Posted on 12/04/2016 9:37:06 PM PST by roostercogburn
The federal courts trample us again.
Maybe. If she really gave a sh!t about Hillary Clinton, I figure she would have dropped out of the race a month before the election and endorsed her.
The actual change in the vote totals was about +1000 for Gore. Which did not overturn Bush's lead, I should add.
But that 1,000 was an artificial number -- it stemmed from re-counting only half-a-county.
Recall when they did the Dade County re-count. They started with Precinct 1, worked their way thru half the county's precincts, gaining about 1,000 votes for Gore...then, they quit.
The nature of "hanging chads" is that, the more times you run the cards thru the machines, the more "hanging chads" get knocked off. Thus, the more votes you'll record. But the "hanging chads" will tend to be proportionate for all the candidates. Thus, if you re-count a precinct that went 60/40 for Candidate A vs Candidate B, A would get 60% of the new votes, B 40%.
What they did in Dade County was count the Democrat half of the county first. After turning up a net gain of 1,000 votes for Gore, they knew that the re-count would start diminishing that total as they moved into the Republican half of the county.
So they quit.
As it turned out, those 1,000 votes got credited to Gore in the state's official vote totals because that partisan bitch on the Florida Supreme Court insisted on it. The SCOTUS decision had ended the re-count and Bush had won -- why fight an invalid judicial order?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-recount-idUSKBN13U0JT
Word on the web is Jill was being blamed as one of the reasons why Hillary lost.
I guess Jill was worried her funds would dry up, and she would never have a shot at running again? Anyhow, she agreed to challenge the election results if Hillary helped raise money for her to do it. Plus it would help Jill pay off her debts.
Although I think when everything is said and done. Jill’s bills will be paid, but her political career is ruined.
I think Hillary wanted to this as a sort of “hail mary pass”.
Time for the governor to step up.
The point is, every state has some provision for appointing electors in the event of a "controversy." It's not possible for the courts to deny a state its electoral votes.
In 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution grants the state legislatures a plenary power to appoint electors. And NOTHING; no state court, no federal court, no state law, not even the state's own Constitution can interfere with the legislatures' authority in this regard.
If you recall, the crooks in the Florida Supreme Court tried to rule in 2000 that an ambiguity in the Florida Constitution meant that Florida's legislature could not "interfere in the recount" of the election for President, because Florida's Constitution contained some vague wording that "every vote must be counted." From that, they ruled that either the recount had to go down as Gore wanted, or, Florida could not appoint any electors.
The Supreme Court slammed them down, hard, ruling UNANIMOUSLY that the Florida Constitution could not be used to overrule the Florida legislature's US Constitutional grant of authority in Federal elections. They went further, saying that the right of the legislature to appoint electors was intended to belong purely to the political branches, and to the political branches alone, and was beyond the reach of ANY court.
Theoretically, Trump could go into CA, claim millions of illegals voted and that this harmed him, and, if he could find a sympathetic judge (unlikely) get a recount. But that would not stop the CA legislature from stepping in on the 13th and appointing Hillary!®'s electors ... whatever recount was going on be damned.
What is the legal constitutional basis for this Judge’s decision?
There must be some reason that plaintiffs wrote in their pleading that the Judge relied on.
Stein was quoted as saying to wit: “one can’t know if there something wrong until one looks at it”.
In other words, she is embarking on a fishing expedition. She will target the presidential no votes, where a voter voted for neither candidate for president. Then she will attempt to ‘divine’ if a no vote was actually a ‘no’ or whether a smudge, stray mark, discoloration, or proximate mark was actually a vote for Clinton. It is the Florida 2000 hanging chad approach.
Yes, there were indeed many intended ‘no’ votes but Stein is intending to show that not all were intentional and that more than the margin of victory were actually votes for Clinton that were misread or mishandled.
I believe the margin of victory in MI was on the order of 10,000 and the number of no-votes was on the order of 85,000. So Stein could tip MI to Clinton in theory.
But she will have to do the same in WI and PA to change the election outcome.
Now that the lawyers for Stein have withdrawn from PA state courts and focused on taking their complaint to a federal court, it does seem as though they are judge shopping in federal courts to find decisions that allow them to take PA.
But then they will need to take WI.
Note that they are pursuing statewide recounts in each of WI, PA, and MI. This is clearly in response to the USSC decision in Gore v. Bush whereby the recounting was halted in FL because it was decided that Gore could not cherry pick counties, that a full FL recount would be necessary.
I’ll say it again that the dems are going to use every means at their disposal no matter how outrageous to throw the election.
Lawyers for Trump need to take this to a federal appeals court NOW and get a ruling in their favor that will be upheld by a deadlocked USSC. It needs to be done BEFORE the Stein/Clinton people have a chance to have an appellate ruling favorable to them because a deadlocked USSC leaves a lower court ruling in place.
Do not for a moment think that these state’s margins will protect Trump’s victory. These people are criminals of the political class who could care less if they are seen as criminals. They will pull out all the stops to get a RULING that favors them and then they will use techniques they know so well to call a smudge mark to be a Clinton vote. They don’t care how ridiculous or outrageous it looks, it only matters that the smudge was closer to the Clinton oval than the Trump oval. And if any GOP canvassers disagree, the democrat election official will make a decision for the smudge.
Yes, it will be that ludicrous because they know if they win, there is nothing the opposition can do except shriek. Winners write the history going forward. It doesn’t matter if the theft was transparent. possession is 9/10’s of the law.
There is a ray of hope should the above be seen as a growing albeit shocking reality.
If lawyers for Trump can delay the recount outcome until past December 19, then PA. WI, MI electoral votes can be left out of the Electoral College vote and Trump still wins the majority of the EC votes (do the arithmetic).
Even if recounts of PA, WI, MI came out in favor of Clinton after December 19, the votes would be moot but such a post-December 19 recount would never happen.
Stein/Clinton’s lawyers might attempt to obtain a fed court ruling that forced the EC to vote at a date set by the court. But there could be a problem as the US Constitution calls out Congress as having the authority for setting dates for Electors to meet and vote and it must be uniform.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 4
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
But this is not to say the dem lawyers won’t forge ahead through a judge shopped court to try and stop the EC from voting on December 19. But then Congress can meet in emergency session to reaffirm the December 19 date.
The key strategy is them for the Trump lawyer team to delay recounts until past December 19. How might this be done?
One way for Trump lawyers to move on this is to file in district court or better an appeals court to delay recount certification until after the Stein/Clinton explain why other states where Trump lost by lesser numbers of voters were not recounted by Stein/Clinton. This would be an extension of Gore v. Bush 2000 taken from FL to the nation itself. One cannot cherry pick states with the aim of overturning an election just as one cannot cherry pick counties within a state with the same aim. The pleading and associated arguments should take well past the December 19 EC election day.
At the same time, request Congress to vote to reaffirm the December 19 election day for Electors in each state to cast their votes.
Here is a list of the top ten states by smallest margins won/lost:
1. Michigan 0.3 percent
Trump 47.6 percent, Clinton 47.3 percent
Difference: 13,080 votes
2. New Hampshire 0.4 percent
Clinton 47.6 percent, Trump 47.2 percent
Difference: 2,701 votes
3. Wisconsin 1 percent
Trump 47.9 percent, Clinton 46.9 percent
Difference: 27,257 votes
4. Pennsylvania 1.2 percent
Trump 48.8 percent, Clinton 47.6 percent
Difference: 68,236 votes (99 percent reporting)
5. Florida 1.2 percent
Trump 49 percent, Clinton 47.8 percent
Difference: 114,455 votes
6. Minnesota 1.5 percent
Clinton 46.4 percent, Trump 44.9 percent
Difference: 44,470 votes
7. Nevada 2.4 percent
Clinton 47.9 percent, Trump 45.5 percent
Difference: 26,434 votes
8. Maine 2.7 percent
Clinton 47.9 percent, Trump 45.2 percent
Difference: 19,995 votes
9. North Carolina 3.8 percent
Trump 49.9 percent, Clinton 46.1 percent
Difference: 177,009 votes
10. Arizona 3.9 percent
Trump 49.3 percent, Clinton 45.4 percent
Difference: 91,682 votes
They think they'll have a talking point. Same as they thought in 2000.
2004 came along, and their talking point didn't matter.
2018 will come along, and Trump's Congressional majority will grow (especially in the Senate).
2020 will come along, and nobody will be able to remember 2016's talking point.
She's a psycho and a con artist.
In 2004, she got beaucoup bucks from gullible Democrats, claiming she could overturn over 100,000+ votes in OH because of "black box voting."
I guess because of Trump's tweet about millions of illegals voting (probably a large number, but not millions) she now thinks she can game Republicans with the same grift.
According to Bev Harris who is a liberal democrat. She is considered the top election fraud expert in the country. She has testified in front of congress, HBO did a documentary about her and the 2000 race.
Nonetheless, I heard her say it. Beverly said anytime in past elections when she asked for the results from the States they are more than happy to provide her a copy of everything she needs. However, this time all 5 of the States I listed refused to provide her the information.
My understanding is that it was a land slide for Trump and Hillary tried to steal the election. However, the landslide was simply too big. Which makes sense when you think about it from a rally stand point. Hillary could get about 300 people while Trump would have 30,000 at a rally.
I think people are just tired of the Bush’s and Clinton’s. Remember the Establishment was hoping for a Bush vs. Clinton rematch. And I think that just turned people off. Jeb lost and even Hillary lost in the Primary, but stole it from Sanders via the Super delegate.
PA, with 100% finally reporting as of Friday was, according to the SOS for the Commonwealth: CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) 47.81% Votes: 2,906,128 TRUMP, DONALD J (REP) 48.62% Votes: 2,955,671 CASTLE, DARRELL L (CON) 0.35% Votes: 21,381 STEIN, JILL (GRN) 0.82% Votes: 49,678 JOHNSON, GARY E (LIB) 2.40% Votes: 145,694 Difference was 49,543, 0.81%
Actually, it is clear in the law and the Constitution.
It is clearly whoever has the most Elector votes is the winner, meaning the majority.
And yes, if a state’s electors do not cast their votes on their election day which is set by Congress to be December 19 of this year, then those elector votes are subtracted from the total of 535 and a new majority threshold is in works.
>> Bev Harris might.
She’s a psycho and a con artist. <<
And you know this how — LINK please.
Here is a link to the story from the Detroit Free News:
I'm sure you also thought Trump had no ground game going into the election.
“why did she drop her recount bid in Pennsylvania over the weekend and instead file a Federal lawsuit today”
Because her chances are a whole lot better in federal courts , which isn’t bound by law, with an end game resting with a 4-4 SCOTUS. State courts have precise language regarding election law. Federal courts make up legislation as they go.
Yes, the totals I posted were before those latest counts.
But the outcome hasn’t changed. Trump is still the winner.
What you should be aware of, and I don’t have the link handy right now, is that in MI, Stein is eying the blank votes or no-votes where voters voted for neither Clinton nor Trump.
In MI, the margin of victory was about 11,000 but the no-votes number about 85,000. Stein is thinking there are at least 11,000 or so no-votes that can be turned for Clinton.
That’s what they are after.
So the threat is real in theory and to democrats, this angle is their goal because trillions of dollars are at stake. They don’t care what it looks like. They don’t care who accuses them of criminal this and criminal that. Winning is everything and will empower them to rewrite history going forward.
It really is a coup d’etat.
And they really don’t care what anyone on Trump’s side thinks about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Millions of their supporters don’t care either. They just want Trump and the ‘Alt-Right’ gone.
On any no-vote if there is a smudge mark closer to Clinton than to Trump, it will be called a vote for Clinton. If any GOP canvasser/watcher disagrees, the election official will rule for Clinton.
These people are mafia-like criminals. They simply don’t care about the crimes they commit.
Trump’s lawyers must use time and schedule, along with a GOP Congress to their advantage. They must challenge Stein/Clinton why the other states were not counted that had smaller voter margins of victory for Clinton.
Stein/Clinton cannot cherry pick states any more than Gore cherry picked counties in FL in 2000.
It is also
illegal because Stein gave for specious reason that her people could not afford to pay for the recount so tax payers would have to
pay!
How about they do not pay for the recount because they simply do not wish it? This is not democracy but thuggish undertaking of the people, forcing them to pay for a recount to benefit Hillary.
A federal should not force tax payers to pay for a recount they do not
volunteer for, PERIOD
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.