or quantity of admissible evidence that Texas is able to present as proof of the allegations in the complaint.

But can they simply decline to hear evidence of this form of dispute between two states where the allegations of misconduct and corruption by one state’s exercise of authority given to it by the Constitution directly impacts the constitutional rights of citizens of other states?

I have concerns that the Justices will view these matters as nonjusticiable — meaning that while there may be validity in the claims raised by Texas, the claims are political disputes between the partisan branches which they must resolve outside the judicial branch.