U.S. attorney in Georgia: ‘There’s just nothing to’ claims of election fraud

[iguanaman]

I shouldn't have to ask but ... for example ... a vote with a signature that doesn't match that of the registration is not a legal vote. Is it?
Aren't there many types of illegal votes that can be counted as legal?

So now you are changing the subject? All our elections have safeguards to prevent fraud what is different is having a candidate that is a sore loser. Stop talking about the Constitutionality of election laws if all you are contesting is the validity of individual votes. I'm sure there are a few illegal votes in every election but not nearly enough to change the results in a national election.

 

[bubbabgone]

So now you are changing the subject? All our elections have safeguards to prevent fraud what is different is having a candidate that is a sore loser. Stop talking about the Constitutionality of election laws if all you are contesting is the validity of individual votes. I'm sure there are a few illegal votes in every election but not nearly enough to change the results in a national election.

No subject change ... and by your grasping I suspect you realize that.
If a State's Presidential election law says mail-in ballots have to arrive by election day and a Sec of State decides to extend it to 3 days after election day then he violated his own State's election law. The Law was constitutional. What the Sec State did wasn't.
That should be obvious.
Please ... no more games.

 

[pamak]

Let me spell it out for you one last time.
4 Justices have stated "A" and a 5th Justice with the same judicial approach to the Constitution was appointed too late to participate.
The 4 have all stated that Article 2 is the critical factor in these election law violations.
Now listen closely, my little friend, they don't all have to be applying Article 2 provisions to the same case for you to conclude that, yeah, Article 2 is in their election law driver's seat.
If you still don't get it then you ain't trying.

Let me spell out for you that you have still failed to address my point and repeat the same things you have said in the last pages. Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can claim that there is any Article 2 violation! The simple fact is that nothing in what you say is evidence that four judges sided with the Alito that the PA case was unconstitutional. Read Alito's statement about the unconstitutionality of the PA case and notice that only two other judges joined it.

 

[JasperL]

No subject change ... and by your grasping I suspect you realize that.
If a State's Presidential election law says mail-in ballots have to arrive by election day and a Sec of State decides to extend it to 3 days after election day then he violated his own State's election law. The Law was constitutional. What the Sec State did wasn't.
That should be obvious.
Please ... no more games.

If you're talking about PA, it was the PA Supreme Court that extended the deadline for mail in ballots, not the SoS. The SoS is in fact duty bound to obey the court's ruling.

 

[pamak]

If you're talking about PA, it was the PA Supreme Court that extended the deadline for mail in ballots, not the SoS. The SoS is in fact duty bound to obey the court's ruling.

And the PA Supreme Court did it according to the desires of the executive branch in PA which wanted a three day extension after the problems that were encountered (including delays from the Postal Service) which threatened to disenfranchise many voters. The PA Supreme Court did not come with an arbitrary deadline on its own.

 

[iguanaman]

No subject change ... and by your grasping I suspect you realize that.
If a State's Presidential election law says mail-in ballots have to arrive by election day and a Sec of State decides to extend it to 3 days after election day then he violated his own State's election law. The Law was constitutional. What the Sec State did wasn't.
That should be obvious.
Please ... no more games.

What does any of that have to do with fraud? And why would giving extra time for the post office to process and deliver votes ever be "unconstitutional". You make no sense. No court would ever throw away votes simply because the post office took a few day longer to deliver them. That is beyond insane.

 

[pamak]

What does any of that have to do with fraud? And why would giving extra time for the post office to process and deliver votes ever be "unconstitutional". You make no sense. No court would ever throw away votes simply because the post office took a few day longer to deliver them. That is beyond insane.

Add also the fact that there was a similar extension for similar reasons during the primaries.

 

[bubbabgone]

Let me spell out for you that you have still failed to address my point and repeat the same things you have said in the last pages. Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can claim that there is any Article 2 violation! The simple fact is that nothing in what you say is evidence that four judges sided with the Alito that the PA case was unconstitutional. Read Alito's statement about the unconstitutionality of the PA case and notice that only two other judges joined it.

Your superficial view of these things are comical, you could say childlike.
"... The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2."
“No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges, ... But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted.”
“the Constitution principally entrusts politically accountable state legislatures, not unelected federal judges, with the responsibility to address the health and safety of the people during the Covid-19 pandemic.”
Do you know what all that means? No? Try harder. The identity of the States are not relevant. 4 SC Justices said those things.
Those views by at least 4 SC judges and their common Constitutionally based reasons should inform you you've been pissing into the wind.
You can stop now, your shoes must be drenched.

 

[bubbabgone]

If you're talking about PA, it was the PA Supreme Court that extended the deadline for mail in ballots, not the SoS. The SoS is in fact duty bound to obey the court's ruling.

The SofS reference applied to Georgia.
I'm talking about the requirements of each State to follow the Constitution. The PA State SC was wrong ... and came too late to be remedied. The PA AG was one of the culprits there.

 

[pamak]

Your superficial view of these things are comical, you could say childlike.
"... The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2."
“No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges, ... But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted.”
“the Constitution principally entrusts politically accountable state legislatures, not unelected federal judges, with the responsibility to address the health and safety of the people during the Covid-19 pandemic.”
Do you know what all that means? No? Try harder. The identity of the States are not relevant. 4 SC Justices said those things.
Those views by at least 4 SC judges and their common Constitutionally based reasons should inform you you've been pissing into the wind.
You can stop now, your shoes must be drenched.

I know that you are incapable of understanding my point which was ...wait for it...Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can claim that there is any Article 2 violation!

Again wanting a review is not the same with the claim that there is anything unconstitutional with the PA case and you like it or not only TWO other judges joined Alito's statement that the PA case was probably unconstitutional!

 

[bubbabgone]

I know that you are incapable of understanding my point which was ...wait for it...Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can claim that there is any Article 2 violation!

Again wanting a review is not the same with the claim that there is anything unconstitutional wit the PA case!

What did those quotes mean? Have you any idea? You think they indicated that State elected officials or State Courts can do any damn thing they want to alter provisions in State election Laws?
4 USSC justices wanted to grant a stay in the PA case. I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that as fact.

 

[pamak]

What did those quotes mean? Have you any idea? You think they indicated that State elected officials or State Courts can do any damn thing they want to alter provisions in State election Laws?
4 USSC justices wanted to grant a stay in the PA case. I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that as fact.

I have a very good idea that they do not address my points. Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can claim that there is any Article 2 violation! . And again, wanting a judicial review is not the same with arriving at conclsusions about the review. The person who does not accept the facts is you when you continue to ignore the fact that only two other judges sided with Alito's comment that the PA case was "probably" unconstitutional!

 

[bubbabgone]

I have a very good idea that they do not address my points. And again, wanting a judicial review is not the same with arriving at conclsusions about the review. The person who does not accept the facts is you when you continue to ignore the fact that only two other judges sided with Alito's comment that the PA case was "probably" unconstitutional!

You need to address the 4 USSC Justices points, not the other way around. More pamak comedy there.
4 Justices wanted the stay. Why would they do that?

 

[bubbabgone]

What does any of that have to do with fraud? And why would giving extra time for the post office to process and deliver votes ever be "unconstitutional". You make no sense. No court would ever throw away votes simply because the post office took a few day longer to deliver them. That is beyond insane.

You have a very unserious view of the US Constitution. Kinda like you see it as merely a series of suggestions.

 

[pamak]

You have a very unserious view of the US Constitution. Kinda like you see it as merely a series of suggestions.

You have a very unserious view of logic.

Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can support the claim that there is any Article 2 violation! .

 

[pamak]

You need to address the 4 USSC Justices points, not the other way around. More pamak comedy there.
4 Justices wanted the stay. Why would they do that?

No, I do not need to addresss it because my point stands regardless of the number of judges. Again, without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can support the claim that there is any Article 2 violation! .

And you need to address why finally only two other judges sided with Alito's comment that the PA case was probably unconstitutional just like you need to adress why it makes sesne to invalidate the whole election in PA when the numebr of ballots in question was too small to affecct the outcome.

Just like you need to address why you ignore court decisions cited by other posters about the importance of putting process below the disenfrachment of thousands of voters. From Lursa's case which you consistently ignore in your dishonest attempt to debate the issue

US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 - Supreme Court 1995 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

...


As Hamilton's statement suggests, the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate 834*834 electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.

Our cases interpreting state power under the Elections Clause reflect the same understanding. The Elections Clause gives States authority "to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved." Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S., at 366. However, "[t]he power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgment of fundamental rights."

 

[Jay Falcon]

It's a waste of time. The issue is moot...and you really don't care.

(If you did, you'd already know the facts.)

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

 

[iguanaman]

You have a very unserious view of the US Constitution. Kinda like you see it as merely a series of suggestions.

You have a very unserious view of democracy and the sanctity of the vote. Kinda like you see voting as quaint custom that can easily be thrown away for the most trivial of reasons. You also ignore the SC's view that the word "legislature" should be interpreted loosely to any body that can make laws. Like the Executive can in emergencies.

 

[Jay Falcon]

Thus what the hell was Trump thinking???

He must have known his challenges could never succeed?! All that money he spent -- destined to return absolutely nothing!


I look forward to his first interview when he's no longer in office. Hopefully the reporter will ask him, "What the hell were you thinking???"

He raised millions, most of which he kept. That's what he was thinking. What he naturally does: lie and scam.

 

[Jay Falcon]

You likely won't now and the witness statements are being ignored. Perhaps something can be done over the next four years but without a free media to pressure change that seems unlikely.

The media is still very much free. You just don't like what they're reporting.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

The media is still very much free. You just don't like what they're reporting.

Or what they're not reporting. Either way the public is not being well informed

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why is this thread still a thing?

The election was valid and is over.

 

[bubbabgone]

You have a very unserious view of logic.

Without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can support the claim that there is any Article 2 violation! .

So ... address them.

No, I do not need to addresss it because my point stands regardless of the number of judges. Again, without addressing the specific PA laws related to the executive branch's latitude during emergencies in PA NOBODY can support the claim that there is any Article 2 violation! .

And you need to address why finally only two other judges sided with Alito's comment that the PA case was probably unconstitutional just like you need to adress why it makes sesne to invalidate the whole election in PA when the numebr of ballots in question was too small to affecct the outcome.

Just like you need to address why you ignore court decisions cited by other posters about the importance of putting process below the disenfrachment of thousands of voters. From Lursa's case which you consistently ignore in your dishonest attempt to debate the issue

US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 - Supreme Court 1995 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

...


As Hamilton's statement suggests, the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate 834*834 electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.

Our cases interpreting state power under the Elections Clause reflect the same understanding. The Elections Clause gives States authority "to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved." Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S., at 366. However, "[t]he power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgment of fundamental rights."

All your comments are the same. You complain about laws you never produce. Address the specific laws.
4 Judges supported the PA stay.

 

[bubbabgone]

You have a very unserious view of democracy and the sanctity of the vote. Kinda like you see voting as quaint custom that can easily be thrown away for the most trivial of reasons. You also ignore the SC's view that the word "legislature" should be interpreted loosely to any body that can make laws. Like the Executive can in emergencies.

"... The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2."

What does that mean to you? It mentions Courts but apparently you think it was a "loose" oversight to not mention Governors? You're pretty funny too.

 

[pamak]

So ... address them.


All your comments are the same. You complain about laws you never produce. Address the specific laws.
4 Judges supported the PA stay.

Because you do not address my points. I said again that it is YOUR claim and YOU need to support your claims. Producing quotes from WI case and which are not even from Kaannaugh is laughable and does not support anything you try to say about the case in PA.

I said before that 4 judges wh wanted to revive the case does not equate with 4 judges agreeing with Alito's statement. And the evidence is irrefutable! Only two of the judges joined Alito's comment about the unconstitutionality of the PA case!