Replies

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Now that the lawyers for Stein have withdrawn from PA state courts and focused on taking their complaint to a federal court, it does seem as though they are judge shopping in federal courts to find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