Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DOR
    replied


    We shouldn't worry about it, because General Flynn is so ignorant he doesn't even know that POTUS does not have the power to declare martial law (that's up to Congress); the ability to re-run the elections (states' rights); or the right to suspend the Constitution (Congress, again).

    Nevertheless, and for the record, here's what the anti-democracy liar said:

    Trump's former national security advisor says the president should impose martial law to force new elections in battleground states
    https://www.businessinsider.com/mich...ection-2020-12

    Backing Trump, Some Ex-Military Officers Spread Conspiracies, Urge Martial Law
    https://www.npr.org/2020/12/05/94322...ge-martial-law

    Calls for martial law and US military oversight of new presidential election draws criticism
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...aws-criticism/

    Why Barr’s break with Trump could be a turning point
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/why-ba...-turning-point: “Martial law. Suspend the Constitution. Silence the media. Re-vote. This from the former White House national security adviser.”

    Martial law – more correctly, the suspension of habeas corpus – was declared in Hawai'i after Pearl Harbor; in New Orleans during the War of 1812; following the Great Chicago Fire of 1871; after San Francisco's 1906 earthquake; during the Illinois Mormon War (1843) and related Utah War (1857); during the Whiskey Rebellion; and in response to the 1963 Cambridge riot; and a few times during labor strikes and the civil rights movement.

    Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution (which few GOPers bother to read) says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the president to deploy the armed forces and federalized National Guard troops in specific circumstances: to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.

    More, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 gives the president the power to declare martial law and take command of the National Guard units of each state without the consent of state governors. It was in force from October 17, 2006 to January 28,2008, when it was repealed.

    Perhaps the appropriate historical analogy is the Brooks-Baxter War, when a failed (gubernatorial) candidate tried to seize political power in Arkansas. Democracy won.



    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    That's because it is a blatant mischaracterization of Flynn's view. Typical journalistic malpractice.

    He explicitly says he is NOT calling for martial law in his Newsmax interview.
    If true, then he's talking out of both corners of his lying treasonous mouth.

    Trump's former national security advisor says the president should impose martial law to force new elections in battleground states

    Former national security advisor Michael Flynn said this week that President Donald Trump should impose martial law to force new elections in battleground states that he lost.

    Speaking to the pro-Trump network Newsmax on Thursday night, Flynn said the president should deploy the military and "seize" voting machines to hold a new election.

    "There is no way in the world we are going to be able to move forward as a nation," said Flynn, who was recently pardoned by Trump after pleading guilty to a felony count of lying to the FBI. "He could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these [voting] machines, on his order."

    Flynn appeared to be referencing the far-right conspiracy theory that Democratic operatives and election officials somehow rigged voting machines across the country to switch votes from Trump to Biden.

    There is no evidence that this allegation holds any merit. Voters in the battleground states where the Trump campaign contested election results voted on hand-marked paper ballots, ballot marking devices that produce paper ballots, or voting machines with voter-verifiable paper trails.

    "He could order the, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically re-run an election in each of those states," Flynn told Newsmax. "I mean, it's not unprecedented. These people are out there talking about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times."

    The former national security advisor's remarks are not based in reality.

    First, despite Republican claims of fraud and election-rigging, nonpartisan officials and election experts have confirmed that the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in US history. The president does not have the power to unilaterally cancel, delay, postpone, or change the date of an election, even if he declares martial law. As Business Insider previously reported, that power lies with Congress.

    Declaring martial law also does not suspend the Constitution and the military has no role in administering elections. Even if it did, it would not be able to run new elections because the right to vote is not specified in the Constitution or by a federal statute.

    This isn't the first time Flynn has called for a military takeover to throw out the election results. On December 1, he shared a message on Twitter from a right-wing Ohio activist group calling for Trump to "suspend the Constitution," declare martial law, and have the military hold a new election.

    As of this month, all 50 states and Washington, DC, have certified their election results. On December 14, the Electoral College convened across the country and electors cast their votes for Trump or Biden, depending on how their respective states voted. The final tally showed that Biden won 306 electoral votes — and the presidency — while Trump notched 232.

    The Trump campaign, Republican officials, and Trump voters have filed dozens of lawsuits contesting the election results since November 3 and won just one case, a minor victory that did not affect the overall results in any state. The Supreme Court also rejected a longshot bid by the state of Texas to throw out the election results in four states that voted for Biden.

    On January 6, Congress is set to officially count up the electoral votes for each candidate and certify Biden as the winner, and on January 20, he will be sworn in as president.
    _______

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    That's because it is a blatant mischaracterization of Flynn's view. Typical journalistic malpractice.

    He explicitly says he is NOT calling for martial law in his Newsmax interview.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    So a coup if needed to keep Trump, and them, in power. Well I have always known there has been a sub set in this country which would have no problem with taking the government over by force if needed. Every country has a sub set like that. In some countries it is always on the surface while in others it is rarely seen if ever even though they exist. We have now left that last group since it has now been openly broached publicly in ways never seen before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Well, another General Officer, Flynn, I lost all respect for. To argue for armed force against the very Oath he swored ... is a Firing Squad Offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    MAGA leaders call for the troops to keep Trump in office
    A growing call to invoke the Insurrection Act shows how hard-edged MAGA ideology has become in the wake of Trump’s election loss.

    An 1807 law invoked only in the most violent circumstances is now a rallying cry for the MAGA-ites most committed to the fantasy that Donald Trump will never leave office.

    The law, the Insurrection Act, allows the president to deploy troops to suppress domestic uprisings — not to overturn elections.

    But that hasn’t stopped the act from becoming a buzzword and cure-all for prominent MAGA figures like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, two prominent pro-Trump attorneys leading efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and even one North Carolina state lawmaker. Others like Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who was recently pardoned for lying to the FBI, have made adjacent calls for Trump to impose martial law. The ideas have circulated in pro-Trump outlets and were being discussed over the weekend among the thousands of MAGA protesters who descended on state capitols and the Supreme Court to falsely claim Trump had won the election.

    At its core, the Insurrection Act gives the president authority to send military and National Guard troops to quell local rebellions and violence, offering an exemption to prohibitions against using military personnel to enforce domestic laws. Historically, it has been used in moments of extreme national strife — the Civil War, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, violent labor disputes, desegregation battles, rioting following Martin Luther King Jr.’s death.

    Only once, however, has it been used in the wake of an election — and that was to stop a literal militia from seizing the Louisiana government on behalf of John McEnery, a former Confederate officer who had lost the 1872 governor’s race.

    Nonetheless, in the minds of some authoritarian-leaning and conspiracy-minded Trump supporters, the Insurrection Act has become a needed step to prevent President-elect Joe Biden from assuming the presidency. Their evidence-deficient reasoning: Democrats illegally rigged the election and are attempting a coup, and Trump must send in the troops to undo this conspiracy.

    The conviction shows how hard-edged MAGA ideology has become in the wake of Trump’s election loss. While scattered theories about a “deep state” arrayed against Trump have long circulated in MAGA circles, calls for troops to stop a democratically elected president from taking office have taken those ideas to a more conspiratorial and militaristic level. It also displays the exalted level to which Trump has been elevated among his most zealous fans as his departure looms.

    “The central theme here is that there supposedly exists a network of nefarious actors trying to undermine Trump and destroy the United States, and that this is a tool that Trump could use to save the day,” said Jared Holt, a research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, who focuses on far-right extremism.

    The Insurrection Act has been rarely invoked since the civil unrest of the 1960s — the last time was to quell violence during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. And when it has been used over that period, it was always at the request of a state governor.

    But over the past several years, it has gained popularity among the far-right fringes, mainly as a way for Trump to solve all their problems, from expelling undocumented migrants, to arresting generals and other “deep state” actors for allegedly plotting coups against Trump.

    The idea has also become intertwined with the QAnon movement, the far-reaching and baseless conspiracy that Trump is secretly working to disrupt a cabal of pedophiliac, sex trafficking Democrats and global elite.

    In May, a Q-drop — the name for the mysterious missives allegedly from a person at the center of the QAnon movement — floated the Insurrection Act for the first time as a way to solve “growing unrest” after George Floyd was killed by Minnesota police. “Call the ball,” Q said mysteriously.

    Then, in June, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton brought the idea of the Insurrection Act into the national dialogue with a New York Times op-ed that called on Trump to invoke the law in response to rioting that was occurring amid largely peaceful protests over racial justice. Trump himself leaned into the idea, suggesting to a rally audience that he would use the act to put down “leftist thugs” protesting that summer.

    From there, the Insurrection Act became a quick fix to everything among the more extreme MAGA figures.

    Trump ally and convicted political operative Roger Stone brought it up on Infowars as a way for Trump to combat anything from coups to protests to election fraud.

    “The president's authority is the Insurrection Act and his ability to declare martial law,” he told host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Stone added that Trump could also use the law to arrest anyone from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for election interference, to Democratic power couple Bill and Hillary Clinton — an interpretation that legal experts say strains credulity.

    Jimmy Gurulé, a former Justice Department prosecutor now teaching at Notre Dame Law School, called the argument tenuous. While the Insurrection Act can be legally invoked as a response to a “conspiracy” that hinders people’s rights, there must actually be a conspiracy to justify sending in federal troops over the objection of local and state officials.

    “I think that the key here is, 'Well, what the hell is that conspiracy?’” he said. “No one can articulate the participants in the conspiracy, the scope of the conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy. It’s all over the place.”

    Still, Trump himself seemed keen to the idea, telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that he would “put down [anti-Trump protests] very quickly” if they broke out after the election: “Look, it's called insurrection. We just send in and we do it very easy.”

    Further out on the MAGA fringe, Trump supporters suggested the president jump the gun and simply arrest everyone — before the election.

    And now, with the Electoral College confirming Biden’s win, recounts failing to change the results and courts at every level swatting down lawsuits challenging the outcome, some MAGA figures have latched on to the specific Insurrection Act clause granting the president authority to use the military to quash a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.” In their strained interpretation, the clause gives Trump the power to go after the Democrats and deep state actors conspiring to remove him from office. It’s a reading of the law experts immediately rejected.

    “When you're talking about a group of conspiracy theorists, and others who lack any kind of legal knowledge, they'll just pull that arrow out of their quiver when the rest don’t work,” said Brian Levin, executive director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

    It seems nearly impossible Trump would actually invoke the law in this manner. But that hasn’t stopped prominent Trump supporters like Wood, one of the lawyers pushing unsubstantiated lawsuits through the courts, from suggesting Trump send the military into Georgia to break up a meeting of electors.

    And over the weekend, after the Supreme Court rejected a Trump-boosted lawsuit from Texas asking to overturn the election results in four other swing states, MAGA supporters took to the streets to demand, among other things, that Trump use the Insurrection Act to force an election do-over, or at the very least, stop Biden from taking office.

    The Epoch Times itself ran an editorial on Monday arguing that it was time for Trump to invoke the act and send in the military to seize thousands of voting machines in order to find fraud: “Our system is in crisis. Trump would act to restore the rule of law.”

    Gurulé, the former DOJ prosecutor, pointed out that even if Trump tried to invoke the Insurrection Act, there really is nothing for the military to suppress.

    “I guess it’d be a voting fraud conspiracy, but how is the military going to suppress that?” he said. “By what, seizing all the ballots? By seizing all the voting machines? By then, what are they going to do, conduct the votes? It just doesn't make sense.”

    The point, however, might just be to have the Insurrection Act as a talking point to keep the MAGA movement motivated. And Levin, the extremism researcher, feared a darker path if Trump — a man who already speaks in militaristic terms on a regular basis — continued to goad his base into thinking a Biden presidency is an insurrection.

    “What is the heart of the Second Amendment, pro-militia, anti-government patriot movement? It's the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment,” he said. “It says people can rise up against a tyrannical government. To me, this looks like the last exit on the Jersey Turnpike before we get to that spot.”
    _________

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    It's nothing to do with being a 'sore loser'; it's just another Trump scam to make money. As long as he disputes the results he can still keep collecting money for 'court cases' - so many of which have failed. In reality all the money is going to the family. If he said "fair do's Biden won" then the money flow would stop.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    ADD: TH, Jimmy Carter lost one election. His subsequent contributions to mankind prove decisively that he is not a loser.
    I believe the "loser" tag was only intended to refer to the results of the 1980 election, and the comparison to Donald Trump stops there.

    Jimmy Carter is most certainly not a loser as a person. Donald Trump isn't qualified to fetch Jimmy Carter a cup of coffee.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    The GOP needs to look back to the mid-1970s, and learn from how they dealt with the Nixon resignation.
    They moved on, unfortunately by being hijacked by the religious right, but move on they did.

    ADD: TH, Jimmy Carter lost one election. His subsequent contributions to mankind prove decisively that he is not a loser.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Trump’s New Brand Is Loser
    His post-election tantrum is forcing conservatives to affirm, again and again, that he lost the election fair and square.

    In the six weeks since the Presidential election, various theories—many of them persuasive—have been advanced to explain President Trump’s refusal to accept Joe Biden’s victory. Trump’s decision to attack the legitimacy of the election has been seen, correctly, as an attack on democracy itself, and as a purposeful and brutally effective use of disinformation. And also as the behavior of a would-be dictator who is dragging an entire political party into a fever dream of denialism. Trump’s protracted post-election fit has been analyzed as preparation for a comeback bid in 2024 and as a fund-raising scam that has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to support his post-White House political efforts. Very likely, Trump’s continued rejection of his defeat is some of all the above.

    But in politics, and especially with this President, the simplest explanation for something is usually the best one. Whatever the other reasons are for his ongoing post-election temper tantrum, it couldn’t be more clear that Trump is also motivated by the simple psychological fact that he really, really hates being called a “loser.” It’s one of his favorite insults, and a label he would do anything to avoid having affixed to his own name. Just in the course of this election year, he has called Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, “a totally overrated loser,” and George Conway, the conservative lawyer who became one of his sharpest critics, a “deranged loser of a husband” to his adviser Kellyanne Conway. He said that Cory Booker, Chris Cuomo, John Kasich, and John Kelly were losers, too. In September, The Atlantic reported that he had called American soldiers who died fighting overseas “suckers” and “losers.” When the Republican senator Mitt Romney has criticized Trump, the President has responded by reminding the former Republican Presidential nominee of his defeat in the 2012 election. “loser!” he tweeted, after one such episode, taunting Romney by attaching a video of his 2012 concession alongside Trump’s 2016 victory speech. Since November 3rd, however, the word has practically disappeared from his vocabulary.

    “If I lost, I’d be a very gracious loser,” the President told a rally, in Georgia, on December 5th—more than a month after he did, in fact, lose. On Monday, the Electoral College met in all fifty state capitals to ratify that loss. Trump was not only not gracious; he continued to refuse to accept his defeat. A few weeks ago, in one of his few post-election comments to the media, a very testy Trump insisted that he would leave office if and when the Electoral College certified Biden’s victory. “Certainly, I will. Certainly, I will,” Trump said. “And you know that.” Now that the Electoral College has affirmed Biden’s win, however, Trump is no longer acknowledging that he will leave office. CNN even reported, the other day, that, in private, he has backed away from previous indications to his aides that he accepts his defeat.

    Perhaps Trump believes that his continued rejection of the reality of his loss makes him appear to be a fighter. Perhaps he really has convinced himself that the outrageous claims he is making about an election conspiracy so vast that it involves millions of fraudulent votes, a dead Venezuelan dictator, and Republican officials in a half-dozen states are true. Many commentators—including me—have pointed with alarm to Trump’s success at convincing millions of Republican voters to doubt the legitimacy of Biden’s win, and the fact that two-thirds of the House Republican Conference last week signed onto the quickly dismissed Texas lawsuit to throw out the results in four key states—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—where Biden prevailed. If Trump’s goal was proving that the Party remains loyal to him, he has succeeded extraordinarily. Who could have imagined four years ago that a large part of the national G.O.P. leadership would be so devoted to Donald Trump that it would follow him down the path of outright rejection when the election did not go his way?

    But there is another way of looking at what Trump has been doing since November 3rd, and it does not suggest a strategy of political genius—or, really, much of a strategy at all. In pushing back so insistently and filing so many baseless lawsuits, Trump has forced dozens of conservatives at every level of American society to attest to the integrity of the vote—and highlight Trump’s loss. Republican governors in states such as Arizona and Georgia have affirmed that he lost—not only their states but the election over all. Republican-appointed judges have affirmed that he lost. So have many Republican officials who played a role in certifying the results in the states that handed the Presidency to Biden. “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President,” Stephanos Bibas, a federal appeals-court judge appointed by Trump, wrote, in throwing out one of the Pennsylvania cases. Trump, he noted, can’t just tweet his way to victory: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. Calling an election unfair does not make it so.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a ruling by a conservative Republican justice, warned that Trump, in seeking to “disenfranchise every Wisconsin voter,” was testing the “faith in our system of free and fair elections.” The two cases that Trump sought to bring to the U.S. Supreme Court were so weak that the nine Justices declined even to hear arguments on their merits.

    The President’s extraordinary challenge to the electoral system has forced even some of Trump’s staunchest loyalists here in Washington to finally push back and defend the integrity of the vote. Attorney General William Barr stated publicly that there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient enough to overturn the election results, and, after Trump became furious about that comment, announced his resignation, earlier this week. On Tuesday, in the wake of the Electoral College’s decision, even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell belatedly affirmed that Trump had lost, congratulated Biden, and urged Republican senators not to go along with further efforts to contest the result, because they risked forcing the Senate into a political loser of a vote. A few hard-core Trump supporters in the House are now pushing for a last stand on January 6th, when Congress must meet to receive the Electoral College results. But that effort, too, is doomed to fail, and could only result in McConnell’s Republicans having to vote against it in the Senate—and showcasing, once again, that Trump was decisively and convincingly defeated. “I don’t think it’s a good decision right now,” John Thune, the Republican senator from South Dakota, who is McConnell’s deputy, told reporters, on Thursday. “And I don’t think it’s good for the country.”

    Is any of this really serving Trump well? I know we’ve got used to thinking of Trump as a genius in turning bad news on its head, in creating grievance out of setbacks and then using those grievances to further cement his hold over his Party. I’ve watched him run this play over and over again. I get it. But the alternate way of looking at his post-election behavior is that he is cementing his reputation as the sorest of sore losers. Not only that, but he is crying so long and loudly about the unfairness of his loss that he is forcing officials at every level of government, across the country, to take sides—against him. His frenetic efforts to deny his defeat have simply underscored it. Trump really is leaving office on January 20th, and he really will go out as an impeached and defeated President, forevermore listed in the history books alongside Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter and all the other one-termers he disdains. He is now, and will always be, a loser.
    ______________

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Hilary's comment about "basket of deplorables" was more on the money than anyone realized at the time and even more today...

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by JRT View Post

    Below provides example in support of your comment.

    ...
    “We are lucky no one was killed,” Ogg said. “His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened.”


    "TDS" lives on

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    Some GOPers find it easier to believe the wild conspiracy theories than to believe they don't have sufficient support to win every election. That leads to crazy accusations by the most nefarious voter suppressors that the elections must have been rigged.
    Below provides example in support of your comment.

    Originally posted by FOX_News

    Ex-Houston police captain investigating voter fraud scheme runs man off road, holds him at gunpoint: cops

    By Stephanie Pagones
    16 December 2020

    Mark Aguirre, a former captain with the Houston Police Department was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after running a man off the road and holding him at gunpoint in an effort to prove what authorities called “unfounded” allegations of a voter fraud scheme, officials recently announced. Aguirre faces up to 20 years behind bars if convicted.

    Aguirre allegedly claimed that an air conditioner repairman was the mastermind of a giant voter fraud scheme. Aguirre, 63, said the man’s truck was filled with fraudulent ballots when he ran his SUV into it on Oct. 19, according to authorities.

    “The defendant stated (the driver) has approximately seven hundred and fifty thousand fraudulent mail ballots and is using Hispanic children to sign the ballots because the children’s fingerprints would not appear in any databases,” an arrest affidavit states.

    Aguirre told police he and some friends set up a “command post” at a Marriott hotel in suburban Houston and conducted 24-hour surveillance on the repairman for four days, according to the affidavit. He said he then ran the man’s truck off the road, pointed a gun at him, forced him onto the ground, and put a knee on his back, the affidavit said.

    Aguirre was fired from the Houston Police Department in 2003 after a botched raid in which nearly 300 people were arrested in a crackdown on illegal street racing. Most who were arrested were not linked to street racing and charges were dropped. Aguirre was tried and acquitted on five counts of official oppression.

    Police say Aguirre was paid $266,400 by Houston-based Liberty Center for God and Country, a nonprofit organization run by a GOP party activist.

    Jared Woodfill, an attorney who represents the activist, told the Associated Press that Liberty Center for God and Country had employed Aguirre’s company and around 20 investigators who were looking into allegations of voter fraud during the election.

    Woodfill said he doesn’t know if Aguirre was working on the investigation at the time of the alleged assault, but that Liberty Center doesn't approve of such tactics.

    “We would never endorse that, saying go pull someone over, put a gun up to their head and make them open up their truck,” he said.

    Woodfill said he would be “surprised if the allegations were true. That seems out of character for any of the people that would be working under Liberty Center."

    Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said Aguirre’s actions “crossed the line from dirty politics to commission of a violent crime.”

    “We are lucky no one was killed,” Ogg said. “His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened.”

    .

    ...

    Last edited by JRT; 16 Dec 20,, 17:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Russia hacks the 2016 election

    Trump sides with Putin over his own staff in Helsinki

    Trump rips NATO allies repeatedly

    Trump has YET to say one word about bounties on American Servicemembers paid by Russian Intelligence

    Trump says nothing about Russian interference with US Troops in Syria


    This guys is completely in Putin's pocket

    If there is no pee tape then he has to be compromised through Deutchebank....


    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/polit...sia/index.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/tech/...ned/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    75 million votes is, indeed, a lot.
    Not as many as 80 million, but quite a lot.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X