The US 2020 Presidential Election & Attempts To Overturn It

[JRT]

Well the Republican State legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are saying they will honor the vote.

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020...-popular-vote/

Hijacking the electors would be political suicide, and very few if any Rupublican career politicians currently holding elected office will be willing to fall on their sword for Donald J Trump, though many will also be very careful to avoid offending the heavily deluded red-hatted followers of Trump's personality cult.

[Albany Rifles]

They are basically throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. When the lawsuits fail, the next attempt will be to convince the PA state legislature to make the electors vote for Trump. Of course this won't be enough because Biden can win even without PA so they'll have to do the same in Georgia and Michigan too.

Well the Republican State legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are saying they will honor the vote.

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020...-popular-vote/

[Albany Rifles]

Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr, wading into President Trump’s unfounded accusations of widespread election irregularities, told federal prosecutors on Monday that they were allowed to investigate “specific allegations” of voter fraud before the results of the presidential race are certified.

Mr. Barr’s authorization prompted the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, to step down from the post within hours, according to an email Mr. Pilger sent to colleagues that was obtained by The New York Times.

Mr. Barr said he had authorized “specific instances” of investigative steps in some cases. He made clear in a carefully worded memo that prosecutors had the authority to investigate, but he warned that “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries.”

Mr. Barr’s directive ignored the Justice Department’s longstanding policies intended to keep law enforcement from affecting the outcome of an election. And it followed a move weeks before the election in which the department lifted a prohibition on voter fraud investigations before an election.

“Given that voting in our current elections has now concluded, I authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions,” Mr. Barr wrote.

A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had authorized scrutiny of allegations about ineligible voters in Nevada and backdated mail-in ballots Pennsylvania. Republicans have circulated both claims in recent days without any evidence emerging to back them.

Mr. Barr did not write the memo at the direction of Mr. Trump, the White House or any Republican lawmakers, the official said.

Mr. Barr has privately told department officials in the days since the election that any disputes should be resolved in court by the campaigns themselves, according to three people briefed on the conversations. He has said that he did not see massive fraud, and that most of the allegations of voter fraud were related to individual instances that did not point to a larger systemic problem, the people said.

But critics of Mr. Barr immediately condemned the memo as a political act that undermined the Justice Department’s typical independence from the White House.

“It would be problematic enough if Barr were reversing longstanding Justice Department guidance because of significant, substantiated claims of misconduct — that could presumably be handled at the local and state level,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“But to do so when there is no such evidence — and when the president’s clear strategy is to delegitimize the results of a proper election — is one of the more problematic acts of any attorney general in my lifetime,” Mr. Vladeck added.

Mr. Pilger, a career prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section who oversaw voting-fraud-related investigations, told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role working on corruption prosecutions.

“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” he wrote, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.” A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Mr. Pilger’s message.

Justice Department policies prohibit federal prosecutors from taking overt steps, like questioning witnesses or securing subpoenas for documents, to open a criminal investigation into any election-related matter until after voting results have been certified to keep their existence from spilling into public view and influencing either voters or local election officials who ensure the integrity of the results.

“Public knowledge of a criminal investigation could impact the adjudication of election litigation and contests in state courts,” the Justice Department’s longstanding election guidelines for prosecutors say. “Accordingly, it is the general policy of the department not to conduct overt investigations.”

More covert investigative steps, like an investigator going undercover, are allowed but require the permission of a career prosecutor in the department’s Criminal Division.

Mr. Barr’s memo allows U.S. attorneys to bypass that career prosecutor and take their requests to his office for approval, effectively weakening a key safeguard that prevents political interference in an election by the party in power.

The memo is unlikely to change the outcome of the election but could damage public confidence in the results, Justice Department prosecutors warned, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. They said that the public posturing by the department also gave Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, a tool to refuse to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the president-elect.

Mr. McConnell and Mr. Barr met on Monday afternoon. Representatives from both of their offices declined to comment on what they discussed.

Mr. Trump faces a steep battle in his attempt to change the election results. Mr. Biden declared victory on Saturday after several news media organizations declared him the winner based on tabulated election returns.

“It’s not merely about showing evidence of fraud but that the malfeasance would actually affect the outcome in several states,” said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist. “You’re talking about changing hundreds of thousands of votes.”

While Mr. Trump’s campaign lawyers have filed a dozen or so legal challenges to the results in battleground states, none appeared to be gaining traction in the courts. And none were likely to give the president an edge in the votes he would need to change the outcome of the race.

Justice Department investigators are looking into a referral from the Republican Party in Nevada, which claims over 3,000 people who live outside the state voted in its election, the department official said. The official would not say whether the department had opened a full investigation. A federal judge dismissed the claim in court last week.

The department is also reviewing a sworn affidavit written by a postal worker in Erie, Pa., alleging that post office officials devised a plan to backdate mail ballots in the state, the official said.

The local postmaster has denied the allegations and said that the accuser has been disciplined multiple times in the past. That affidavit was sent to the department by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is a close ally of the president.

In the days after the election, Mr. Barr faced pressure from Mr. Trump and his aides to intervene to help the president. Conservative commentators have criticized Mr. Barr’s lack of action, saying that he was looking the other way.

Mr. Barr had been silent about voter fraud in recent weeks after previously issuing unsubstantiated warnings of widespread fraud because of the large number of mail-in ballots cast in this election. Voter fraud is rare, and no major instances of it have emerged in the election.

At the same time, the department has made it easier for prosecutors to pursue voter fraud cases and publicized details from the investigations that generated headlines that helped Mr. Trump, prompting sharp criticism from Democrats and civil rights advocates.
____________

While these prosecutors proceed they better keep the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 as they go forward....

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...79&context=flr

[QUOTERule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 11")' is designed to ensure that claims brought in the federal courts have merit and are not brought for an improper purpose.2 To accomplish these goals, the Rule imposes upon an attorney or litigant' a duty to make a reasonable examination of the merits of and motives behind a claim before signing a paper and filing it with the court.4 Rule 11 imposes mandatory sanctions for failure to comply with this duty,5 and the Rule encourages both courts and litigants to play an active role in deterring litigation abuses.6][/QUOTE]

[Firestorm]

They are basically throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. When the lawsuits fail, the next attempt will be to convince the PA state legislature to make the electors vote for Trump. Of course this won't be enough because Biden can win even without PA so they'll have to do the same in Georgia and Michigan too. The other option is to convince enough states not to certify the election results at all causing chaos. At this point, slimeballs like Lyin' Ted and Cocaine Mitch will justify anything upto and including Trump declaring a National Emergency to seize power.

[Firestorm]

Trump campaign files new election lawsuit in Pennsylvania

President Trump’s campaign on Monday filed a new lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s secretary of state and seven counties, seeking an injunction prohibiting them from certifying the state’s results of the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, alleges that the commonwealth implemented an illegal “two-tiered” voting system in which voters were held to different standards depending on whether they voted in person or submitted their ballots by mail.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) dismissed the new lawsuit as “meritless.”

“This is the latest meritless lawsuit to challenge Pennsylvania’s election, which was overseen by bipartisan election officials and was lawful, fair and secure. For months, the vast majority of these lawsuits have been dismissed and found to have no merit by Courts at all levels, and this one is no different,” Shapiro said in a statement.

“I am confident Pennsylvania law will be upheld and the will of the people of the Commonwealth will be respected in this election,” he continued.

Among the claims in the lawsuit are that observers were not granted sufficient access to watch vote tabulation in certain counties, and that Philadelphia County failed to comply with an order requiring officials to grant observers closer viewing of the process.

It does not cite specific evidence of electoral fraud. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Elections and Electors Clauses.

The suit was filed against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, and the Board of Elections in Allegheny, Centre, Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, Montgomery and Northampton counties.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and other Republican officials announced plans for the lawsuit during a press conference Monday evening before it was filed.

McEnany, who said she was appearing at the news conference in her personal capacity, described Pennsylvania as “a case study into how to tip the scales of an election to functionally favor the Democrat Party.” McEnany also claimed that Democrats were “welcoming” fraud and illegal voting, but did not offer specific evidence of votes known to be fraudulent in the election.

Some election law experts expressed skepticism that the lawsuit would prevail.

"This seems very unlikely to succeed," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "Some of the claims have already been rejected by the court, others are the kinds of claims that could have been brought months ago and now come too late."

"And none of the claims seem even slightly likely to lead to a difference in vote outcomes in Pennsylvania, or in the presidential election generally," he added.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was projected the winner of the presidential race on Saturday, defeating Trump’s hopes for reelection. The president has refused to concede to Biden, instead promising to fight the results in court.

The campaign has also filed a handful of other lawsuits since Election Day, including ones in Georgia, Michigan and Nevada that have been rejected. Trump has leveled unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the election, claiming it was stolen from him.

[JRT]

No, last three results for Biden do not follow Benford and this requires an explanation.

Here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

[Firestorm]

Exactly my point. I've been doing a lot of reading.

Reading what?

[Oracle]

And the evidence supporting your contention (as opposed to unproved assertions) is ... ?

Exactly my point. I've been doing a lot of reading.

https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords

Use GitHub to push ONLY code for God's sake. Who's the handsome guy in your avatar? And what were you trying to say exactly?

[Firestorm]

For those watching for that inevitable shift to Republicans as California goes purple, Biden is 1 million votes ahead of what Hilary got in 2016 with 10% still to count. Trump is roughly where he was in 2016. Dems must be shitting themselves about 2024.

Troubling election trend for House Democrats in California — they’re losing ground

Democrats are on the verge of losing three California House seats they grabbed from Republicans two years ago, and the late surge of support that propelled them to victory in 2018 so far has not shown up.

It’s part of a trend for Democrats, who took control of the House in the “blue wave” election of 2018. This year, the party is on track to lose seats nationally and enter Joe Biden’s presidency with a shrunken majority.

Three Democrats who flipped GOP-held seats in the blue wave, Reps. Gil Cisneros and Harley Rouda of Orange County and TJ Cox of Fresno, were all behind on election day and have seen the gap grow, not shrink, since then. Another Democrat in a closely watched race, Assembly member Christy Smith of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), held an election night lead, only to quickly lose it to GOP Rep. Mike Garcia.

Biden can be very confident about 2024. Democrats on the other hand should be worried about 2022.

[Monash]

What war has he started since coming into office ? All conflicts he has are inherited.

Anti war yeah, his base were upset about the 58 odd tomahawks fired into Syria because Assad was using chemical weapons.

Think about that......

Your previously stated (in post 19060) that; 'Which follows if you understood his base is anti- war.' That's the point I was responding to i.e. HIS BASE.

There's no particular evidence that Trump supporters are 'anti-war'. As I noted they are pro-America and overtly hostile to foreign countries they see as taking 'American' jobs but other than that they seem to have no interest or understanding of geopolitics. On balance what evidence there is suggests they would be perfectly willing to support a war against nations/movements they see as directly threatening America or its interests. What they are 'against' is America's involvement in wars they perceive as 'foreign' i.e wars that overtly benefit American Allies but which seem at first glance (from their perspective) to have no immediate payback for the US itself, at least directly.

That is not 'anti-war'.

As for Trump? He himself has never demonstrated any particular understanding of or interest in things military (he certainly did his damnedest to avoid serving). This lack of knowledge/interest is not necessarily a fault mind you, as long as the person concerned realizes this lack and is perceptive enough to value the input of advisers who do understand the subject matter concerned. But again - that is not TRUMP. His Presidency was marred by a seemingly endless and shambolic parade of appointments to and firings from senior government positions. More perhaps than any other president in living memeroy. Which makes him either:

A) An appallingly bad judge of talent to begin with; or
B) Psychologically incapable of accepting or dealing with expert advice he personally doesn't like.

In fact based on his performance during the one major crisis Trump actually did actually have to deal with during his Presidency (Corona) America and the World should probably be glad a major military crisis did not break out somewhere during his term in office. He may be a good deal maker, but making deals and coping with complex, fast changing, national emergencies do not require the same skill set. And this is especially the case when you won't listen to advisers who have to tell you things you don't want to hear and whose expert opinion you wont listen to. (Because you think you know better, even though any independent observer would say otherwise.)

[Double Edge]

No, last three results for Biden do not follow Benford and this requires an explanation. Follow Benford = ok. Bidens results in Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, IL look like normal distribution unlike all the rest.

Yes, ok after watching that video by the NJ accountant, you are expecting a ski jump histogram for the frequency of last digits of vote count not a roller coaster histogram.

He finds that to be the case in Georgia. For both candidates implying fraud has taken place.

[NUS]

Took some effort to understand what you are implying but the gist is if the result match the statistics that Benford states then something is wrong ?

No, last three results for Biden do not follow Benford and this requires an explanation. Follow Benford = ok. Bidens results in Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, IL look like normal distribution unlike all the rest.

[Bigfella]

For those watching for that inevitable shift to Republicans as California goes purple, Biden is 1 million votes ahead of what Hilary got in 2016 with 10% still to count. Trump is roughly where he was in 2016. Dems must be shitting themselves about 2024.

[Double Edge]

https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords

Took some effort to understand what you are implying but the gist is if the resulting last digits don't match the statistics that Benford states then something is wrong ?

"perfect" statistics show that those responsible had deliberately rigged the votes to conform to the expectations of Benford's law.

This was used as a statistical indicator to suspect fraud in the 2009 Iran elections as well as Russia's 2016 elections

The link shows similar correlation with results of the three candidates from Fulton County, GA, Miami Dade FL, Milwaukee WI, Chicago IL & Allagheny PA

Interesting

[Double Edge]

You obviously don't read the South Korean or Japanese newspapers

really ? were the Koreans upset about his attempts to talk to Kim. That was what Moon wanted.

After NAFTA 2 was negotiated both Korea & Japan worked out FTA's with the US in that new style.

This will be the blueprint of FTA's the US signs in the future.

Tell us what the Japanese are saying. I'm not putting much stock in what he said initially about both countries having to up their defense commitments.

No, i don't read what their individual papers say. I go off what commentators tell me in discussions whenever the topic comes up.

Much better time use and i get the talking points.