How Trump Could Steal The Election

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

And now after a call from Trump and an invitation to the WH, those election officials have filed an affidavit to rescind their votes in favor of certifying the election. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/politics/gop-michigan-results-trump/index.html

 

 

Quote

.....Two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that Trump invited Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and House Speaker Lee Chatfield. They agreed to go, according to a state official aware of the leaders’ plans. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing private conversations.

......Both Shirkey and Chatfield have indicated that they will not try to overturn Biden’s win.

“Michigan law does not include a provision for the Legislature to directly select electors or to award electors to anyone other than the person who received the most votes,” Shirkey’s spokeswoman said last week. On Nov. 6, Chatfield tweeted: “Whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-invites-michigan-gop-white-house-6ab95edd3373ecc9607381175d6f3328

From what I've been reading, this is just posturing to play to his base that he's still  fighting.

Edited November 20, 2020 by StringJunky

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From what I've been reading, this is just posturing to play to his base that he's still  fighting.

Overall, I suspect you're correct. With that said, Trump also learned an important lesson from an early age from one of his mentors, Roy Cohen (the lawyer who defended Joe McCarthy during the McCarthyism years in the US), that it doesn't actually matter what the law says. It only matters who the judge is.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/david-marcus/ 

Quote

Roy certainly had an unorthodox approach to the law. He loved to say, “Don’t tell me what the law is; tell me who the judge is.” And he consorted with these judges. He made phone calls with them. He did things behind the back of prosecutors which were, frankly, completely illegal. <...> his pride and joy was bullying people and bribing people and making deals behind the scenes. He was a fixer. He was a connector.

 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

It only matters who the judge is.

we're only safe when we're dead...

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Overall, I suspect you're correct. With that said, Trump also learned an important lesson from an early age from one of his mentors, Roy Cohen (the lawyer who defended Joe McCarthy during the McCarthyism years in the US), that it doesn't actually matter what the law says. It only matters who the judge is.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/david-marcus/ 

 

Yes, Trump's skulking outside the law to see what/who he can find to help him.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Overall, I suspect you're correct. With that said, Trump also learned an important lesson from an early age from one of his mentors, Roy Cohen (the lawyer who defended Joe McCarthy during the McCarthyism years in the US), that it doesn't actually matter what the law says. It only matters who the judge is.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/david-marcus/ 

 

He’s been thwarted because he can’t get his cases to the Supreme Court, where the fix would be in. Even where he’s gotten in front of a potentially sympathetic judge, there’s nothing to the cases that gives them a chance - no legal point they can leverage to have judge rule in their favor. I also don’t think these judges would stick their necks out when there aren’t enough votes in play to make a difference. It’s scary to contemplate what might happen if the races had been closer, and Trump’s legal team more competent.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

He’s been thwarted because he can’t get his cases to the Supreme Court, where the fix would be in. Even where he’s gotten in front of a potentially sympathetic judge, there’s nothing to the cases that gives them a chance - no legal point they can leverage to have judge rule in their favor. I also don’t think these judges would stick their necks out when there aren’t enough votes in play to make a difference. It’s scary to contemplate what might happen if the races had been closer, and Trump’s legal team more competent.

What qualifies cases for US SC attention? It seemed to me, a while ago, that every case the government lost in the lower courts went straight  to the SC.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What qualifies cases for US SC attention? It seemed to me, a while ago, that every case the government lost in the lower courts went straight  to the SC.

There needs to be some federal statue or constitutional issue, AFAIK. I think a lot of details of elections deal with state law.

This isn’t the government bringing the cases, though, it’s the Trump campaign.

 

edit: looks like it’s roughly an even split between state and federal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

There has to be some reason to appeal to a higher level, and many of these are just badly-formulated suits that there’s no leverage. If you e.g. have no standing to bring the suit, there’s probably no basis for an appeal 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

He’s been thwarted because he can’t get his cases to the Supreme Court, where the fix would be in. Even where he’s gotten in front of a potentially sympathetic judge, there’s nothing to the cases that gives them a chance - no legal point they can leverage to have judge rule in their favor.

One analysis that resonated with me is that these court cases are just another part of the public relations campaign to add weight / heft in the public’s mind about these claims of fraud. The legal challenges are considered more credible even when dismissed because all people see are cases coming to the courts then they stop paying attention and don’t see them getting dismissed as laughable. 

They’re basically tweets with a filing fee 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

One analysis that resonated with me is that these court cases are just another part of the public relations campaign to add weight / heft in the public’s mind about these claims of fraud. The legal challenges are considered more credible even when dismissed because all people see are cases coming to the courts then they stop paying attention and don’t see them getting dismissed as laughable. 

They’re basically tweets with a filing fee 

Oh, yes, I agree. It’s so they can say they filed the lawsuit, and complain about the system when it gets shot down. That they had been in a position to fix the alleged flaws never comes up, and many don’t realize that the lawsuits themselves aren’t alleging fraud, because the lawyers don’t want to get caught lying in court. But lying on twitter or in the parking lot of a landscaping business doesn’t carry those repercussions.

 

Today I read where one of their suits mixed up Michigan and Minnesota. (more votes cast in MI than there are registered voters in MN, or something like that) “These aren’t very bright guys, and things got out of hand” applies once again.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90578730/trump-supporter-election-lawsuit-affidavit-seems-to-mix-up-michigan-and-minnesota

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Today I read where one of their suits mixed up Michigan and Minnesota

That’s very on-brand for the Trump team 

[MigL]

Hopefully, Donald the Loser, and his lawyers ( especially mascara-hair Rudy ), get a good lesson in what the laws actually are, when they are vigorously prosecuted after he leaves office.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Hopefully, Donald the Loser, and his lawyers ( especially mascara-hair Rudy ), get a good lesson in what the laws actually are, when they are vigorously prosecuted after he leaves office.

.... and are then slipped into  nice orange boiler suits.

[joigus]

No serious Republicans taking positions to save face when all this pissing in the wind blows over? I'm sure it must be embarrassing for somebody in their ranks.

Just curious.

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

No serious Republicans taking positions to save face when all this pissing in the wind blows over? I'm sure it must be embarrassing for somebody in their ranks.

Just curious.

There's lots at the state level acknowledging the results as valid that I've been reading. It's the acolytes surrounding Trump that give the opposite impression. More minor ones will just be toeing the line for now. Here's a quote the Republican SoS of Georgia certifying the result there made:

Quote

“Working as an engineer throughout my life, I live by the motto that numbers don’t lie,” Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said during a news conference at the state Capitol. “As secretary of state, I believe that the numbers that we have presented today are correct. The numbers reflect the verdict of the people, not a decision by the secretary of state’s office or of courts or of either campaign.”

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-certify-election-joe-biden-ea8f867d740f3d7d42d0a55c1aef9e69

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by StringJunky

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, joigus said:

No serious Republicans taking positions to save face when all this pissing in the wind blows over? I'm sure it must be embarrassing for somebody in their ranks.

Just curious.

Senator Mitt Romney from Utah (former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential nominee), but he’s basically all alone out by himself on an island in terms of Republican leadership or folks with a high profile speaking out. Tim DeWine the Republican Governor from Ohio and maybe a tiny handful of others you’ve never heard of have said this needs to stop.

Republicans have made the calculation that this will all end soon enough anyway, and coming out against Trump right now does nothing other than to harm their chances of winning the next primary. Better to be silent than speak out at the cost of personal damage about something the system itself “should” rectify without further intervention from them. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's the acolytes surrounding Trump that give the opposite impression.

Yes, that's what I would expect from the acolytes. I suppose people elbowing for position are calculating their moves.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Senator Mitt Romney from Utah (former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential nominee), but he’s basically all alone out by himself on an island in terms of Republican leadership or folks with a high profile speaking out. Tim DeWine the Republican Governor from Ohio and maybe a tiny handful of others you’ve never heard of have said this needs to stop.

That checks with what I was thinking. You're right that I don't know the American political landscape very well. But if I remember correctly Mitt Romney has presidential aspirations...

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

No serious Republicans taking positions to save face when all this pissing in the wind blows over? I'm sure it must be embarrassing for somebody in their ranks.

Just curious.

Most seem to acknowledge that Biden is the likely winner and many seem to admit that Biden should be allowed to prepare for office for the sake of America.

Few acknowledge that Trump owes anything to the Democrats, even though they most certainly won the Presidential election.

You might not agree that they're saving face but politically they are all tenable positions.

Let's not pretend both sides don't play politics, even if often to the detriment of their constituents.

Poor time to do it though, given the pandemic and how Trump is handling it.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

He’s been thwarted because he can’t get his cases to the Supreme Court, where the fix would be in. Even where he’s gotten in front of a potentially sympathetic judge, there’s nothing to the cases that gives them a chance - no legal point they can leverage to have judge rule in their favor. I also don’t think these judges would stick their necks out when there aren’t enough votes in play to make a difference. It’s scary to contemplate what might happen if the races had been closer, and Trump’s legal team more competent.

Do you seriously believe that? Or simply believe that to be Trump's hope or strategy?

Edited November 21, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's not pretend both sides don't play politics, even if often to the detriment of their constituents.

Hillary called Trump to concede on the same night as their election and their race was FAR closer than this one with Biden.

Barrack Obama invited Trump to the WH a day or 2 later and made his entire team available to the incoming Trump admin to maximize their chances of quick success.

Essentially every democratic leader and person with a national profile acknowledged Trumps win and congratulated him on his victory both privately and publicly.

Nothing anywhere even remotely close to this has ever once happened before since George Washington as our very first president ever transitioned power to John Addams. 

Let’s not pretend for even one second that this is somehow a both sides issue.

 

[dimreepr]

His ghost will haunt our dream's for many a moon...☠️

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you seriously believe that? Or simply believe that to be Trump's hope or strategy?

Why else would he have packed the Supreme court?

 

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Hillary called Trump to concede on the same night as their election and their race was FAR closer than this one with Biden.

Hillary  knew that she wasn't actually facing jail time; Trump is.

She was accepting the outcome of a job interview; he is stalling about his freedom.

[geordief]

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Why else would he have packed the Supreme court?

Simple badness and to shore up his base?

Not that he couldn't have had the hope of a "Trump majority" in the Supreme Court as well.

 

All about number one,after all.

 

The Repellent Appellant.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

he is stalling about his freedom.

Freedom is a difficult concept to understand when one has never been constricted... 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Why else would he have packed the Supreme court?

Assuming you mean the latest Orwellian definition:

 He could possibly believe that...as suggested by my second question, but probably even for him only if the election was truly close, and there was potentially enough election fraud to make it questionable.

So far there is no sign of that as a plausibility, despite his claims. If in fact he does have significant evidence he's done an excellent job of holding it back.

Nor is there any sign that the Supreme Court would do any more than interpret the Laws and Constitution, and certainly nothing  to the degree he would require,

The most obvious reason for him to nominate the candidates he did was to keep the Court from becoming more "balanced" by Judges willing to change the actual meaning of the Laws and Constitution on grounds the Democrats consider moral, rather than have them changed by Congress.

But that might be more the GOP than Trump himself, other than his being able to point to it as something he got done...

Edited November 21, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Freedom is a difficult concept to understand when one has never been constricted... 

I think he probably understands it well enough that he doesn't want to go to gaol.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nor is there any sign that the Supreme Court would do any more than interpret the Laws and Constitution, and certainly nothing  to the degree he would require,

Try to remember that the Justices do more than just hear cases appealed to them. They’re also assigned regions across the US and given power to influence what happens at lower levels. 

It seems just yesterday, in fact, that now Kavanaugh has been put in charge of the Michigan circuit court, Barrett in charge of Wisconsin, Alito in charge of Pennsylvania,  and Clarence Thomas in charge of Georgia (under Title 28 US code section 42). 

Could be nonsense, but worth remembering their power is about more than direct appeals on individual cases. 

Quote

The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court.  The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation.

A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.