Four poll watchers ,three hanging chads, two spoiled ballots and a phone call from a phone tree.
Ted Noel at AmThink is holding out for Mike Pence de Machina ending. It's for Mike Pence to Judge whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All
On January 6, a joint session of Congress will open with Vice President Pence presiding as president of the Senate. His power will be plenary and unappealable. You heard that right. As president of the Senate, every objection comes directly to him, and he can rule any objection "out of order" or "denied." His task will be to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. This is a high standard of performance, and V.P. Pence will have two choices. He can roll over on "certified" electors, or he can uphold the law.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives state legislatures "plenary authority" as enunciated in Bush v. Gore. This is key, since the counting of votes is discussed in Article II, the 12th Amendment, and 3 USC 15. To this we must add the history of counting and objections recounted by Alexander Macris (here and here). Put bluntly, it's as clear as mud. Add to that the fact that the contested states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have sent dueling slates of electors to D.C. This means that the V.P. has to decide how he will handle the situation when two sealed envelopes are handed to him from any of those states.
For better or worse, I don't think Pence has the stones to make that move. I'm sure he will see his role as almost completely ceremonial, although I'm sure that's not what the founders intended. They put each and every thing that's in the constitution for a reason. Note; I lost my taste for ceremonial pomp by reading the Gormenghast trilogy. (Link goes to my Amazon site, and buying it will put a bit in my pocket).
Matt Margolis at PJ Media provides a Legal Memo Outlines Strategy for Trump to Succeed Having Supreme Court Hear Election Dispute
The authors of the memo contend that by refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court” abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court,” resulting in intense criticism that they had evaded “the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”
“However,” the authors say, “even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.”
Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause.
Olsen and McSweeney say that if this happened, it would “leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires. The United States suffered an injury when those four states “violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature.”
I'm sure the Supreme Court can find some excuse to artfully dodge this case too. As Jerome Michaels, also at Am Think thinks A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country
Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.
Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.
Josh Philips, 2020 Election Investigation：Who is Stealing America？
I have admired Andrew McCarthy since I was a diplomat in the Middle East, and he filed the indictment against Sheikh Omar for the 1994 bombing of the World Trade Center. He has been right, and courageous, about many things in the years since then. But he is wrong about the massive election fraud in November, and especially about the Allied Security Operations Group report signed by Russ Ramsland that focuses on the role of the Dominion Voting Systems machines in Antrim County, Michigan.
In “A Whopper of An Election Rigging Claim,” McCarthy clarifies the misunderstanding about the reported 68 percent error rate. But he goes on to accuse Ramsland, wrongly, of many other errors. It seems as though McCarthy is basing his criticism on reporting in the Detroit Free Press, and he fails to understand several important matters. Let me point them out in no particular order.
John Dietrich at Am Think, The intimidation of Melissa Carone
Dominion Voting Systems is presently going on attack. Attorneys Thomas Clare and Megan Meier, representing Dominion, sent letters to President Donald Trump's supporters demanding that the cease making false and "defamatory" claims about the company's role in voter fraud. Their letter to Melissa Carone, dated 22 December 2020, has been posted on the internet. The letter reveals that Dominion may not be competently represented. The attorneys claim that Carone was Rudy Giuliani's "star witness" who made outlandish accusations "without a shred of corroborating evidence." Who designated Melissa Carone a "star witness"? Giuliani had several witnesses.Da Blaze, Republican congressman lashes out at Trump, GOP colleagues for challenging Joe Biden's win: 'An utter scam' The CIA's pet reporter at WaPoo whines Until Biden’s win is certified, the U.S. remains vulnerable.
Trump’s last-ditch campaign will almost certainly fail in Congress. The greater danger is on the streets, where pro-Trump forces are already threatening chaos. A pro-Trump group called “Women for America First” has requested a permit for a Jan. 6 rally in Washington, and Trump is already beating the drum: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
Government officials fear that if violence spreads, Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act to mobilize the military. Then Trump might use “military capabilities” to rerun the Nov. 3 election in swing states, as suggested by Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. Trump “could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election,” Flynn told Newsmax in a Dec. 17 interview.
AllahPundit at Hot Hair, Lin Wood: We Can Prove Trump Was Cheated — If Republicans Boycott The Georgia Senate Runoffs
Wood would have you believe that some sort of “algorithm” inside Dominion’s machines is subtracting Republican votes and adding Democratic ones. How can he and Sidney Powell prove that? Simple: All Republicans need to do is mass-boycott the Senate election on January 5, tricking the algorithm into producing impossible “negative” vote totals for Republicans in heavily Democratic areas. E.g., if the fabled algorithm is designed to automatically switch 100 votes from red to blue and only 50 Republicans turn out to vote, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will each get -50 negative votes in that precinct — the smoking gun that vote-stealing is going on.
If they're cheating algorithm is that stupid, they need to hire better mathematicians and programmers.
Natalie Winters at TNP, Dem Senate Hopeful Urged Americans To Follow Chinese State-Run Media
Jon Ossoff, a Democratic Senate candidate in Georgia, hyped the reporting of Xinhua News – a Chinese Communist Party-run news outlet – with a shoutout on Twitter and has shared clips praising the advances of China’s Navy.
The unearthed remarks – occurring on Twitter in 2012 – are in addition to Ossoff’s financial ties to another Chinese state-run media company – a relationship he failed to include on financial disclosures and labeled “paperwork oversight” by his campaign.