Election 2020: Democrats to Reimpeach

 After Mike Pence said 'nutz' to Nancy Pelosi's demand that he initiate the removal of President Trump via the 25 Amendment, which permits the removal of a President for reasons of unfitness (primarily thought of as illness, instituted after President Woody Wilson's wife became de facto President after her husband's stroke), it appears that Nasty Nancy and her crew will push through another quickie impeachment, in hopes that enough Republican Senators will sign on to make it stick this time. Frankly, it seems mostly to be spiteful. 

 Fox,  Trump, Pence meet for 1st time since Capitol riot, Ex-Republican, Capt. Ed at Hot Air, Bloomberg, ABC: Pence-Trump Meeting Signals No Resignation And No 25th Amendment. WaEx, Pence says invoking 25th Amendment isn't 'in the best interest of our nation'. John Sexton at Hot Air, VP Pence: I Won’t Invoke The 25th Amendment To Remove The President, Sundance at CTH, VP Mike Pence Rejects Speaker Pelosi Request for 25th Amendment Against President Trump.

And guess who Nasty Nancy named as on of her impeachment managers? Give up? Eric Swalwell (D-China). MR. KISS KISS FANG FANG IS BACK WITH A BANG! Eric Swalwell named an impeachment manager by Nancy Pelosi. Twitchy, ‘Seriously?’ Jesse Kelly and others react to one of Nancy Pelosi’s picks to serve as Trump impeachment manager. Sorry, no more Twitter links from me. "Eric Swalwell gets busted dipping the egg roll in the Chinese buffet and instead of getting demoted, he’s an impeachment manager. . . .Learn. Who. You’re. Dealing. With."

Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 01.12.21, The Geller Report: Murder Turtle Reportedly Supports Democrats’ Impeachment Efforts, also, SNAKE – Liz Cheney Says She’ll Vote To Impeach Trump. In Mitch's case, he's reportedly furious about losing Georgia, which he blames on Trump. Liz? She's just one of the old guard Republican's who doesn't understand that the party left her. AllahPundit crows Liz Cheney: Yes On Impeachment.  "A friend messaged me after this news broke to say, “A Cheney will shoot you in the face and make you apologize.” Which is funny because it’s true!" Brooke Singman at Fox,  McConnell furious with president, supports move to initiate impeachment proceedings. Ace, Report: Bitch McConnell Wants Impeachment, Sees It As Chance to Purge the President (and Purge the non-Establishment GOP). AllahPundit again, Endgame: McConnell Reportedly Believes Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, “Pleased” That He’s Being Impeached; Update: “If Mitch Is A Yes, He’s Done”  If he does so, Mitch is basically signing the death warrant of the Republican party as we know it. Maybe it's time. No political party lasts forever. Insty, 

That’s not playing well with the GOP base, based on the reaction on Twitter at the time of this post. But it does raise a question: Can Congress impeach and convict a president after the person has left office? Neo finds a law professor at Loyola who says they can. The Washington Post has a column by J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006 who says: A Senate impeachment trial after Trump leaves office would be unconstitutional.

LaurenceJarvikOnline: Will President Trump's Second Impeachment Become America's "Dreyfus Affair?"  "False charges, forged documents, fake news, Establishment conspiracy, and Israel-haters acting in concert to smear an innocent man..." Neo, Can Congress impeach and convict a president after the person has left office?  Well, of course they can go through the motions. But does it matter? On the other hand, from Capt. Ed. Manchin — And Daschle — To House Dems: Impeachment “So Ill-Advised” At This Time. Stephen Kruiser's Morning Brief , Squish Republican Turncoats Are More Vile Than Democrats. Insty, IDIOTS OR TRAITORS? WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE: House Republicans Introduce Resolution to Censure Trump. Looking for a less severe alternative. Capt Ed. doubts Axios: McCarthy Told Trump, “Stop It, It’s Over, The Election Is Over”

Da Fed, No, Donald Trump Did Not Incite An Insurrection. Of course not, but that doesn't really matter to the Democrats, who've been seeking any possible excuse.

PM, BREAKING: Supreme Court refuses to fast-track Trump election lawsuits. I'm not shocked, are you. Pursue them anyway. David Goldman at PJ Media, Here's How We Flatten the Democratic Party During the Next Four Years.       

Ask yourself if you want to win, or just let off steam.

Civil suits require a much lower standard of proof. Criminal cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but civil suits require only “the preponderance of the evidence.” We may not be able to produce enough phony ballots or enough affidavits from Trump voters to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the results were fudged, but civil cases can produce a preponderance of evidence of fraud. Statistical arguments don’t hold water before a judge considering whether to overturn an election, but they contribute to preponderance of evidence.

Every Trump elector or Republican candidate who lost due to suspected fraud can sue the relevant Democratic Party apparatchiks in civil court. These lawsuits allow interrogation of the miscreants under oath. If we can’t put them in jail for vote fraud, we can get them on perjury. And we can wreak merry havoc on the Democratic Party organizations, and make mid-level officials pay the price for the nefarious schemes of their superiors. The rank-and-file fraudsters and the local party machines are the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party. That’s where it is vulnerable to a sustained and relentless attack.

This will require patience and the participation of tens of thousands of volunteers, as well as a good deal of money (although it might eventually pay for itself through the collection of civil damages). Civil suits have been litigated successfully against vote fraud for years. Thousands of such suits would ruin the Democrats.

At Doug Ross, ARE THERE REALLY 60 FAILED GOP ELECTION FRAUD LAWSUITS? The Legendary Ivan Koloff Drops a MOAB on the Myth

I have not been ignoring you. Rather, it took me some time to read the multitude of cases litigating the election, which included those identified on the ABA’s website plus some additional cases I came across. For your convenience and reading pleasure, I prepared a chart outlining these 57 cases, which I encourage you to review carefully. The bottom line is this:

1. Of these 57 cases, 33 (61%) were brought before the election, including a number brought by the Democratic party. These cases generally involved election procedures and obviously did not address any alleged misconduct that may have occurred during the conduct of the election;
2. In 50 of these 57 cases (88%), the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and thus made no findings regarding potential or actual election misconduct.
3. In most of the cases brought after the election, the court declined to address the merits of the claims based on various procedural grounds (e.g., standing, mootness).
4. Even in those cases where an evidentiary hearing was held, the courts reached the merits in only three of these cases.

In short, your statement that 60 court cases found “no evidence of voter fraud” is demonstrably untrue.

To your specific questions that I have paraphrased slightly below, my responses are as follows:

Why have the states (including Republican-led) certified the results?

The general answer is because the states were required to certify results by specific deadlines after the election – deadlines established by state and federal law. These deadlines involve short turnaround times and were not established with addressing fact-intensive election challenges in mind. Indeed, many of the post-election challenges that Trump and individual voters filed in court were brought after certification, which gave courts an easy out for disposing of those challenges without reaching the merits.

Furthermore, most states require that election results by certified at the local, county, or district level as an initial matter, after which certification at the state level is nearly automatic. And, the election officials who do the certifying are the same officials responsible for conducting the election in accordance with state and federal requirements. Without being cynical, it is not surprising that an election official would be inclined to certify the results rather than acknowledging that the election may not have been conducted in accordance with law.

It's pretty clear that Republicans (or whatever Trumpist party follows the Republicans, if the murder turtle succeeds in killing this one) needs to step up it's election strategy. Ballot harvest with the best of them, if you can't overturn laws that allow it. Enforce ID requirements and take things to court early and often so they can't pull the Laches dodge if they try to stop you. Clean the voter rolls.

Plenty more links at the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 01.12.21 and at JJ Sefton's The Morning Report - 1/13/21 at Ace's.