+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 3 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107

Thread: US Election: the Legal Challenge

  1. Link to Post #41
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    11,291
    Thanked 22,014 times in 2,416 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by scotslad (here)
    Forgive me, but coming from Scotland, please bear with me as I'm trying to educate myself quickly as to how the US voting system is supposed to work in light of current events and so that I can thoroughly appreciate the efforts folks are making in contributing to this thread. Thanks in advance.

    With individual 50 states, I kinda get it that makes up 50 x mini elections?

    Do all 50 states have control of their own mini elections or is their an exception or over-ruling body?

    FOR THE MOST PART EACH STATE THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE CONTROLS ITS ELECTION PROCESS FOR NOT ONLY STATE ELECTIONS, BUT ALSO FEDERAL ELECTIONS. THERE ARE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS THAT APPLY THAT THE ELECTION BOARDS OR AGENCIES OF EACH STATE MUST FOLLOW. (SOMETIMES THEY DO AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS.) THERE IS ALSO A FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO OVERSEE FEDERAL ELECTIONS. ULTIMATELY THE COURTS HAVE THE FINAL SAY WHETHER AN ELECTION ADHERED TO STATE AND/OR FEDERAL LAW.

    Each state, depending on its population vote for its representatives to appear in congress/senate.

    EACH STATE HAS TWO SENATORS IN CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF THE POPULATION OF THE STATE. THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH STATE DEPENDS ON THE POPULATION OF THE STATE. (EACH STATE GETS AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE.) THE MORE POPULATED A STATE IS, AS DETERMINED BY A CENSUS TAKEN EVERY 10 YEARS, THE MORE MEMBERS THAT STATE HAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 100 SENATORS AND 435 REPRESENTATIVES, FOR A TOTAL OF 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    Out of curiosity, why is the total 538. Is there a scientific reasoning behind it?

    538 IS THE NUMBER OF ELECTORS WHO CAN VOTE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. THE REASON THERE ARE NOW 538 ELECTORS IS BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS IN CONGRESS, 535, THEN WASHINGTON, DC, WHICH HAS NO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS, GETS 3 ELECTORS. THE TOTAL ELECTORS IS THUS 538.

    I understand it that the presidential candidate of the party who achieves 270 (a majority made up of their electors) is supposed to win the election. CORRECT

    If there is no 270 majority what steps/processes are normally triggered?

    IF NEITHER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT GETS THE 270 MAJORITY (OR MORE) OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES, UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II, SEC. 1 AND THE 12TH AMENDMENT, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES "CHOOSES" THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE "CHOOSES" THE VICE PRESIDENT. (THE CHOICE FOR VP MUST BE THE PERSON WHO RAN AS VP WITH THE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.) THESE CHOICES ARE BASED UPON HOW THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE CASTS ITS VOTE FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. THE CANDIDATES WHO GET THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE VOTES "WINS." I WROTE ABOUT THIS PROCESS IN A POST ABOVE.

    THERE ARE ALSO AVENUES OF REVIEW THAT LEAD TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE AVENUES ARE IN PROCESS NOW. THE USSC WILL THEN FASHION A REMEDY.

    Apparently...

    1. "Dead" people appeared to have voted for a candidate.
    2. There is audio/video/email/documentary evidence incriminating them & their family of abusing their position
    3. The FBI (and the media) have suppressed and not acted on the evidence above
    4. More "evidence" appears to be coming to light daily.
    5. Covid appears to be "conveniently" used to exacerate mass social and economic instability by the media and
    one of the presidential candidates

    Does none of the above not get included in the "legal" case against a presidential candidate? THE LAWYERS WILL PRESENT, OR ATTMEPT TO PRESENT, EVIDENCE IN COURT, SOME OF WHICH WILL OR MAY TOUCH UPON WHAT YOU HAVE LISTED.

    This appears to be not just an injustice, it is making the usa look a laughing stock on the world stage and is fracturing the very fabric on which its supposed democracy is founded. I remember Hitler during the war believed that the bigger the lie, the easier it would be for the people to believe it...

    In a short response, whats your thoughts on how will this all end from a LAWFUL perspective - Best Scenario & Worst Scenario

    FROM A 'LAWFUL PERSPECTIVE" I THINK (AND MANY WILL DISAGREE WITH ME) THE STATES OF WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ AND NV SHOULD NOT CERTIFY THE ELECTIONS. (BUT SOME OF THEM WILL, IF NOT ALL.) CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER ANY CONFIGURATION, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES FOR EITHER TRUMP OR BIDEN TO GET THE MAGIC NUMBER OF 270 OR MORE.

    IN THAT EVENT, THE ELECTION GOES TO CONGRESS WHERE THE HOUSE CHOOSES THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE CHOOSES THE VP. THE RESULT WILL VERY LIKELY BE THAT TRUMP/PENCE ARE INAUGARATED FOR A SECOND TERM.

    WHETHER THAT IS WORST CASE OR BEST CASE DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU STAND ON THE SUBJECT.


    Thankyou.
    Good questions. I’ll give you my educated five-cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation) ASAP. For what it’s worth.
    For what it's worth, my responses are embedded in your post above in UPPER CASE.

  2. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (27th November 2020), Bill Ryan (27th November 2020), ClearWater (27th November 2020), Deneon (29th November 2020), Ewan (29th November 2020), gord (29th November 2020), Gwin Ru (27th November 2020), iota (13th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), One (12th December 2020), pueblo (12th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), scotslad (29th November 2020), TargeT (29th November 2020), Tintin (27th November 2020)

  3. Link to Post #42
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    11,291
    Thanked 22,014 times in 2,416 posts

    Default Re: From Stillness into a Trump Victory

    The 2020 Presidential election is going to be determined not by one single authority or branch of state or federal government, but by a combination of state courts and state legislatures (in the states under scrutiny), to some extent by the SCOTUS, but in the final analysis by Congress under Art II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amend. of the US Constitution. If not by Congress then by the SCOTUS.

    Ultimately, We, The People, will decide the outcome of the 2020 election.

  4. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (29th November 2020), Arcturian108 (28th November 2020), ClearWater (28th November 2020), Gwin Ru (28th November 2020), Harmony (2nd December 2020), iota (28th November 2020), Karen (Geophyz) (1st December 2020), Mike Gorman (30th November 2020), One (12th December 2020), onevoice (28th November 2020), Reinhard (14th December 2020), T Smith (30th November 2020), thepainterdoug (28th November 2020), Tintin (30th November 2020), wondering (30th November 2020)

  5. Link to Post #43
    Scotland Avalon Member scotslad's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th September 2018
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    647
    Thanks
    2,123
    Thanked 5,963 times in 638 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    thanks @satori for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to scotslad For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th November 2020), gord (29th November 2020), iota (14th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), One (12th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Satori (29th November 2020), TargeT (29th November 2020)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    States Back Texas in Supreme Court Suit, Alleging ‘Unconstitutional’ Election in Battleground States
    BY JANITA KAN December 8, 2020
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/states...g-2020-12-09-1

    "Several states have expressed their support for Texas’s bid to challenge the election results in four battleground states, which was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Attorneys general for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of a motion put forward by Texas asking the nation’s top court for permission to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an attempt to protect the integrity of the 2020 election.

    Texas is alleging that the four key battleground states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The state is asking the court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.

    The suit, filed on Dec. 7 and docketed the next day, is also seeking to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

    Responding to Texas’s motion, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry urged the top court to take up the case, saying that “only the U.S. Supreme Court can ultimately decide cases of real controversy among the states under our Constitution.”

    Landry said Americans share “deep concerns” regarding how the 2020 general election was conducted. The state had previously filed a friend-of-the-court brief (pdf) to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to take up a separate case—cited as Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar—that challenges a state Supreme Court order allowing election officials to accept absentee ballots received up to three days after Nov. 3.

    “Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections,” Landry wrote. “Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution.”

    “Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency,” he added.

    Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also shared similar concerns, saying “unconstitutional actions and fraudulent votes in other states not only affect the citizens of those states, they affect the citizens of all states.”

    “Every unlawful vote counted, or lawful vote uncounted, debases and dilutes citizens’ free exercise of the franchise,” Marshall said.

    He added that he will decide on how to proceed in the state’s “fight to ensure election integrity” after the Supreme Court makes its decision on whether it will hear the case.

    Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, likewise, expressed her support for Texas underscoring the importance of election integrity in a statement late evening Tuesday.

    “After reviewing the motion filed by Texas in the US Supreme Court, I have determined that I will support the motion in all legally appropriate manners. The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and it must be upheld,” Rutledge said.

    Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said late Tuesday that he would “help lead the effort in support of Texas’s” Supreme Court filing, adding, “Missouri is in the fight.”

    Epoch Times Photo
    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton at the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney, Texas, on Dec. 1, 2015. (Jae S. Lee/The Dallas Morning News Via AP, Pool)
    The lawsuit argues that the four states had acted in a way that violated their own election laws and thereby breached the Constitution through enacting and implementing measures, rules, and procedures right before the Nov. 3 election.

    In some instances, the defendant states enacted such measures through the use of so-called friendly lawsuits, in which the plaintiff and the defendant collude to procure a court order, the lawsuit alleges. In other instances, a variety of state election officials allegedly exceeded their authority to promulgate rules and procedures that should have been enacted by each state’s legislature, as required by the Constitution’s Elections and Electors clause.

    “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,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.

    Attorneys general from the defendant states have disputed the allegations in the lawsuit.

    Texas is also asking the Supreme Court (pdf) to grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

    The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 10.

    This comes on the same day as the Supreme Court rejected to grant injunctive relief in a separate case filed by a group of Republicans seeking to block the certification of election results in Pennsylvania. The court did not give reasons for its decision or note any dissents. A lawyer in that case, cited as Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, told The Epoch Times that the plaintiffs plan to file a separate petition for a writ of certiorari, a request to ask the court to review case, in the coming days.

    This case is cited as Texas v. Pennsylvania (22O155).

    Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th December 2020), Ewan (10th December 2020), One (12th December 2020), Reinhard (11th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020)

  9. Link to Post #45
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    What Happens if Texas Wins at the Supreme Court
    69,400 views•Dec 11, 2020
    OfficialACLJ
    268K subscribers

    "Now that both sides have filed briefs in the monumental election case emanating from Texas, the next move is in the hands of the Supreme Court. This case does not decide the President, but is outcome determinative."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), One (12th December 2020), Reinhard (11th December 2020)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Challenging Biden's Victory
    Adam Liptak 1 hr ago 12/10/20
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...ry/ar-BB1bRm9c

    "WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states captured by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.he court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

    The move, coupled with a one-sentence order on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that the court refused to be drawn into President Trump’s losing campaign to overturn the results of the election last month.

    There will continue to be scattered litigation brush fires around the nation from Mr. Trump’s allies, but as a practical matter the Supreme Court’s action puts an end to any prospect that Mr. Trump will win in court what he lost at the polls.

    Texas’ lawsuit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, challenged election procedures in four battleground states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It asked the court to bar those states from casting their electoral votes for Mr. Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ legislatures. That would have required the justices to discard millions of votes.

    Mr. Trump has said he expected to prevail in the Supreme Court, which includes three of his appointees. One of them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was rushed onto the court in October in part in the hope that she would vote in Mr. Trump’s favor in election disputes.

    “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said of the election a few days after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in September. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”

    In the Texas case, the Supreme Court received more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs and motions seeking to intervene, from Mr. Trump, from coalitions of liberal and conservative states, from politicians and from scholars.

    Among them was a brief filed by more than 100 House Republicans who claimed that the general election — the same one in which most of them were re-elected — had been “riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.” More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general expressed similar support on Wednesday.

    Legal experts almost universally dismissed Texas’ suit as an unbecoming stunt. In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.

    In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort. “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.

    On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded in kind in a reply brief. “Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”

    Claims that the election was tainted by widespread fraud have been debunked, including by Attorney General William P. Barr, who said this month that the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

    Some 20 states led by Democrats, in a brief supporting the four battleground states, urged the Supreme Court “to reject Texas’ last-minute attempt to throw out the results of an election decided by the people and securely overseen and certified by its sister states.”

    Georgia, which Mr. Biden won by less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million cast, said in its brief that it had handled its election with integrity and care. “This election cycle,” the brief said, “Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do: it implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), fifi (12th December 2020), Gwin Ru (12th December 2020), One (12th December 2020)

  13. Link to Post #47
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Timcast IRL - SCOTUS REJECTS Trump 20 State Suit, Alex Jones And Michael Malice Discuss
    88,476 watching now•Started streaming 19 minutes ago 12/10/20



    (I never thought I would actually like Alex Jones (not that I didn't believe him--I just thought he was obnoxious).
    But I'm seeing a completely different side to him (many, actually) in this discussion, which is the best thing I've heard in a long time.
    Kudos to them all. The fact that Biden is probably is going to be POTUS doesn't seem quite so bad now.
    But of course, Alex started getting very obnoxious just after I wrote the above, and I'm about 2 &1/2 hours into the conversation, He's just started acting like the drunken gorilla I always used to think he was, and can't stop interrupting and repeating himself... Oh well...)
    Last edited by onawah; 12th December 2020 at 04:59.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), ClearWater (12th December 2020), fifi (12th December 2020), Gwin Ru (12th December 2020), One (12th December 2020), Reinhard (14th December 2020), T Smith (12th December 2020)

  15. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    NOT TO BE MISSED (even if you're not a fan of Alex Jones), historic discussion above in post #46 --might be censored, so I recommended it to the Avalon Library.

    From Bill: yes, downloaded. Tintin's call about the library, but we have it.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 12th December 2020 at 17:53.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), T Smith (12th December 2020)

  17. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    FORTY STATES Now Disputing Who The President Is, FBI Targets AG Who Filed The Lawsuit, This Is WAR
    413,229 views•Dec 11, 2020
    Timcast
    1.07M subscribers
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020)

  19. Link to Post #50
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Trump’s Legal Team Considering Alternate Options After Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Suit
    BY MIMI NGUYEN LY December 11, 2020
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/trumps...g-2020-12-11-6

    "Attorneys on President Donald Trump’s legal team, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, shared on Friday that the team is considering filing separate lawsuits to district courts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a lawsuit from Texas to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states. The two attorneys also called for courage from the courts to allow hearings on the lawsuits.

    Justices on the nation’s highest court late Friday denied the Lone Star state’s request to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They opined that Texas lacked legal standing—or capability—to sue under the Constitution because it has not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections.

    In an interview with Newsmax, Giuliani called the court’s decision a “terrible terrible mistake.”

    “Basically the courts are saying they want to stay out of this, they don’t want to give us a hearing, they don’t want the American people to hear the facts,” the former New York City mayor said. “These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they get resolved. They need to be heard they need to be aired and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false. And some courts are going to have to have the courage to make that decision.”

    “The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case was rejected on standing,” Giuliani said. “The answer to that is to bring the case now to the district court by the president by some of electors alleging the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.”

    “There’s nothing that prevents us from filing these cases immediately in the district court, in which the president would have standing,” he continued. “Some of the electors would have standing in that their constitutional rights have been violated.”

    Ellis, a Trump campaign senior legal adviser, told Newsmax that there is still a “line of attack.”

    “The mayor said that we’ve contemplated filing this as separate lawsuit in district court because obviously the president himself would have standing. It’s amazing to think that these other states, these voters who are disenfranchised, wouldn’t,” she said.

    She signaled that the team still has time up until Jan. 6 when Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes.

    “That date in January. That’s the date of ultimate significance. And the Supreme Court has recognized that,” she said. “We still have time, the state legislatures still have time to do the right thing. They can inquire, they can hold hearings, they can reclaim their delegates, and they should and I hope that now all of the evidence we have brought forth in these hearings will give them the inspiration and courage that they need to act.”

    President Donald Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis speaks to media while flanked by Trump lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (L) and attorney Sidney Powell, at a press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington on Nov. 19, 2020. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
    Ellis said that what has transpired is “a moral failure” across all three branches of government.

    “First you have the executive branch. The problem there is that they changed the rules. We know that, we have the clear evidence that shows that,” she said. “Then the state legislators—there are significant number of them in the swing states that want to do the right thing, they want to exercise their Article II authority, but it’s been leadership that’s refusing to do the constitutionally appropriate thing.”

    She called the Supreme Court’s decision one that appears to be “on a political whim.”

    “How they could pass on this I think is shocking. I think it’s morally outrageous,” she said.

    “I think that regardless of the outcome here we’re going to continue to do the right thing,” Ellis added. “President Trump is courageous, he is standing for truth, the Constitution, election integrity, and it is always a fight that is worth fighting.”

    Giuliani stressed the need for the courts to hear evidence filed by lawsuits challenging election results.

    “These facts need to be heard,” he said. “Because this kind of voter fraud can continue to go on if it is not nipped in the bud. If we don’t stand up to it, if we allow the big media, the big tech, the Democrat politicians, and the Washington elite—if we allow them to roll over this, it’s going to get worse and worse and worse.

    “This is the worst in our history so far, and it’s got to be stopped. And I think the only person who has the courage to stand up to it is Donald Trump. We’re not finished, believe me.”

    Texas’s suit filed on Dec. 8 alleged that the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan ,Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, had illegally changed election laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Electors Clause, which allegedly resulted in voting irregularities and opened up the potential for fraud due to ballot integrity protections under state law having been removed.

    The president has a number of ongoing legal challenges in state and federal courts, some of which are making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Several lawsuits filed by third parties and attorney Sidney Powell are also proceeding through the judicial system.

    Democrat Joe Biden has declared victory in the presidential election and media outlets have been referring to him as “president-elect.” The Epoch Times won’t declare a winner of the 2020 presidential election until all results are certified and any legal challenges are resolved.

    Janita Kan contributed to this report."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), ClearWater (12th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), Satori (12th December 2020), T Smith (14th December 2020)

  21. Link to Post #51
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    What's next after SCOTUS refusing Texas suit
    BREAKING TRUMP NEWS
    12PM 12/12/20
    NEWSMAX Today Dec 12, 2020
    6,112 views•Premiered 2 hours ago

    Last edited by onawah; 13th December 2020 at 03:11.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), Satori (12th December 2020)

  23. Link to Post #52
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    To SCOTUS BLOW TORE SAYS: "CHY NA, CHY NA, CHY NA!"
    21 hours ago1,232 views
    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tor...chy-na-chy-na/

    "SCOTUS BLOW

    In what the Mainstream Media is calling a “fatal blow” to Trump legal team’s effort to stop Joe Biden, the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ effort to overturn the election on the grounds that Texas did not have the legal standing to sue under the Constitution because, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections…All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

    In other words, the merits were not at issue in the case, which was joined by 19 other states and over 120 Republican members of Congress but that Texas was not deemed to be the injured party and therefore had no standing to sue.

    The psychological impact of the decision was brutal because there appeared to be nothing standing in the way of an Electoral College vote for Biden on Monday.

    Trump lawyers urged calm, saying, “We are in exactly the same position we were before the Texas case popped out of nowhere. There remain many paths to a just outcome.” and “When Supreme Court hears Sidney’s case(s) and sides with Trump, the Lefties who are currently celebrating SCOTUS will have to eat their own words…again.”

    Still, as dire as things are looking for Trump supporters, Tore Maras and other military intelligence-affiliated people who claim to be in-the-know maintain that Joe Biden will not be sworn-in as President on January 20th, “We got them all.” and “It had to be this way.”

    CHY NA!

    In her daily podcasts from DC, where she’s been helping the Trump campaign, Tore Maras has been repeating, “We created the CCP…The Communist Chinese didn’t take over China without help…I want you to understand the Chinese and the fourth un-elected branch of government go hand-in-hand…

    “If we want to talk about the roots of China and how they penetrate, I’ll tell you what: there is not one business…that can do business in China without the Chinese government saying so.

    “You have to meet with members of the CCP and you have to coax them. You have to bribe them. You have to kiss their tush…You have to entertain them, you’ve got to get them hookers, you’ve got to get them whatever they want.

    “And then you have to give them blackmail on yourself, so that they allow you to run operations. So, if you want to know how far deep and bad the CCP is, all you have to look is the major businesses.”

    RICO SUAVE

    Tore maintains that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which Rudy Giuliani used to such great effect to bring down the Mafia will be invoked against our corrupt politicians.

    “RICO is in full force, so they can’t stop what’s coming. They can’t. It’s finished. It’s over. It’s done. They’re toast. They should just deal with it and…I really wish they sat and said, ‘You know what? We’re done”…I really wish they would, but but they’re totally not. They just they’re adamant that they’re going to get away with it.

    “And that is what demoralizes you because you believe it.”

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th December 2020), mountain_jim (13th December 2020), One (13th December 2020)

  25. Link to Post #53
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,206
    Thanks
    207,997
    Thanked 456,560 times in 32,726 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Mod note from Bill:

    Folks, I've cross-posted this on all five major US election threads running now: (numbered in order of the # of posts, nothing more)
    1. MASSIVE FRAUD: Major Lawsuits to come
    2. 2020 Presidential Election—and its Aftermath
    3. US Election results still coming in (erratically!)
    4. From Stillness into a Trump Victory
    5. US Election: the Legal Challenge
    I think there are 3 main topics, but even those overlap. Many people post videos or articles that address all 3 of those at once. So it's not always clear where any particular post should go. We really understand this, and no-one's being censured here.
    1. Legal questions and issues.
    2. Fraud allegations and evidence.
    3. What may be next??
    4. (and a little separately) The From Stillness into a Trump Victory thread stands alone, but some posts there do need to be moved.
    So this note is just to say two things:
    • Please think for a moment about where your new post might best belong.
    • I intend to move some posts — if I can easily do that! — tomorrow morning US time. And the thread titles might need a little amending as well.
    Thanks for bearing with us. All we're trying to do here is make it easier to follow and contribute to particular topics, as legal actions are different from fraud claims which are different from speculations about the significant aftermath of all this.


  26. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    gord (13th December 2020), Gwin Ru (13th December 2020), iota (13th December 2020), Kryztian (13th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), pueblo (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), Yoda (13th December 2020)

  27. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,974 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    FBI reports 500,000 fake ballots; Sean Hannity: US in deep trouble if nothing is fixed | Front Page
    207,866 views•Premiered Dec 11, 2020
    29K
    Front Page with Scott Goulet
    145K subscribers

    "UPDATE with news breaking out at 6pm after we shot the episode today: Supreme Court has rejected the State of Texas’s “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint.” However for now, I would like to point out to everyone that: The case is still pending!

    It was only the “Motion for Leave” that was rejected, and the case could be accepted if it were re-filed as a “Motion to File a Bill of Complaint.”
    So, please watch today’s episode, with this update in mind, and fear not, as we press forward and we weather this storm together.

    In this episode we will still discuss the big Chess Moves that have happened since the general election. It seems President Trump’s allies are taking actions, especially with three recent actions, that were taken to drain the Washington Swamp at a faster speed. So now all the swamp creatures deep in the Washington swamp are crawling out in a panic to escape.

    In light of YouTube’s recent notice to begin censorship of videos disputing the 2020 US presidential election. We are asking all of our viewers to SIGN UP to our email list to STAY INFORMED: http://www.frontpageshow.com/ "

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alecs (14th December 2020), Bill Ryan (13th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), Eric J (Viking) (13th December 2020), Gwin Ru (13th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), pueblo (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020)

  29. Link to Post #55
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    11,291
    Thanked 22,014 times in 2,416 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    FBI reports 500,000 fake ballots; Sean Hannity: US in deep trouble if nothing is fixed | Front Page
    207,866 views•Premiered Dec 11, 2020
    29K
    Front Page with Scott Goulet
    145K subscribers

    "UPDATE with news breaking out at 6pm after we shot the episode today: Supreme Court has rejected the State of Texas’s “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint.” However for now, I would like to point out to everyone that: The case is still pending!

    It was only the “Motion for Leave” that was rejected, and the case could be accepted if it were re-filed as a “Motion to File a Bill of Complaint.”
    So, please watch today’s episode, with this update in mind, and fear not, as we press forward and we weather this storm together.

    In this episode we will still discuss the big Chess Moves that have happened since the general election. It seems President Trump’s allies are taking actions, especially with three recent actions, that were taken to drain the Washington Swamp at a faster speed. So now all the swamp creatures deep in the Washington swamp are crawling out in a panic to escape.

    In light of YouTube’s recent notice to begin censorship of videos disputing the 2020 US presidential election. We are asking all of our viewers to SIGN UP to our email list to STAY INFORMED: http://www.frontpageshow.com/ "

    I have not watched this video, but I can say there is no difference between a “Motion to file.....” and a “ Motion for leave to file...”. Any motion is directed to the judge, or here the justices’ so-called, for determination to grant or deny the motion.

    What I’m wondering is why Texas did not just file the complaint, instead of a motion to file the complaint.

    The answer is apparently that the SCOTUS has a procedural rule that requires that it grant permission to file a complaint under its original jurisdiction. To me that is BS and I doubt that procedure is to be found in the US Const. But, courts are permitted to establish and indeed must have procedures, but no procedure should deny a constitutional right of access to the courts.

    The SCOTUS is dead wrong to say Texas lacked standing. That is absurd.

  30. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (13th December 2020), avid (13th December 2020), Bill Ryan (13th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), Gwin Ru (13th December 2020), Jayke (13th December 2020), mountain_jim (13th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), pueblo (13th December 2020), PurpleLama (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), sunflower (13th December 2020)

  31. Link to Post #56
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks
    9,764
    Thanked 17,993 times in 2,139 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Looks like Trump is going ahead and refiling the Texas suit in multiple states with himself as the plaintiff..

    Can they rule that Trump does not have standing?


    Quote "We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”

    Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.

    Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.

    “If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...mpression=true

  32. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), mountain_jim (13th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), One (13th December 2020), Reinhard (13th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), T Smith (14th December 2020)

  33. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    11,291
    Thanked 22,014 times in 2,416 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    Looks like Trump is going ahead and refiling the Texas suit in multiple states with himself as the plaintiff..

    Can they rule that Trump does not have standing?


    Quote "We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”

    Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.

    Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.

    “If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...mpression=true
    Trump and the electors clearly have standing. There are already cases in the books that recognize standing for electors in other contexts that raised issues of law less compelling than the issues raised in the 2020 election. Trump, too, has standing because he has a legally cognizable claim and is “injured” by the conduct he will assert in the lawsuits.

    But, to answer the question, yes, a United District Court Judge could rule, wrongly in my opinion, that they, or some of them, lack standing.

    To have the cases dismissed for lack of standing, or any other reason, will require the defendants to file a motion in each jurisdiction asking the court to dismiss. They have 20 days in federal court from the date they are served with the complaint(s) to move to dismiss. Trump my file a motion to shorten the 20 days. While I expect the whole process will be expedited, I’m not sure the judge(s) will shorten the 20 day period. A judge has the discretion to do that or not.

    Trump et al. may actually welcome an early dismissal in order to get the cases to the circuit court of appeals, and ask for immediate certification of the case(s) to the Supreme Court, or go to a justice of the Supreme Court directly and seek emergency relief in the Supreme court along the lines of what was done on PA.

    The enemies are within the gate.
    Last edited by Satori; 13th December 2020 at 18:01.

  34. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (14th December 2020), Arcturian108 (13th December 2020), Ba-ba-Ra (13th December 2020), Bill Ryan (13th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), Eric J (Viking) (13th December 2020), Ewan (14th December 2020), Journeyman (14th December 2020), onawah (13th December 2020), onevoice (13th December 2020), pueblo (13th December 2020), RunningDeer (13th December 2020), T Smith (14th December 2020), Tintin (13th December 2020)

  35. Link to Post #58
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Language
    English
    Age
    78
    Posts
    13,355
    Thanks
    32,617
    Thanked 68,858 times in 11,838 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Exclusive: Sidney Powell on 2020 Election Lawsuits, Supreme Court Decision & Gen. Michael Flynn Case


    Joining us today is attorney Sidney Powell, who has been leading election lawsuits in multiple states. On Friday, she filed emergency requests to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to order officials in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to de-certify their 2020 election results.

    We discuss the current status of the legal challenges she’s involved in and her thoughts on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Texas lawsuit as well as the conclusion of the Flynn case.

    This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    avid (14th December 2020), Bill Ryan (14th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), Reinhard (14th December 2020), RunningDeer (14th December 2020)

  37. Link to Post #59
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    11,291
    Thanked 22,014 times in 2,416 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    As I have been discussing in this thread and elsewhere on the Forum, today is the day that things will start to shape up for the showdown in Congress on 1/6/2021 when the Senate and the House meet to open and count the electoral votes from the 50 states and DC.

    So far the GOP electors from Nevada have casts their votes for Trump. No doubt, the Democrat electors will cast their votes for Biden. The Michigan GOP electors are about to cast their votes for Trump. The GOP electors from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia are on record that they will cast their votes for Trump, if they have not yet done so. The Democrat electors of these states will cast theirs for Biden. These are five of the 6 or so swing states where the election was stolen. These GOP electors are now, or will later today be, what are called "unfaithful" or "rogue" electors. (Those terms are offensive and have no justification and find no support in the 2020 election, if they ever did find support in other elections, given the massive election fraud involving, among other things, foreign influence and actors.)

    All the electoral votes from the states where the electors went "rogue" will not go to Biden. Having electors' votes split in a state between two candidates provides additional and firm basis for a disagreement in Congress on the vote count from those states. Under the Electoral Count Act once Congress cannot agree on the electoral vote count in a state, counting stops and Congress cannot go on to the next state until the vote count dispute is resolved. (Electoral vote counting is done alphabetically starting with Alabama.)

    Art II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amend. are triggered if and when an electoral vote count impasse is reached in Congress. It appears we are moving closer to an Acting president situation.

    The showdown Congress is likely where the SCOTUS gets involved and there will be a showdown there. (I'm guessing, but it may be what the SCOTUS has been expecting and why it has done some housekeeping by declining review of other cases.) Stay tuned.

    PS As I write this I get word that today the Trump for President campaign filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging the election here. There is much evidence of vote fraud and corruption in this state, among other forms of corruption. (I wish I was involved in the case.)

    Note: I edited the post to make it clear that Trump did not file the NM lawsuit. The New Mexico chapter of the Trump for President, Inc. did. I have not read the complaint yet.
    Last edited by Satori; 14th December 2020 at 20:15.

  38. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alan (14th December 2020), Ami (14th December 2020), avid (14th December 2020), Bill Ryan (14th December 2020), ClearWater (14th December 2020), Gwin Ru (15th December 2020), iota (14th December 2020), Reinhard (14th December 2020), RunningDeer (15th December 2020), T Smith (15th December 2020)

  39. Link to Post #60
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th May 2017
    Location
    TX, USA
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    7,405
    Thanked 14,546 times in 2,065 posts

    Default Re: US Election: the Legal Challenge

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    As I have been discussing in this thread and elsewhere on the Forum, today is the day that things will start to shape up for the showdown in Congress on 1/6/2021 when the Senate and the House meet to open and count the electoral votes from the 50 states and DC.

    So far the GOP electors from Nevada have casts their votes for Trump. No doubt, the Democrat electors will cast their votes for Biden.
    this has happened, the Las Vegas Sun reported today:

    11:55 a.m.


    Nevada’s six Democratic presidential electors have awarded their votes for Joe Biden, becoming the first slate of electors from a battleground state to cast their vote.

    my understanding is, that despite the fact that Nevada GOP gave Live Conference in which they selected Electors for Trump, they were NOT sent, same as PA

    so my question is, does that negate:

    Quote Having electors' votes split in a state between two candidates provides additional and firm basis for a disagreement in Congress on the vote count from those states.
    being that they were selected, but not sent?
    We should defend our way of life
    to an extent that any attempt on it is crushed,

    so that any adversary
    will never make such an attempt in the future.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to iota For This Post:

    ClearWater (14th December 2020), RunningDeer (15th December 2020), T Smith (15th December 2020), TargeT (14th December 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 3 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts