thirdcoast said:

---

kappmeyer said:

---

SCOTUS doesn't do conspiracy theories. That's your answer

---

I wonder if Brett Kavanagh thinks this election was above water, or that there might be forces behind the scenes willing to do ANYTHING to prevent someone from taking office.

---

It doesn't matter what he thinks. It matters what the evidence shows. There is a reason why so many lawsuits filed by Trump's team and surrogates didn't even claim fraud. What do you think that reason is? The chances that a lawsuit with an actual fraud claim reaches and is evaluated by the Supreme court is tiny.
... and this is the ONLY possible path to a Trump second term.

I wonder what Judge was assigned to the case. May have to log on and find out.

Old_Ag_91 said:

---

Yep!

---

Dang it! That's after the safe harbor date. They ruled in Bush v. Gore after the safe harbor date but Florida Sec of State Harris had not certified the vote yet.

PA already has.

I really hope it's still hear the merits of this case even if it's after inauguration.

I think the question of whether a state legislature is bound by the state constitution when it comes to the selection method of electors is a very interesting question. McPherson court seems to suggest the state legislature is not

Affidavit from the Georgia case, they tried to redact the name of their expert witness, but accidentally didn't:

Who is Garland Favorito? Exactly what you picture Garland Favorito.

A MAGA Trumper conspiracy theorist

BMX Bandit said:

---

I really hope it's still hear the merits of this case even if it's after inauguration.

I think the question of whether a state legislature is bound by the state constitution when it comes to the selection method of electors is a very interesting question. McPherson court seems to suggest the state legislature is not

---

Agree. A determination that the constitutional power granted to the state legislatures is a plenary one that cannot be restricted would clear up a lot of the confusion.

mesocosm said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

kappmeyer said:

---

SCOTUS doesn't do conspiracy theories. That's your answer

---

I wonder if Brett Kavanagh thinks this election was above water, or that there might be forces behind the scenes willing to do ANYTHING to prevent someone from taking office.

---

It doesn't matter what he thinks. It matters what the evidence shows. There is a reason why so many lawsuits filed by Trump's team and surrogates didn't even claim fraud. What do you think that reason is? The chances that a lawsuit with an actual fraud claim reaches and is evaluated by the Supreme court is tiny.
... and this is the ONLY possible path to a Trump second term.

---

How many lawsuits have been filed by the Trump team only and not surrogates?

It's not the only possible path; the state legislature is the best path actually because courts really don't want to be seen as "overturning" what is a fraudulent election. Another reason is the safe harbor provision, so having the legislature send another set of electors. Now, it will be better if the courts rule there is fraud after the fact.

Quote:

---

Yawn. If you don't like it here, then just leave.

---

No we will not leave, nor will we bow complicity!

Quote:

---

The 11th Circuit panel just destroys Lin Wood's appeal

---

This definition of 'destroyed' is the typical left hyperbole. the never even addressed Wood's claims they just avoided it by using legal technicalities.

The reality is that there has been massive voter manipulation and nonsense and the evidence to support that is overwhelming.

You are going to be very surprised when you find out the end game here will not be decided on these sort of suits, All these suits are doing is going through the process chain, I know I never expected the courts or the state legislatures to have the nads to truly rule on this, they value their kids and family!

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

thirdcoast said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

---

It wasn't "a judge"... it was unanimous by three judges.

Judge Willian Pryor (Bush)
Judge Barbara Lagoa (Trump)
Judge Jill Pryor (Obama)

William Pryor and Barbara Lagoa were on Trump's short list for Supreme Court Justice.

thirdcoast said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

---

The judges sign their orders. Their names are readily ascertainable.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

---

It wasn't "a judge"... it was unanimous by three judges.

Judge Willian Pryor (Bush)
Judge Barbara Lagoa (Trump)
Judge Jill Pryor (Obama)

William Pryor and Barbara Lagoa were on Trump's short list for Supreme Court Justice.

---

Obviously deep state judges employed by Soros, the ghost of Chavez or possibly Elvis

mesocosm said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

---

It wasn't "a judge"... it was unanimous by three judges.

Judge Willian Pryor (Bush)
Judge Barbara Lagoa (Trump)
Judge Jill Pryor (Obama)

William Pryor and Barbara Lagoa were on Trump's short list for Supreme Court Justice.

---

Obviously deep state judges employed by Soros, the ghost of Chavez or possibly Elvis

---

Lets have an impartial AI pick our judges.

So in Wisconsin, the state supreme court refuses to hear a case under original juridiction because there is a similar filing in federal district court.

And in the 11th Circuit, the federal court can't hear it but a state court can.

DeKalb County Cannot Find Chain Of Custody Records for Absentee Ballots....

"Most Secure Election Ever"

JCRebel13 said:

---

The TC Jester said:

---

JCRebel13 said:

---

1-45 as of 5:12 pm.

What's one more loss for ol' Drumpf?

---

Your godless brethren most likely pulled it off. I'd give the chance of anything happening 1 in 1,000. Congrats on all the cheating. Also congrats on your senile racist who sniffs little children and raises crackhead pedophiles.

---

Yawn. If you don't like it here, then just leave.

---

... says a sycophant of the party always talking about how horrible the US is and wanting to fundamentally change it.

From the story:

Quote:

---

DeKalb County responded to an Open Records Request from The Georgia Star News to produce the ballot transfer forms that formed the critical chain of custody link in the absentee ballots deposited in the near 300 drop boxes in the state and transported to county election offices in a letter received on Friday that said the county did not know if such records exist.

Earlier this week, the Secretary of States' office told Breitbart News that it did not know how many of the 1.3 million absentee ballots cast in the 2020 general election were delivered by mail vs. drop box, but the counties should know.

The Georgia Star News filed an open records request on Tuesday for all "ballot transfer forms" from the Nov. 3 General Election in DeKalb County. But there is no way to determine the chain of custody.

The open records request reply, received from Assistant County Attorney at DeKalb County Dexter Q. Bond, Jr., stated, "it has not yet been determined if responsive records to your request exist."

The ballot transfer forms that remain unknown in DeKalb are a part of Georgia's new Election Code implemented this past summer.

The DeKalb County response was unusual in several ways.

The Georgia Star News has contacted several counties in the state, and DeKalb is the only county so far to respond that it does not know if it has ballot transfer forms.

Cook County, for instance, provided copies of all the ballot transfer forms used in the 2020 general election within 24 hours.

Late Friday afternoon Cobb County provided copies of 400 ballot transfer forms used in the 2020 general election.

The Georgia Star News received responses from election officials in both Cobb County and Cook County.

In contrast, the DeKalb County response instead came from an Assistant County Attorney.

It strains credulity to suggest that the election director of DeKalb County cannot say whether or not the legally required ballot transfer forms exist in 30 seconds, not the 30 days the county says it needs to be able to answer that question.

As previously reported by The Georgia Star News:

Quote:

---

Throughout the state, approximately 300 drop boxes were used to collect absentee ballots in the November 2020 general election, authorized under Georgia Election Code Emergency Rule 183-1-14-0.8-.14 passed in July 2020 which states that every absentee ballot drop box collection team "shall complete and sign a ballot transfer form upon removing the ballots from the drop box, which shall include the date, time, location and number of ballots.

The "ballot transfer forms" are a part of the new rule and were created in order to document the chain of custody of ballots collected from drop boxes.

The code also requires that "the ballots from the drop box shall be immediately transported to the county registrar and processed and stored in the same manner as absentee ballots returned by mail are processed and stored. The county registrar or a designee thereof shall sign the ballot transfer form upon receipt of the ballots from the collection team."

---

Chief Executive Officer of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg made a donation to the 2020 election efforts, which include a donation to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

DeKalb County received $4.8 million from the nonprofit in which Zuckerberg donated to.

---

What a load of BS all of this is. But where ever there was Zuckerberg money, there are problems.

unmade bed said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

---

Why is it always "a judge" why don't we get the name of the judges who are making these decisions?

In the MI hearing Dem reps were doxxing witnesses asking for them to repeat their full name for everyone at home watching.

---

The judges sign their orders. Their names are readily ascertainable.

---

Plus, public information on judges is usually kept secret for these reasons.

The GA popular election is worthless.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Is this where you bring up your "the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election" theory?

Still waiting on the legal basis for it.

---

Sect 136.2 of the Geneva Conventions

aggiehawg said:

---

So in Wisconsin, the state supreme court refuses to hear a case under original juridiction because there is a similar filing in federal district court.

And in the 11th Circuit, the federal court can't hear it but a state court can.

---

No, Wisconsin high court said the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in lower state courts, I don't recall a reference to US district court.

Jason C. said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

So in Wisconsin, the state supreme court refuses to hear a case under original juridiction because there is a similar filing in federal district court.

And in the 11th Circuit, the federal court can't hear it but a state court can.

---

No, Wisconsin high court said the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in lower state courts, I don't recall a reference to US district court.

---

You are correct (assuming she is referencing Wisconsin Voters Alliance case which is most recent case rejected by Wisconsin Supreme Court). She may be referencing another case where Wisconsin Supreme Court references ongoing Federal case, not sure. I would imagine there is a little more nuance to the decision if it exists.

Quote:

---

She may be referencing another case where Wisconsin Supreme Court references ongoing Federal case, not sure. I would imagine there is a little more nuance to the decision if it exists.

---

I was referencing that case because it expressly mentioned similar claims being brought in federal court.

I understand the concept of economic use of judicial resources but when it comes to the interplay in election cases between state and federal jurisdiction it gets dicey. Sometimes the federal court will ask the state supreme court to weigh in on a question of state law before ruling on the federal subject matter which are usually constitutional issues.

What I have seen over the last two decades since Bush v. Gore it's really turned into a crap shoot on which judge you draw.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She may be referencing another case where Wisconsin Supreme Court references ongoing Federal case, not sure. I would imagine there is a little more nuance to the decision if it exists.

---

I was referencing that case because it expressly mentioned similar claims being brought in federal court.

I understand the concept of economic use of judicial resources but when it comes to the interplay in election cases between state and federal jurisdiction it gets dicey. Sometimes the federal court will ask the state supreme court to weigh in on a question of state law before ruling on the federal subject matter which are usually constitutional issues.

What I have seen over the last two decades since Bush v. Gore it's really turned into a crap shoot on which judge you draw.

---

Didn't see any mention of claims pending in federal court in their order. Maybe it was brought up responses by Respondents.

Supreme Court turned it down because there were material disagreements between the parties as to the facts and despite having original jurisdiction in the type of claim being made the Supreme Court is not appropriate fact finding body to flesh out the disagreement as to the facts.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020AP1930-OAfinal-12-4-20.pdf

Whoops!

_______________________________

Donald J Trump is my president for 44 more days

That should be remedied pretty easily but still it's almost incomprehensible that something like that can happen on a case like this.

Given what I've seen filed by this merry band of morons, nothing surprises me anymore.