Posted on 12/04/2020 6:57:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Michigan appeals court turned down an appeal Friday from President Donald Trump's campaign in a challenge to how absentee ballots were handled in Detroit and other issues.
In a brief order, the court said the lawsuit fails because Michigan's election results, including Joe Biden's 154,000-vote victory over Trump, were certified on Nov. 23, a week before the campaign filed an appellate brief.
The court said the president's only recourse was a recount, but that has passed, too.
“Because plaintiff failed to follow the clear law in Michigan relative to such matters, their action is moot,” Judge Stephen Borrello said in a 2-1 order.
Judge Patrick Meter disagreed, saying a three-judge panel should quickly hear the appeal.
“The issues are not moot because state electors have not yet been seated, the Electoral College has not yet been assembled and Congress has not yet convened to consider whether to exercise its powers under” the constitution, Meter said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The state legislators have the power to take control and undo the certification.
And there ya go. They ran out the clock.
JoMa
That was quite a diatribe.
I daresay that no businessman you ever knew has had to deal with as much at one time as Trump has. His efforts on behalf of America have been Herculean — and attacked at every turn by a national/globalist cabal.
So who do I blame for this sham of an election? I BLAME US, the spineless I-have-too-much-to-lose KEYBOARD WARRIORS who wouldn’t get off their fat asses to TAKE IT TO THE STREETS like The Left does at the drop of a hat.
We deserve what we get. Every single one of us. And that includes me.
I’m one of those keyboard warriors who has failed to get to STOP THE STEAL protests, failed to throw rocks at CNN HQs, failed to make graffiti...but I’m still willing to throw bricks if I can get with the right bunch at the right place at the right time.
So you join FR on Nov. 23, 2020 to just lay out your lawyerly “bad news”, as you put it?
How big of you to offer that service.
“I blame Rudy.”
You mean you believe the judge? The judge will sniff around for a reason to reject the suit, no matter what Giulani does.
I’m not a lawyer but unless I’m mistaken Bush v Gore proves you wrong.
Yes, Giuliani lost it for Trump.
Think about it. It disturbed me at the time and I was concerned if Rudy were ill, or not.
Modern photo/video flood lights these days are all LED based and do not produce infrared heat lamp effect like the high-intensity video lights of the past once did. They’re cool light, especially at a distance. They’ve been that way for years. Even studio lighting has been long swapped out, retro-fitted, even in old fixtures with modern high lumen LED lights. Why was Giuliani sweating up a storm under those lights unless someone deliberately brought in old style incandescent klieg lights to make him hot?
Trump was always deliberately videoed by main stream news crews using an orange filter, which editors would further enhance. This was deliberate. It was part of their intent to make Trump appear buffoonish, as a clown, who had no business running for president. Occasionally, in group shots, they’d forget to do their enhancements, and Trump would appear normal, same skin tones as others in the group. . . But those are rare. It was a true conspiracy of dunces. They created "orange man bad" trope. >p> This sweating, not believable, under pressure Rudy, is more of the same. Psychological warfare.
I have seen at least one function where Trump was the sole speaker, in a fairly nice environment, where he was obviously overheated. There was just an interview of Biden on NBC, I think, where he was softly lit, impeccably made up, and I could swear taped using a gauze feature. As the President would say, it is what it is.
The ratio has certainly shifted in a manner that would lend to that line of thinking.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on the following - which I’ve posted on some other threads. TIA.
“At what point do the Republican Secretaries of State and Attorneys General in the states that POTUS won, file federal law suits presenting the cumulative evidence of fraud across the various contested states as violations of the 14th Amendment, and dilution and disenfranchisement of their citizens? Why not now and why not give it a try?
It’d seem to me that: (1) this would be one way to fast track the situation to SCOTUS (2) present all the evidence gathered by Giuliani, Powell and others (3) that the issue of standing will be moot (4) given certifications of the vote in the contested states, that the matter will be ripe, and (5) create a federal case that can be subjected to further investigation.”
I think it’s probably a more viable path than one directed at the state legislatures. The outcome of the case, however, could provide the impetus for the legislatures to do their constitutional duty.
Look at President Trump in this light. A man with great planning and organizational skills opens a business in a small town. The chamber of commerce hates him, the mayor hates him, the police chief, the fire chief, the licensing agencies hate him. How successful do you think he will be.
The dems, republicans, and bureaucrats fought him his whole term. Everything he accomplished was by going around all the obstacles. I think he did a great job.
Understand whining is very popular here but if the system is against you as it is with President Trump, the lawyering is not the problem.
This corruption in elections is major. Demonrats took it to a whole new level and coordination this time.
The judges don’t want to act in most cases. That was even before this year.
“I’m beginning to think that President Trump isn’t going to let it stand.”
1. He was very clear at the beginning that this was “the most important speech I will ever give” - while he often exaggerates and self-promotes, on issues of substance he does not do these things.
2. He indicated that his primary duty, one that he took an oath to perform, is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution....”
3. He spoke about how the very basis of our system of government required that there be free and fair elections in which everyone had confidence - and was specific in saying that if people did not have confidence in elections, it would “destroy this country.”
4. He went on to list, in very great detail, the cheating in several states, down to the county level.
5. He talked briefly about how his campaign was asking for recounts and audits of results, filing cases in courts and appealing to state legislatures to make sure that the Electors sent to the EC reflect the actual, fair, results of this election - IOW, that he was pursuing all available remedies.
IOW, he laid out a very clear case that our entire system of government, our ability to count on fair elections and KNOW that We The People control our own country, is in mortal danger...and that the one critical thing that every President does is to swear to protect that system, as embodied in the Constitution.
I think that he was VERY clearly sending a message to the SCOTUS (or at least 5 of its members) that the essence of our system is in danger and that, if one or more cases regarding the election comes in front of them, they had better take the case and make a ruling that protects that system...or that he would have to undertake other means to do so. He clearly indicated that by pursing all other means of remedying the situation that he is following the law that he swore to protect, that he wants our system to continue to operate as it has since 1787. But, without mentioning these words, he was saying that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
IMHO, the warning was very clear and not terribly subtle - and that is as it should be, because above all else, those people making decisions at all levels of our courts and the various governments in this country need to clearly understand what is at stake and to make their decisions very carefully and without being under any illusions about the consequences of a bad (or corrupt, or cowardly) decision.
I never thought that we would ever be in such a situation in my lifetime. It is not even a full century after my paternal grandfather escaped Communist Russia and came to America as a refuge from tyranny...and now we are on the brink of becoming a tyranny not much different from the land of his birth. He would have been shocked to his core to know this.
I will back President Trump in whatever his course of action may be, because I know in my bones that he is a modern Cincinnatus, someone who only came to politics to save our Republic. If he is forced by the forces of the tyrant-wannabees whom he entered politics to defeat to take forceful action to defend the Republic, it won’t be his first choice - quite the opposite. He has been very careful to scrupulously abide by the letter of the law since he entered office - it is in his nature, and he has practiced this for nearly half a century (in the business world you HAVE to abide by contracts - not only can they be legally enforced, but if you get a reputation for breaching them, no one will want to deal with you).
Pray for this country, pray that nothing of that sort is necessary - but IF it is, then pray for Trump to be successful, because if he isn’t, then this nation will become a complete dictatorship and just a cog in the machine of the globalists. Chaos will descend upon the world and, as is historically inevitable, war will result on a scale and with a brutality and lethality never before seen. Literally, the fate of billions depends on what happens in this nation in the next few weeks.
“ They are cheating” is not admissible.”
It’s not cheating, it’s stealing. Theft is a crime.
Yeah, well it’s apparent that theft is not admissible, either.
MI and others forced to certify....
So if it is illegally fraud-filled and under lawsuit, the law forces them to certify the illegally obtained result?
Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
I think the distinction here is moralistic vs. legalistic.
That sometimes the law is an ass is hardly in dispute among honest thinkers.
I get your example and agree that Trump has had virtually “everyone” lined up against him from both sides of the aisle..but that still doesn’t change the fact that better preparation ahead of the election (ie: having top notch legal teams that were experts in election law ready to go in every single swing state) would have likely resulted in a better outcome for our side..
Research executive order 13848 dated 9/12/2018.
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.