They did explain, David! But you like most Trump supporters were just too thick to understand, constitutionally, no state has any jurisprudence over how other sovereign states conduct their elections And therefore the plaintiff's hand no standing or merit!

Moreover, in the 56 other actions, even republican appointed judges in republican states found no merit.

Recounts seem to have improved Joe Biden's position.

To make a claim about fraud one needs evidence and Trump's legal team only had hot air and lots of it from both fundamental orifices! David, I heard you were a competent Lawyer? Really? You jest surely?
Alan B.

Q: How can the Supreme Court of the United States have ruled on Texas' motion without hearing submissions?

A: Commonsense.

On the subject of common sense, the Electoral College has confirmed that Biden has won the Presidential Election.

Aidan,

Don't tell Trump. Just let him keep thinking that he won.

Six moths from now an orange-faced obese golfer waving a golf club over his head storms into the Oval Office and screams "What's that man doing sitting at my desk!"

Hiya David

Re your article on behalf of Trump, please note Trump's anti-Semitic bedfellows:

"Christian Identity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Christian_Identity ]

These are the types backing Trump who will be doing decidedly illegal things, come Inauguration Day.

In that spirit, why do you continue to write in support of Trump?

Possibly something to do with the fact that about 8 million more people voted legally for Biden.

Those whose knowledge of the issue is mainly that according to the mainstream media seem to think Biden won and will assume the Presidency. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that was widespread incidence of several types of cheating. Also, if the election counts were honest, Trump probably won by a landslide. Seems that in the court system, judges have been finding excuses to not be the first to take action against fraudulent activities. Those who did would probably receive considerable backlash againt theselves. Along with some Republican state officials.

Trump has strong support, of which one is "Stop the steal" which has held rallies in every state capitol and Washington DC on Saturdays since the election. Then remember apparently is possibility of Trump invoking martial law and /or the 1807 Insurrection Act. If there is significant popular support for him to remain in the White House, who is going to throw him out? Remember, he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the military rank and file overall strongly support him and also he has just appointed new civilian senior Pentagon officials with views similar to his own. Also, if any civilian conflicts occurred over election results, note that civilian firearm owners would be largely Republican supporters. Even if largely just for standing up against Democrat anti gun policies. Could effectively be a "Military coup" and those then running the country arrange a new fair election.

What will happen now is unknown. I doubt the 73million or so who voted for President Donald trump will concede or give up on trying to rectify this massive fraud. Having read reliable media extensively regarding this fraudulent election in America, I have no doubt it was a massive and blatant fraud against the people and Donald Trump who easily won the 2020 election. Like a reported thousands of others I take little or no notice of the very anti-Trump, lame stream media who are very seriously damaging America and its future.

Hi again David

What ARE you doing matey?

Your continually backing of Trump MAY in turn be comforting some of his nastier ANTI-SEMITIC racist support groups.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the US.

ADL repeatedly accused Donald Trump, when he was a presidential candidate in 2016, of making use of ANTI-SEMITIC tropes or otherwise exploiting divisive and bigoted rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

In 2017 Trump refused to out, and condemn, ANTI-SEMITIC, neo-Nazi groups.

"In August 2017, the country saw a disturbing manifestation of ANTI-SEMITISM at the alt right “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, where hundreds of marchers threw Nazi salutes, waved swastika flags and shouted “Seig Heil” And

[THESE NAZIS CHANTED] “Jews will not replace us!” ADL researchers identified more than 300 of the estimated 500-600 individuals who showed up to support the antisemitic and racist rally." See http://www.adl.org/what-we-do/anti-semitism/antisemitism-in-the-us

In 2020 ADL continued to call out President Trump for comments and actions that appeared to give voice or support to extremists for politicizing charges of ANTI-SEMITISM for partisan purposes and for continued use of ANTI-SEMITIC tropes.

On 29 September 2020 Trump gave comfort to the ANTI-SEMITIC PROUD BOYS with Trump saying "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by"
__________________________

What ARE you doing David?

Trump's Base includes too many Nazi groups who consider Jews "useful idiots on our Hit List" TEMPORARILY "useful" that is.

Hi Mox,

Thank you for warning us about the dangers of a fascist coup in support of Trumpf led, you suggest, by the military, in order to overthrow the democratic wishes of the US electorate.

I don't think that will happen: if anything, the military has had a gut-full of Trumpf's weakening of US military power around the world, and will - if they have to - drag him out of the White House, trouserless, and string him up, alongside his Fat Boys supporters, and his latest totty.

But your pro-democratic [has that become a sort of dirty word these days on the right ?] stance in support of the people's wishes, as expressed back on November 3, won't go unnoticed. Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah, Mox :)

Joe

Relevant parts of BIDEN's Speech, re: the SUPREME COURT, made after the Electoral College Vote

on 14th December (US time) http://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-speech-after-electoral-college-vote-transcript-december-14

"...Time and again, President TRUMP's lawyers presented arguments to state officials, state

legislatures, state and federal courts, and ultimately to the United States SUPREME COURT twice.

...A few states went for recounts. All the counts were confirmed. The results in Georgia

were counted three times. It didn’t change the outcome.

The recount conducted Wisconsin actually saw our margin grow. The margin we had in Michigan

was 14 times the margin President TRUMP won that state by four years ago.

...Even more stunning, 17 Republican Attorneys General, and 126 Republican members of the

Congress, actually, they actually signed onto a lawsuit filed by the state of TEXAS.

That lawsuit asked the United States SUPREME COURT

to reject the certified vote counts in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

This legal maneuver was an effort by elected officials and one group of states to try to get the SUPREME COURT

to wipe out the votes of more than 20 million Americans in other states. And to hand the

presidency to a candidate who lost the Electoral College, lost the popular vote, and lost each

and every one of the states whose votes they were trying to reverse.

It’s a position so extreme, we’ve never seen it before. And position that refused to respect

the will of the people, refused to respect the rule of law, and refused to honor our Constitution.

Thankfully, a unanimous SUPREME COURT

immediately and completely rejected this effort. The [SUPREME COURT] sent a clear signal to

President TRUMP that they would be no part of an unprecedented assault on our democracy.

Every single avenue was made available to President TRUMP to contest the results.

...And then the case decided after the SUPREME COURT’s latest rejection, a judge appointed

by President TRUMP wrote, “This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case

and he has lost on the merits...”
_____________________

FULL TRANSCRIPT for DAVID to STUDY

HERE http://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-speech-after-electoral-college-vote-transcript-december-14

Wow plantagenet and you believe that it was not a massive and blatant fraudulent election in favor of sleepy Joe Biden ? Wow, wow, wow.

Here's the thing.

Sovereign states conduct their own elections according to their election laws. Texas challenging the right of colour folk to have a legitimate right to vote and have their vote counted is tantamount to NZ deciding we/Tas/NT/SA/ACT, don't have a right to vote in our own elections. Even ones as manipulated by power brokers and a broken preference system, like ours.

Let me conclude my remarks by affirming that I am a fiscal conservative and socially progressive, like most of middle Australia and most of middle America!

The election is over and the candidate that won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes and over 300 college votes is President Joe Biden! End of story! Albeit, the neo-nazis the brown shirts and lunatic fascists cannot accept the outcome!

Why? Because they are loony toon fascists/white supremists, who seem to believe that you win power with the point of a gun and mass murder!? How many millions of innocent deaths do they need, to finally concede that doesn't work/has never worked?

And are they willing to own their own behaviour and accept the consequences for it on their own final day of judgement. Even if their only crime was to supply or load the weapon(s)?
Alan B.

Hi AlanB, you forgot to mention the destroyers Antifa and BLM etc who do the huge, huge damage, fires etc for their Democrat mates. Cheers and good luck.

.

Dear David (the author),

.

You can rest assured that if there had been even the slightest bit of evidence of massive voter fraud concerning the 2020 presidential election, “Donald the dictator’s” armada of legal and technical experts would have found it.

They obviously didn't find anything. Otherwise, they would have presented it to the courts and the whole world would have known about it.

However, if you think they have overlooked something you should let Rudy Giuliani know before it’s too late. Here is his twitter address : @RudyGiuliani.

To tell you the truth, I think all these shenanigans are simply deceptive manoeuvres by “Donald the dictator” to stoke up the fire and keep his gullible supporters’ blood boiling so that he can syphon off as much money from them as possible either in the form of lump sums or regular monthly or weekly instalments.

"Donald the dictator" knows his supporters have blind faith in him – just as the members of the multiple religious sects in the US have blind faith in their gurus. They obey their guru religiously.

As you seem to be an ardent supporter yourself, David, you might like to contribute to his slush fund. Here are the details :

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00762591/1471958/

Before you do though, you might like to read the CBS News article of 5 December as well as the earlier Business Insider article of 1 December that provide some details of how the slush fund operates.

“Donald the dictator” keeps 75% of the takings (over $ 200 million at the latest count) and cedes 25% to the Republican Party – which, no doubt, explains at least partly, the loyalty of the majority of the Republican members of Congress to the outgoing president. Fear for their political careers is probably the other major factor that assures their unfailing loyalty.

Thus personal security and ambition take precedence over more noble considerations such as patriotism and respect of American democracy and its institutions.


Here are the links to the articles :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-save-america-pac-is-raking-in-donations-what-can-that-money-be-spent-on/

http://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/trump-has-raised-at-least-150-million-to-cover-his-bogus-election-challenges-but-most-of-that-money-will-go-to-financing-trumps-future/articleshow/79512363.cms

.

#To all those who have posted comments:

I am not interested in replying because none seek to challenge the major claim in my article - that the Supreme Court of the United States erred in refusing to hear the motion filed by the State of Ohio requesting that the Court interpret the meaning of just one word in the Constitution - "Legislature".

Ohio's stated reason for asking the Court to do so should have been very easy for all of you to understand:

" the States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted.

The People need an answer, too.

Until they get one, elections will continue to be plagued by doubts regarding whether the President was chosen in the constitutionally prescribed manner."

The voting rules in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin were not changed for the 2020 elections by their Legislatures but by state executive officials - as happened in other States as well.

The reason given by the Court in refusing to hear Ohio's motion was just 8 words: "All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

Ohio's motion was just 1471 words.

The matter to be resolved - "the meaning of the word "legislature" - in the Constitution" - just 9 words.

If "Legislature" included State executive officials - Biden would be favoured.

If "Legislature" excluded State executive officials - Trump would be favoured.

A ruling either way would have provoked outrage from the other side.

So the Court just shirked doing what it was constituted to do and which it had been granted authority by the Constitution to do - interpret the Constitution.

Slamming the door shut in Ohio's face - when Ohio had the standing to have the Court hear its motion - was wrong in my opinion.

Instead of you all choosing to spend thousands of words talking about anything but the Court's decision to refuse the Ohio motion - focus on that decision and I will reply.

Thank you David Singer for your excellent - although very disturbing article - and comment asking why the Supreme Court did NOT stand up for justice and truth when asked to do so by Ohio.

America and the people expected to and should have been able to rely on the Supreme Court to dispense truth and justice but have been let down so badly that I fear for the good future of America and its people.

Where are all the people of integrity and goodwill, the only one I see and hear with these attributes is President Donald Trump. His 73 million or so supporters need and are entitled to truth and justice from the Supreme Court.

Hypotheticaly, even if interpretation of Texas and Ohio were correct, it would have been an ENORMOUS injustice to use a legal technicality to disenfranchise millions of voters who complied by what they were told the rules were.

David Singer they spend thousands of words on nonsense because they know the points you raise are valid. They also know Trump won in a landslide.
Word is the court didn't want to be the ones responsible for the inevitable rioting. Or more accurately the chief justice didn't want the court to be blamed. They dodged.
Probably safe to assume they grabbed the matter of standing to escape liability for ignoring the valid claims of the suit.
Of course the court read the suit and of course they saw the validity of it's claims. Why else would they throw the rest aside as "moot"?
It's more of the silly excuse of not wanting to disenfranchise "voters" being repeated in state courts. I read that as a dodge as well. To me these are excuses to avoid the subject of electoral laws being a matter for state legislatures.
I'm not a scholar of US law so I'm guided by my instincts and those are seeing a distinct tell tale pattern in the claims and reactions of the anti Trump element.
The ballots received and counted only in accordance with unlegislated changes are invalid.
That's what the anti Trumpers and the courts themselves are telling us. Otherwise why would they so consistently angrily react to the subject?

We know they know.

At the moment it's looking like the law doesn't exist in the US. If it does then the state level electoral crimes reached their highest level with the electoral college vote. Same with Biden accepting the college vote.

David,

Can any state or territory government here lean over the shoulder of any other state or territory government and tell it what to do ?

No.

Can any State or territory government demand from the Australian High Court that it tell it to do so ?

No.

Similar, so it seems, in the US. One state can't dictate that the Supreme Court there leans over the shoulder of any other state and do things in the way that the first one wants.

Even Justice Coney Barrett has told the Texas marshals to bugger off.

There's your answer. Now YOU can bugger off.

Joe

Ah, the US election scene - a laugh a minute :)

Now this beauty:

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-shares-post-saying-republican-leaders-in-georgia-will-soon-be-going-to-jail/news-story/59dfd8991e19fc40a1b474f76c4ef354

Case after case put to the courts, including the Supreme Court (a third of whose members Trumpf appointed), and no victory whatsoever. Then this sort of stuff, calling for Republicans to be jailed - calls supported by Trumpf.

So, as the Senate run-off election in Georgia approaches, three weeks away, the Republicans are trying to eat each other, or at least spit each other out. If the Republicans lose those two Senate seats, then the Democrats - and worse still, a black woman - and worse, worse still, a woman of MIXED ancestry (so much against god's law !) - will have the casting vote. The Senate won't be white-controlled as is its the god-given right, ever again.

So there's the Chief Clown and his Fat Boys and their Toys, and the Confederate Republicans on one side, with their slogan, of 'Make America White Again'. There's the American people, the Supreme Court, the President-elect and Vice-President-elect, on the other side. And what does Trumpf do ? Start up his own Comedy Show. So funny !

SNL and Borat, retire NOW !

Joe

jamo,
All the evidence shows Trump LOST in a landslide.

Far from being a silly excuse, not wanting to disenfranchise millions of voters is a crucial feature of democracy! If you don't recognise that, I think you've lost sight of the purpose of elections.

Although I suspect your real position is based on the outcome not the laws, and that you'd be railing agains the President of Venezuela if he tried the same stunt!

American electoral laws are indeed a matter for state legislatures. So if the state legislatures inadvertently created a problem, they should fix it with retrospective legislation so that the validity of votes matches what the government and the people believed it to be. Justice demands no less!

However, it is far from clear that the problem even exists. Firstly I'd not be at all surprised if state legislation already exists giving the executive the power to make these administrative changes. Secondly it is not clear how crucial these changes really are to the validity of the votes. And thirdly, as the state legislature did not challenge the executive before the election, there is likely to be a strong case for validity by estoppel.

Either way, bureaucracy should not trump democracy.

Quite straightforward;
The US Supreme Court said Texas had "No Standing".
As far as I can gather that means "No appearance" or "No Recognition"
Texas was as if it was invisible.
Bit like you turning up at a NSW court with a claim against Victoria.

Bazz from what I gather the standing technicality was that there needed to be a voter claiming injury in the suit.
I think that's a pretty pithy excuse to dismiss but it's the one they utilized. I fail to see why a state sincerely acting on behalf of it's people could be considered to have no standing to do so.

Aidan, No. Indeed I do believe Trump by far is the better option for the US and the rest of the world right now. Mostly because his motivation supersedes the pursuit of wealth. Biden I'm not so sure about. I get the sense he's just an avatar somehow. Frankly I believe Sanders was a more genuine candidate, and he's a raving socialist. Properly briefed with sound information I expect he'd have done the right thing when the need arose.
Biden was propelled past Sanders fraudulently as well by the way.
But now it's bigger than any single candidate. Make no mistake, what we're witnessing is a coup against the American people. 74000000 people, possibly even 100000000, have been told their votes don't count. They're finding out they have no recourse through the courts as well.
This in essence is a fort Sumter level event. More than that they're right back to taxation without representation.
It shouldn't worry us but because we rely on the US so much it does.
I don't believe most of the people who took part in the electoral fraud realised the gravity of what they were doing. I expect most were just excited to be helping get rid of orange man.
I don't know what happens next but my understanding is, if this can't be cleaned up through conventional legal processes the President is obliged by oath to take action to clean it up.

.

Dear David,

.

The long-shot case initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (who is currently under criminal indictment on securities fraud charges) was a last-ditch legal attempt to upend the presidential election on behalf of President Donald Trump, who supported the case.

The effort garnered support from more than a dozen Republican attorneys general as well as more than 100 Republican members of Congress. Paxton brought the request directly to the Supreme Court through "original jurisdiction," which allows the high court to hear cases regarding litigation between states that don't go through lower courts first.

The US Supreme Court judged as follows :

"The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," the order wrote. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its election. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

Here is the definition of the word “moot” by the American legal online dictionary law.com :

« adj. 1) unsettled, open to argument or debatable, specifically about a legal question which has not been determined by any decision of any court. 2) an issue only of academic interest »

As a fervent supporter of “Donald the dictator” it is not surprising that you find this judgement unsatisfactory.

I now await your response to my previous post which you subjected to comments on what you considered to be “the major claim” in your article.

.

Hi jamo

Your "Berlin Bunker" delusional support for Trump is showing.

Where you write "I don't know what happens next but my understanding is, if this can't be

cleaned up through conventional legal processes the President is obliged by oath to

take action to clean it up."

Trump is obliged by oath to uphold the US Constitution.

The US Supreme Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, has knocked back

Trump's spurious legal claims.

SO Trump is not "obliged by oath" to renounce the Constitution by launching a COUP.
__________________________

I can see your brain is frazzled jamo.

Take tomorrow off. Have a few laughs at http://youtu.be/_D03BBO7BQk .

Maybe you'll be tested on its Truths, on Friday.

thankfully, the Supreme Court put the moron in his place.

Has their been a bigger idiot than Trump with his total disregard for democracy.

Thanks, Pete: brilliant !

http://youtu.be/_D03BBO7BQk .

Joe

No worries Joe.

OLO's Trumpets rarely rise above the comic.

These sad chaps, in their sad Dec-Jan disillution, are increasingly recognising Trump's

Germanic, Big-Lie, similarity to Hitler.

#PeterC
The Supreme Court simply wimped out. Very difficult to understand why Court so acted the way it did in not giving Texas the opportunity to argue why it should not be kicked out without a hearing and why it refused to hear the Ohio motion.

#Aidan
No "legal technicality" involved. Definition of "legislature" is urgently required from Supreme Court because Georgia run-off on January 5 will continue under present rules unless Court rules otherwise.

#jamo
The Court was placed in a difficult position - but that is why it is there: to resolve disputes. Abdicating its role in the way it did was wrong in my opinion.

#loudmouth 2: Another red herring. Australia's voting system has nothing to do with America's voting system. Take your own advice and bugger off.

#Banjo
Repeating the Court's order - which I set out in full in my article - is a waste of space and contributes nothing to my article.

You need to focus on why the Court was justified in considering the Ohio motion "moot" and we can then discuss.

There will be no reply from me to your earlier post since it has nothing to do with the subject matter of my article.

David,

AFAIK, the US Supreme Court does not initiate changes to the Constitution: that process begins with the houses of congress.

But it must feel great to tell them how to do their business :)

That reminds me, when (or if) I see god, I'll berate her for making mosquitoes. Next time, no mosquitoes !

Joe

.

Dear David,

.

You state that the major claim in your article is :

« that the Supreme Court of the United States erred in refusing to hear the motion filed by the State of Ohio requesting that the Court interpret the meaning of just one word in the Constitution - "Legislature" »

And you add :

« Slamming the door shut in Ohio's face - when Ohio had the standing to have the Court hear its motion - was wrong in my opinion »
.

I don’t think the US Supreme Court judges “slammed the door shut in Ohio’s face”, David, by replying “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot” after having rejected the Texas case.

Nobody (including you and me) could possibly ignore that both cases were simply last-ditch efforts to invalidate the already scrutinised, verified, confirmed and well-established results of the national democratic election that designated “sleepy old Joe” as the 46th president of the United States of America.

Of course, there was much more in it than that, but if there was one single factor that must have weighed heavily in the minds of the judges throughout their deliberations, in my humble opinion, it was that. It permeates their final report of the Texas case which I thoroughly recommend you read in its entirety. Much of the thought and analysis in the Texas report provides interesting insights to the state of mind of the judges in concluding as they did in the Ohio report.

There is much that I could quote from the Texas report that could also apply to the Ohio case, but there is no room for me to do it here. Let me just cite the following :

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

1. « Texas commenced the present action on December 7, 2020, thirty-four days after the General Election and thirteen days after the results were certified by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf. Disenfranchising millions of voters after Pennsylvania has already certified its election results would grievously undermine the public’s trust in the electoral system, contravene democratic principles, and reward Texas for its inexcusable delay and procedural gamesmanship. Accordingly, equity and the public interest disfavor an injunction or any other relief in this case. In a nutshell, it is too late to reverse or enjoin the results of the election, … Texas waited until now to seek an injunction to nullify Pennsylvania’s election results because all of the other political and litigation machinations of Petitioner’s preferred presidential candidate have failed »

2. « Let us be clear. Texas invites this Court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next President of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected »

The US Supreme Court judges are not fools. They are not simple bureaucrats with blinkers on their eyes to prevent them from seeing beyond the paper on which the texts are written. They are venerable sages who bear the formidable burden of responsibility as the ultimate recourse in matters of justice.

They are sufficiently numerous for their vision to be clear, and they are not completely devoid of common sense. Their word is the final word.

As the judges indicate in their “Preliminary Statement” to the Texas report (which I think could also apply to the Ohio case as well) :

« Its [Texas’s] request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy »

Here is the link to the full Texas report :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
.

I hope his helps and now await your response to my previous post (on page 5 of this thread) which you subjected to comments on what you considered to be “the major claim” in your article.

.

david singer,
>No "legal technicality" involved.

Exactly! The Supreme court's refusal to rule on this legal technicality means that it isn't involved.

>Definition of "legislature" is urgently required from Supreme Court because Georgia run-off
>on January 5 will continue under present rules unless Court rules otherwise
Film at eleven!

As I've already mentioned, in the very unlikely event that the present rules are invalid, the problem is easily fixable with retrospective legislation.

But it's a state matter not a Federal matter, so it should be decided in the Georgia state courts, not the US Supreme court.

_______________________________________________________________________________

jamo,
Why do you think Trump's motivation supersedes the pursuit of wealth?
Do you think Trump's pursuit of glory is really any better?
Did anything Biden did as VP suggest he's a frontman for someone else?

>I don't believe most of the people who took part in the electoral fraud realised the gravity of what they were doing.
Well of course they didn't" THEY'RE FICTITIOUS!

There's a complete lack of evidence for systematic electoral fraud - there were initially a few things that appeared to be evidence of fraud, but when those were investigated they were found not to be.

BTW there's an enormous difference between being told you voted for the losing candidate and being told your votes don't count.

Aiden, it is a mess isn't it.
I have read a few technical reports on examination of the system.
The ballots are read by mark sensing terminals that are connected to
an on site computer. On one site an IT contractor said that an
operator can initiate a misread and the batch is held in the computer
and the operator adjudicates the whole batch and can set to whom the vote is allocated.
There are other "forensic" examination reports that give information.
Whether there was any cheating I haven't a clue but the system does
seem to be very vulnerable. The aforementioned IT contractor said
the computer on the site was connected to a network but was not
allowed to examine that aspect.
No doubt after this cuffle there will be a restructing of their voting system.

Hi Banjo, Aidan and other thinking commenters

Some compelling legal argument from you guys.

But unfortunately David, as a Trump sympathiser, has made up his mind.

David may prolong the argument, but in the end you're wasting your time.

The Trump legal team's spurious "legal" line, across several of David's articles, commands David's line.

.

Thanks, plantagenet. It looks like David has jumped ship and reneged on his promise to reply to our comments if we “focused” on what he considered to be “the major claim” in his article : the Ohio motion – which I did in my long post on page 6 of this thread.

The fact that he has not done what he said he would do seems to suggest that he is not too comfortable with what I wrote in my post on page 3 :

« I think all these shenanigans are simply deceptive manoeuvres by “Donald the dictator” to stoke up the fire and keep his gullible supporters’ blood boiling so that he can syphon off as much money from them as possible either in the form of lump sums or regular monthly or weekly instalments.

"Donald the dictator" knows his supporters have blind faith in him – just as the members of the multiple religious sects in the US have blind faith in their gurus. They obey their guru religiously.
As you seem to be an ardent supporter yourself, David, you might like to contribute to his slush fund … »

As the saying goes, I guess “silence constitutes approval”. If not, I imagine he would have had some reaction.

So let’s move on …

The cupidity and megalomania of “Donald the dictator” are now threatening to trigger the implosion of the Republican party. He obviously has no respect, gratitude, or empathy for anybody, including even his most faithful and fervent supporters. He now has the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in his sights for recognising “sleepy old Joe” as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Dan K. Eberhart, a major donor to the Republican Party and to conservative causes recently declared that Trump was :

« ... taking resources and attention away from Georgia … the thing to do right now is to make [Mitch] McConnell stronger by winning these two seats in Georgia … Trump has taken both money and oxygen away [by his] failure to concede and fundraising efforts” »

.

It does not matter what the parties believe or which is right or wrong.
There is something called the public consent, I think it is called.

As I understand it, it means that on public governance on things like
elections the result is accepted by the vast majority win or lose for
each individual.
That consent has been refused for the US election.

As an example our last Federal election the result was not what was
expected but the result had the public consent.

#Loudmouth 2

You state:
"AFAIK, the US Supreme Court does not initiate changes to the Constitution: that process begins with the houses of congress."

You are correct - but your comment is irrelevant.

What you cannot seem to grasp is that the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the meaning of the constitution - not initiate changes to the Constitution.

The job SCOTUS was asked by Ohio to do was to interpret what the Constitution meant by the use of the word "legislature".

Did it only mean the "actual Legislature of the State" or did it include "other officials or representatives of the State"

The bottom line: The Supreme Court shirked its duty to clarify the meaning of the word "legislature" when asked to do so by Ohio.

Leaving the meaning of "Legislature" up in the air was the last thing America needed to hear.

#Banjo Patterson

I haven't jumped ship.

You show what a compete ignoramus you are when you state:

"As the judges indicate in their “Preliminary Statement” to the Texas report (which I think could also apply to the Ohio case as well):

« Its [Texas’s] request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy »"

The judges never said this. It was part of the submission by Pennsylvania.

The other quoted remarks by you were also made in the Pennsylvania submission - not by the judges.

I will not be responding to your other comments which have nothing to do with my article.

Bazz,

By voting, people consent. End of.

David,

You would be aware of the separation of powers, even in the US: legislature means the law-making bodies, NOT the bureaucracies or judiciary which put that legislation into effect. The Supreme Court, as you also would know, would define 'legislature' narrowly, as a 'black-letter' court. End of.

Joe

Joe, you totally missed the point.
Even us in far away Australia would not be discussing the US election
result if it had received consent.

Don't be downhearted, chaps, by David's last ditch backing of the Trump Truth Troll.

I hear David’s Trump believes Santa “Fake News”.

But even in Covid Santa loves youse:

T'was 5 days before Christmas,
And all through the town,
People wore masks,
That covered their frown.

The frown had begun
Way back last Summer,
When a global pandemic
Made life a Bummer.

They called it Corona,
But unlike the beers,
It didn’t bring good times,
It only brought tears.

Contagious and deadly,
This virus spread fast,
Like a bushfire that starts
When lightning strikes parts.

Airplanes were grounded,
Travel was banned.
Borders were closed
Across air, sea and land.

As the world entered lockdown
To flatten the curve,
The economy halted,
And folks lost their nerve.

From March to July
We rode the first wave,
People stayed home,
They tried to behave.

When Spring emerged
The lockdown was lifted.
But some became careless,
Some of us drifted.

Now it’s December
Northern Hem cases are spiking,
In SYDNEY as well,
Not much to their liking.

Frontline workers,
Doctors and nurses,
Try to save people,
From riding in hearses.

This virus is awful,
This is COVID-19.
And only just now
Hopeful vaccines.

It’s true that this year
Has had sadness a plenty,
We’ll never forget
The year 2020.

And just ‘round the corner -
The holiday season,
Can we be merry?
Is there even a reason?

To decorate the house
And put up the tree,
Maybe no one will see it,
No one but me.

But outside my window
The Sun shines strong,
And I think to myself,
One day Good comes along!

So, I gather the ribbon,
The garland and bows,
As I play those old carols,
My happiness grows.

Christmas is not cancelled
And neither is hope.
If we lean on each other,
I know we can cope.

Merry Christmas to All!

Including Dave :)

.

Dear David,

.

You are quite right in pointing out that it was not the Supreme Court judges who made the remarks I quoted in my previous post.

Mea máxima culpa, it was the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and his six Deputy Attorneys General.

As I am sure you are aware, the US Supreme Court judges simply issued a brief unsigned order stating that Texas lacked standing to pursue the case and that it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Here is the correct link :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

To revert once again to the interrogation of your article :

« Didn't Ohio have standing under Article III of the Constitution and a judicially cognizable interest in asking the Court to clarify the meaning of the word "Legislature" under Art. II, §1, cl.2 of the Constitution? »

It may have, David, but in denying the motion of the State of Texas for leave to file a bill of complaint, the US Supreme Court added that “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot”.

Obviously, the Court circumvented Ohio’s request which it qualified as “moot”, i.e., “debatable”. Why ? In my view, for the very reasons I mistakenly indicated in my long post to you on page 6 of this thread as having been expressed by the Supreme Court judges but, as you rightly pointed out, were expressed by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and his Deputies :

« Disenfranchising millions of voters after Pennsylvania [had] already certified its election results would grievously undermine the public’s trust in the electoral system, contravene democratic principles, and reward [Ohio] for its inexcusable delay and procedural gamesmanship. Accordingly, equity and the public interest disfavor an injunction or any other relief in this case. In a nutshell, it [was] too late to reverse or enjoin the results of the election ».

Also, as the US Supreme Court judges indicated for Texas, Ohio might have to “demonstrate a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” too.

Not so obvious.

.

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

Thanks for this year’s Christmas carol but I sincerely hope we don’t have to sing it again next year.

Here is a less dramatic, Celtic version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITIaYoWCPkE&ab_channel=EmerBarryandAffiniti

.

#Banjo Paterson

Is "mea maxima culpa" the best you can say for misleading, misrepresenting and spouting an absolute load of garbage in two long comments and now this latest one?

The Ohio motion was a separate motion that supported neither Texas nor the four states Texas had hauled up before the Supreme Court. The Court could have dismissed the Texas motion but have agreed to hear the Ohio Motion which posed this question for the Court:

"The Presidential Electors Clause provides: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. Art. II, §1, cl.2.

Ohio has previously taken the position that this language means what it says.

In a brief filed just last month, it argued that this Clause must be understood as empowering "state legislatures, not state courts, [to] set the rules for picking presidential electors." Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, Nos. 20-542, 20-574, Br. of Amicus Curiae Ohio in Support of Petitioners 3 (Nov. 9, 2020).

This means that state courts violate the Constitution when they use judge made doctrines or strained interpretations to change the legislatively fashioned rules governing the manner by which presidential electors are chosen. Id. at 5.

The Electors Clause means today what it meant a month ago.

Ohio hopes this Court agrees.

But either way, the States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted.

The People need an answer, too.

Until they get one, elections will continue to be plagued by doubts regarding whether the President was chosen in the constitutionally prescribed manner."

The Court's failure to hear the Ohio motion cannot be justified in my opinion. It raised an issue of the interpretation of the Constitution which needed urgent resolution to help resolve what is turning out to be the most hotly contested election result in US history.

.

Dear David,

.

You wrote :

« … the States need this Court [the US Supreme Court] to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted ».

I, personally, am inclined to think that the State legislature should fix the rules – even if it’s only to confirm current practise so far as Pennsylvania and perhaps some of the other States are concerned as well if their electoral rules have been modified since inception.

Electoral rules should not be cast in stone. They should be organic and evolve with society and modern technology, particular circumstances, and environmental factors.

That said, for all the reasons I have already exposed on this thread, I consider that any future legislation concerning electoral practise should not affect past elections, the 2020 presidential election in particular.

.

Thanks Banjo

We've heard of an up and coming poet named after you :)

We here at the NSA really appreciate the rendition of "O Holy Night" you've sent to us at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITIaYoWCPkE&ab_channel=EmerBarryandAffiniti

Looking at that youtube and http://www.affinitimusic.com/biography .

It is a truth of life that Ireland produces the most beautiful woman. But also the "uglist men".

So in that regard all of us at the NSA are Irishmen, more or less :)

We say.

Nollaig Shona do chách! To all the gang at OLO.

David,
You're still making the mistake of assuming this is all about the meaning of the constitution. But surely in reality it's about the facts?

To determine whether the appointment of electors was "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" you need to know what the state legislature has directed. Rather than blindly assuming there's a problem, you need to read the state electoral law. Because unless the state has contravened that, the argument that there's a constitutional problem is untenable.

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

Here is one of my namesake’s bush poems with an Irish flavour I thought you might like :

How M'Ginnis Went Missing

« Let us cease our idle chatter,
Let the tears bedew our cheek,
For a man from Tallangatta
Has been missing for a week.

Where the roaring flooded Murray
Covered all the lower land,
There he started in a hurry
With a bottle in his hand.

And his fate is bid for ever,
But the public seem to think
That he slumbered by the river,
'Neath the influence of drink.

And they scarcely seem to wonder
That the river, wide and deep,
Never woke him with its thunder,
Never stirred him in his sleep.

And the crashing logs came sweeping
And their tumult filled the air,
Then M'Ginnis murmured, sleeping,
"'Tis a wake in ould Kildare."

So the river rose and found him
Sleeping softly by the stream.
And the cruel waters drowned him
Ere he wakened from his dream.

And the blossom-tufted wattle,
Blooming brightly on the lea,
Saw M'Ginnis and the bottle
Going drifting out to sea »

.

Thanks Banjo

I haven't heard "How M'Ginnis Went Missing" before.

I reckon your namesake's got a big future :)
__________________________________________

Here's another:

THE LOST DRINK (1891)
by Banjo Paterson

I had spent the night in the watch-house --
My head was the size of three --
So I went and asked the chemist
To fix up a drink for me;

And he brewed it from various bottles
With soda and plenty of ice,
With something that smelt like lemon,
And something that seemed like spice.

It fell on my parching palate
Like the dew on a sunbaked plain,
And my system began to flourish
Like the grass in the soft spring rain;

It wandered throughout my being,
Suffusing my soul with rest,
And I felt as I "scoffed" that liquid
That life had a new-found zest.

I have been on the razzle-dazzle
Full many a time since then
But I never could get the chemist
To brew me that drink again.

He says he's forgotten the notion --
'Twas only by chance it came --
He's tried me with various liquids
But oh! they are not the same.

We have sought, but we sought it vainly,
That one lost drink divine;
We have sampled his various bottles,
But somehow they don't combine:

Yet I know when I cross the River
And stand on the Golden Shore
I shall meet with an angel chemist
To brew me that drink once more.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Lost_Drink
______________________________________________

I'm signing off for a bit.

Merry Christmas

#Banjo
You state:
"I, personally, am inclined to think that the State legislature should fix the rules – even if it’s only to confirm current practise so far as Pennsylvania and perhaps some of the other States are concerned as well if their electoral rules have been modified since inception."

The problem is that the State Legislatures did not fix the rules. They were changed by persons other than State Legislatures. Was this constitutionally permitted?

That is what the Supreme Court needed to rule on - and it shirked its duty and indeed its obligation to do so.

#Aidan:
You state:
"To determine whether the appointment of electors was "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" you need to know what the state legislature has directed."

The State Legislature directed nothing. Some of the changes were as a result of court proceedings in which the State Legislature was not even a party.

Was that constitutional or not? The Supreme Court refuses to clarify either way and therein lies the current problem.

Every American voter is entitled to be told by the highest court in the land and respect that decision - even if one disagrees with it.

That is how the system should work.

Donald Trump has been right all along about voter fraud:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/officials-finally-found-a-case-of-a-dead-person-voting-accusing-a-republican-of-pretending-to-be-his-dead-mum-to-vote-for-trump/ar-BB1c7xTk

Note how the mainstream news, Google, Twitter and Facebook have been doing all they can to try and have all the reports of election fraud dismissed as "baseless allegations" or whatever. The above news article quote is one starting to admit there is truth in them. For a large amount of info on all the various types of fraud used in the swing states to increase votes for Biden, do a search on Dr Peter Navarro and his recently released report "The Immaculate Deception". I have been receiving updated articles on the US election according to The Epoch Times several times a day. Seems Dr Navarro has has just collated a lot of the sort of stuff that is becoming increasingly widely known despite the mainstream media trying to hide and ignore it.

.

Dear David,

.

You wrote :

« The problem is that the State Legislatures did not fix the rules. They were changed by persons other than State Legislatures. Was this constitutionally permitted?

That is what the Supreme Court needed to rule on - and it shirked its duty and indeed its obligation to do so »
.

As the US Supreme Court indicated in its judgement, David, that is debatable (“moot”).

I don’t think it is quite as clear-cut as you state. Like the US Supreme Court, I think it is debatable. I am not even sure it is a question for the US Supreme Court to decide.

As you rightly indicated in your article, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution stpulates :

« Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector »

In other words, the US Constitution delegates authority to State Legislatures to appoint (“in such manner as [they] may direct), a precise number of electors. It does not define or delimit what process State Legislatures may use to create their state college of electors. They are free to choose whatever method they deem appropriate. In fact, I understand they do not all use exactly the same method.

I don’t think it is necessarily true to say – as you did in your article – that “… state courts violate the Constitution when they use judge made doctrines or strained interpretations …”. It seems to me that they are free to do so if they wish.

The question is “is that what the State Legislatures wish or, at least, condone?”.

Perhaps Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar will throw some light on the question.

In my view, Ohio's request that the US Supreme Court define "Legislature" is irrelevant.

.

David,
>The State Legislature directed nothing.
Unless you're making the extraordinary claim that they've never passed any electoral legislation, the above statement is false.

>Some of the changes were as a result of court proceedings in which the State Legislature was not even a party.
The State Legislature does not need to be a party for the courts to make decisions in accordance with the legislation it passes.

______________________________________________________________________________

mox,
Unfortunately The Epoch Times does not check its facts before it publishes. The mainstream media does.
Receiving lies several times a day does not bring you any closer to the truth

To Aiden especially: All news sources get some things wrong at times - at least initially when not all relevant information is necessarily available. Regarding the US Presidential election, it seems the Epoch Times is the leading news organisation publishing stuff that the largely strongly anti Trump mainstream media would prefer keep hidden and /or tries to debunk. Mainstream media is also guilty at times of not checking facts. Sometimes this is due to lack of experienced journalists to do enough proper research with budget cuts and reduction in advertising revenue. Remember that a range of news sources helps keep the incidence of media being knowingly dishonest down. Seems many of the articles on the US election fraud details published by the Epoch Times are updates and developments following on from earlier ones. Now can you give examples of your claim that they do not check their facts but the mainstream media does? Some people have effectively been brainwashed to believe the mainstream media and resist unlearning lies peddled by mainstream sources when these are pointed out to them.

mox,
Yes, the mainstream media sometimes gets it wrong, but at least they try. Whereas the Epoch Times just publish the lies that suit their agenda. And brainwashed morons like you take the Epoch Times's publication of the lies as evidence that they are true, and hence proof that the mainstream media are lying no matter how much evidence there is that it's telling the truth.

Hi Aidan,

Nice to see President Trumpf show such concern for his Swamp members:

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/us/politics/trump-pardon-manafort-stone.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20201223&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=127104467&segment_id=47695&user_id=35fd54d942ac9b9e288ef933afd6d6f5

He has only a month, 28 days, to clear all of his criminal associates. But maybe one problem for all of them (including himself) may be that he may be able to wipe federal offences from their records (including his own), but maybe not sentences for state offences.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we conspire to deceive.

Joe

Note above the reaction of Aiden to my pointing out that the Epoch Times has probably the most detailed regular commentaries on details of the US Presidential election. It has published a lot stuff that the mainstream media has tried to ignore or debunk, obviously largely to support the political preferences of those controlling its organisations. Aiden seems a good illustration of the quote "Illiteracy in the 21st Century is not people who cannot read and write. It is those who resist unlearning the lies they have been brainwashed to believe."

He obviously does not want to watch alternative news sites which sometimes cover different news and views than mainstream sources. Just tries to push the allegations sometimes made by "powers that be" trying to discourage people from even looking at sites that sometimes publish information that exposes what may be wrong with their own. Then Aiden's attitudes, including trying to label me as a "brainwashed moron" has demonstrated well that is what he is himself. Meanwhile has not provided any examples to expose lies he claims the Epoch Times tells or to prove mainstream news views are "the truth" when they differ from those of alternative sources.

.

The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong Chinese religious movement.

The performance arts group Shen Yun and the media organization The Epoch Times are the major outreach organizations of Falun Gong. Both promote the spiritual and political teachings of Falun Gong. They and a variety of other organizations such as New Tang Dynasty Television (NTD) operate as extensions of Falun Gong. These extensions promote the religious movement and its teachings.

In the case of The Epoch Times, they also promote conspiracy theories and far-right politics in both Europe and the United States. Particularly during the 2016 United States presidential election, The Epoch Times has been promoting conspiracy theories and extreme right-wing political views.

Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong's ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

In June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he "beat China all the time." In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a saviour. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group's leaders "believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party."

Falun Gong extensions have also been active in promoting the European alt-right.

The Epoch Times : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Falun Gong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

.

This is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#Demography

Demography

Prior to July 1999, official estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners at 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party.[12][111][112][113][114] By the time of the persecution on 22 July 1999, most Chinese government numbers said the population of Falun Gong was between 2 and 3 million,[97][115] though some publications maintained an estimate of 40 million.[88][85] Most Falun Gong estimates in the same period placed the total number of practitioners in China at 70 to 80 million.[35][88][116] Other sources have estimated the Falun Gong population in China to have peaked between 10 and 70 million practitioners.[117][118] The number of Falun Gong practitioners still practicing in China today is difficult to confirm, though some sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately.[17][119]

Demographic surveys conducted in China in 1998 found a population that was mostly female and elderly. Of 34,351 Falun Gong practitioners surveyed, 27% were male and 73% female. Only 38% were under 50 years old.[120] Falun Gong attracted a range of other individuals, from young college students to bureaucrats, intellectuals and Party officials.[121][122] Surveys in China from the 1990s found that between 23 and 40% of practitioners held university degrees at the college or graduate level—several times higher than the general population.[61]

Falun Gong is practiced by tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands outside China,[20] with the largest communities found in Taiwan and North American cities with large Chinese populations, such as New York and Toronto. Demographic surveys by Palmer and Ownby in these communities found that 90% of practitioners are ethnic Chinese. The average age was approximately 40.[123] Among survey respondents, 56% were female and 44% male; 80% were married. The surveys found the respondents to be highly educated: 9% held PhDs, 34% had master's degrees, and 24% had a bachelor's degree.[12

I am well aware of the background of the Falun Gong as Banjo Patterson has given some details above. However, is important to look at articles published by various organisations on their own merits. Not just dismiss them because you disapprove of some other policies and actions of the organisation. Shoul try and check all sides of stories on contentious issues.

The Falun Gong , which has long been persecuted by the Chinese Communist party at least has been performing a useful service as a leading whistleblower on way the CCP has been covertly extending its influence in Western countries. It has also through the Epoch Times lately been a leader exposing details of the Presidential election fraud in the US. Meanwhile the US mainstream media, Google, Twitter and Facebook have been censoring some stuff the Democrat camp would not like. Including while trying to dismiss the headlines as "Baseless allegations" or "fake news". Is important to note most mainstream media outlets have refused to run in full recent important speeches by Donald Trump. Meanwhile, I presume they have given little or any coverage of the footage in a recent speech by Joe Biden where he announced " We have just pulled the biggest electoral fraud in American history" or similar.

Note Trump is ahead of Biden in Electoral College votes without those of the six "swing states" ie 232 against 227. Are plenty of indications he would have easily won all without all the various ways of cheating which favoured Biden. Despite courts finding excuses to not even consider allegations of these, it appears there are still ways for Trump to retain office. Whatever you think of him, the sort of precedent it would set with Trump being deposed due to obvious election rigging is totally unacceptable. Awareness of this rigging is widespread and increasing. Including helped by "Stop the Steal" rallies in every state capital city and Washington DC on Saturdays since the election. These have received little coverage in mainstream media.

mox,
Donald Trump himself is the one who famously dismissed the verified truth as "fake news" because it didn't suit his agenda.

If you object to the term "baseless allegations" then how do you think allegations that have no supporting evidence should be described?

Which do you think is more like to be accurate: a publication that investigates and debunks allegations or a publication that publishes all those that suit its agenda?

Although lots of allegations of election rigging have been made, there is no actual evidence of it. Literally everything that appeared to be evidence of fraud was found not to be.

The brainwashed aren't those who believe the evidence, but those who cling to debunked beliefs despite the evidence.

Mox,

Biden won the popular vote and the Electoral College vote by landslides.

No proof of any fraud, except that one case of a Trump supporter voting for his dead mother. One case out of 155 million votes. Actually that's amazing.

End of.

Joe

#loudmouth2

There is one case not yet completed that you overlook:
http://online.co.grand-traverse.mi.us/iprodp/cccivild.cgi?casekey=00000219805

The judge ordered an audit of the Dominion voting machines in Antrim County Michigan be undertaken - that resulted in the expert doing the audit making the following findings:
“The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that the Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified,” Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group"

Ramsland's claims have been rejected by the Secretary of State, Attorney General and contradictory expert evidence.

The judge will have to decide which expert evidence to accept.

You can read Ramsland's Report at:
https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_%5b121320%5d_v2_%5bredacted%5d.pdf

How come you failed to mention this case?

You sure picked the right nom-de-plume to publish your brain dead comments on OLO

How come ?

Because it's merely someone's assertion of potential fraud.

End of.

Joe

.

Dear David, Dear loudmouth2,

.

To complete David’s information on the Dominion voting machine imbroglio, here are a few more elements of the jigsaw puzzle :

1. « Hand audit of all Presidential Election votes in Antrim County confirms previously certified results, voting machines were accurate » :

Note, in particular, the final paragraph of the audit report :

« The audit of the Antrim County presidential votes was a zero-limit risk-limiting audit, meaning it confirmed to absolute certainty that the outcome of the presidential election in Antrim County was correct by tallying every vote cast for president. In January, the Bureau of Elections and local and county clerks will complete a state-wide risk-limiting audit of the Presidential Election in which a random sample of ballots will be drawn state-wide. It is expected to affirm that ballot-counting machines were accurate across the state, as was demonstrated by a pilot state-wide risk-limiting audit following Michigan’s March 10 Presidential Primary Election » :

http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-547883--,00.html
.
2. « Dominion Voting Systems Employee Sues Trump Campaign And Allies For Defamation » :

http://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/12/Complaint-2020-12-221-Eric-Coomer-Suit-Filed-Stamped.pdf
.

3. « Dominion Voting Systems CEO doesn't rule out legal action against Trump » :

http://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/24/politics/dominion-ceo-trump-legal-action-cnntv/index.html
.

It may be a few more months before the dust settles on this election.

.

.

With just 24 days to go before Donald’s dictatorship comes to an end, I have been thinking of a new nickname for him and finally settled on “Captain Ahab” of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick.

From the time his leg was bitten off by the huge white whale, Captain Ahab never gave up his quest for revenge and monomaniacally pursued his elusive nemesis.

I’m sure we all remember how it ended :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPW4R727QQ&ab_channel=TheGreatGambino

Which makes me think that American democracy will probably not survive in its present form.

If the president had been elected by popular vote, "Donald the dictator" would never have become president. Maybe that's part of the solution.

After all, isn't democracy the "power of the people" ?

.

.

« President Donald Trump’s donors — the vast majority of whom are working-class supporters and retirees contributing just a few dollars a month — put $10.5 million into the erstwhile billionaire’s own personal businesses over the course of his presidency ... » :

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-self-dealing-campaign-slush-fund-donations_n_5fe7b503c5b6acb534585c51?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgnews&guccounter=1

.

.

Dear David,

.

To keep your spirits up during the festive season, I thought you might like to read this :

« The US vice-president is set to oversee certification of Joe Biden’s Electoral College win next week – Republican lawsuit may force Mike Pence’s hand in effort to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in US election » :

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3115612/republican-lawsuit-may-force-mike-pences-hand?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailchimp&utm_campaign=enlz-scmp_international&utm_content=20201229&tpcc=enlz-scmp_international&MCUID=10f922cc72&MCCampaignID=af0f2ad537&MCAccountID=3775521f5f542047246d9c827&tc=12

.