Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. Biden doesn't have an army of amateur anomaly hunters because, like, he won. No one is looking for anomalies that favored Trump. You can't find what you're not looking for.

ETA: Of course he didn’t say there was no fraud. One Trump voter already admitted to voting his dead wife’s absentee ballot. And another individual Republican voter was caught committing voter fraud. When you convince people that their enemy is going to steal the election, you invite individuals to commit fraud.

Barr’s statement was perfectly consistent with the information we have and past experience: scattered examples of individual fraud, but not significant enough to affect the results. What one cannot infer from the man’s words was that he found widespread, orchestrated fraud. If he’d found that, he’d be announcing indictments.

[Res Ipsa]

If there were a soft coup attempt, this would be a key piece. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/hu ... ief-491033

[Gunnar]

Trump and his administration's strategy obviously consist mainly, if not exclusively, on telling the most bald faced and egregious lies over and over again, no matter how often and devastatingly debunked, in the hope that if he persists in repeating them often and boldly enough, he will eventually get enough people to believe them to somehow reverse his loss in the election. It is tragic and dangerous how often it happens that a loudly and often repeated, obvious falsehood is given more credence by large numbers of uninformed people than incontrovertible, clearly and calmly established truth.

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, which I think may have come from his book, The Stars in their Courses, One who insists something like "two plus 2 equals 5, and you'd better believe it or else!", too often has a stronger or more loyal following than one who says, "The best available evidence indicates that two plus two actually equals four."

Subgenius and Ajax are prime examples of this kind of idiocy.

[Res Ipsa]

Interesting look at who is funding this blizzard of lawsuits. https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/h ... ible-coup/

ETA: Rumors are circulating that the Krakken has sent a cease and desist letter to Sidney Powell. I wouldn't want to be associated with this kind of sloppy lawyering either. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... 487219.pdf

[Res Ipsa]

Wednesday updates:

The governor of Wisconsin has filed a brief opposing Trump's motion for emergency relief in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/w ... democracy/

As have representatives of the two counties targeted by the lawsuit: https://beta.documentcloud.org/document ... sp-12-1-20

Here is an example of the high quality lawyering that's going on in these cases. Yesterday, Mike Kelly filed a motion for an emergency stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to stay the PA Supreme Court's dismissal of his action to give him time to prepare a petition for certiorari. The high court hasn't responded yet (actually, it was made to Justice Alito, who is assigned to motions from that circuit), perhaps because Kelly forgot that the rules require him to file a motion for stay with the PA Supreme Court first. So he filed that motion today. https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/ ... r-Stay.pdf. At this level of practice, rule compliance is really important.

[Gadianton]

His AP statement literally says there was fraud found;

Cite the exact passage.

Thus far, you haven't cited a single example of alleged fraud, let alone alleged fraud that has a chance of really being fraud.

If you had an example, you would have cited it, and then leveraged your example into the stratosphere with the classic Ajax/Subs argument from ignorance: "if there is one case like x, then could there not be 100,000 more?".

The difference between you and anyone who has argued for Russian collusion (good luck linking any of my posts to that) is that you yourself don't believe this election was won by fraud. You hope that 10,000 lawsuits might come up with a technicality so you can win, Republican leaders and judges take to the meme and just say Trump won even though they know he didn't, or that some actual fraud might really have happened and might be uncovered, but you don't really believe it did.

[Chap]

His AP statement literally says there was fraud found;

Cite the exact passage.

To make that easy for him, here is the AP report:

Near the end of the report, he says that there have been 'claims of fraud'. But that is not at all the the same as saying 'there was fraud found'. At no stage does he say that.

Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

WASHINGTON (AP) — Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Barr’s comments, in an interview with the The Associated Press, contradict the concerted effort by Trump, his boss, to subvert the results of last month’s voting and block President-elect Joe Biden from taking his place in the White House.

Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The comments, which drew immediate criticism from Trump attorneys, were especially notable coming from Barr, who has been one of the president’s most ardent allies. Before the election, he had repeatedly raised the notion that mail-in voting could be especially vulnerable to fraud during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans feared going to polls and instead chose to vote by mail.

More to Trump’s liking, Barr revealed in the AP interview that in October he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel, giving the prosecutor the authority to continue to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe after Biden takes over and making it difficult to fire him. Biden hasn’t said what he might do with the investigation, and his transition team didn’t comment Tuesday.

Trump has long railed against the investigation into whether his 2016 campaign was coordinating with Russia, but he and Republican allies had hoped the results would be delivered before the 2020 election and would help sway voters. So far, there has been only one criminal case, a guilty plea from a former FBI lawyer to a single false statement charge.

Under federal regulations, a special counsel can be fired only by the attorney general and for specific reasons such as misconduct, dereliction of duty or conflict of interest. An attorney general must document such reasons in writing.

Barr went to the White House Tuesday for a previously scheduled meeting that lasted about three hours.

Trump didn’t directly comment on the attorney general’s remarks on the election. But his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his political campaign issued a scathing statement claiming that, “with all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance” of an investigation into the president’s complaints.

Other administration officials who have come out forcefully against Trump’s allegations of voter-fraud evidence have been fired. But it’s not clear whether Barr might suffer the same fate. He maintains a lofty position with Trump, and despite their differences the two see eye-to-eye on quite a lot.

Still, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer quipped: “I guess he’s the next one to be fired.”

Last month, Barr issued a directive to U.S. attorneys across the country allowing them to pursue any “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election was certified, despite no evidence at that time of widespread fraud.

That memorandum gave prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election was certified. Soon after it was issued, the department’s top elections crime official announced he would step aside from that position because of the memo.

The Trump campaign team led by Giuliani has been alleging a widespread conspiracy by Democrats to dump millions of illegal votes into the system with no evidence. They have filed multiple lawsuits in battleground states alleging that partisan poll watchers didn’t have a clear enough view at polling sites in some locations and therefore something illegal must have happened. The claims have been repeatedly dismissed including by Republican judges who have ruled the suits lacked evidence.

But local Republicans in some battleground states have followed Trump in making unsupported claims, prompting grave concerns over potential damage to American democracy.

Trump himself continues to rail against the election in tweets and in interviews though his own administration has said the 2020 election was the most secure ever. He recently allowed his administration to begin the transition over to Biden, but he still refuses to admit he lost.

The issues they’ve have pointed to are typical in every election: Problems with signatures, secrecy envelopes and postal marks on mail-in ballots, as well as the potential for a small number of ballots miscast or lost.

But they’ve gone further. Attorney Sidney Powell has spun fictional tales of election systems flipping votes, German servers storing U.S. voting information and election software created in Venezuela “at the direction of Hugo Chavez,” – the late Venezuelan president who died in 2013. Powell has since been removed from the legal team after an interview she gave where she threatened to “blow up” Georgia with a “biblical” court filing.

Barr didn’t name Powell specifically but said: “There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.”

In the campaign statement, Giuliani claimed there was “ample evidence of illegal voting in at least six states, which they have not examined.”

“We have many witnesses swearing under oath they saw crimes being committed in connection with voter fraud. As far as we know, not a single one has been interviewed by the DOJ. The Justice Department also hasn’t audited any voting machines or used their subpoena powers to determine the truth,” he said.

However, Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all,” he said, but first there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. ... And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”

Associated Press Writers Lisa Mascaro and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

[subgenius]

His AP statement literally says there was fraud found; and other States have found fraud (evrn admitting that some fraud occurs during every election). Scale is the point at hand, and the point of the statement (eg "enough to change results").

OK, so your position retreats back to something like, “two dozen dead people voted in this election of 155 million ballots cast!!1!”. And half of those ‘dead’ folks have already been discovered to be alive.

Nope. I am just blatantly noting what the AP article alleged. My position remains..un-retreated.

Still waiting for some examples of your so-called widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud.

And those have been provided, you're welcome. (again, I have no ability to make you understand what has been explained).

Given the multiple known "irregularities" , why have none of those irregularities gone for Trump? The overwhelming majority, if not entirety, of "questionable" activities, counts, statistics, anomalies, and ballots have all favored Biden.
What does the empirical reasonable replicatable science tell ya on that?

All that you can refer to here are updates to the ongoing count, for which no fraudulent activity has been shown to exist. You just don’t like how the updates occurred. And you have nothing beyond that, let alone something specific to either candidate.

Nope. cited affidavits, etc. Video statements/testimonies to State legislators and committees are also quite easily available on internet. But if you squeeze your eyes shut just a little harder then perhaps witness testimony, one day, won't be the same as evidence.

Substituting Trumpy butthurt for examples of so-called widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud isn’t going to make your case. But you don’t even believe your own claim anyway. You certainly won’t commit to saying as much. ; )

After 48 months of liberal butt-hurt over everything your street cred on this sort of judgment is zip; but at least you're showing signs of personal growth...yes, i know, "signs of" is not the same as "proof of".

[canpakes]

:: more desperate claims about people saying, “I saw something!!1!” ::

Affidavits from folks who won’t be penalized for imagined or deceitful accounts isn’t going to cut it.

Were that the case, then any one of Team Trump’s lawsuits would have submitted these for consideration, and if accurate, the court could decide that fraud had taken place. But that hasn’t happened.

Come on back when you have something to demonstrate your imagined widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud.

Better yet, tell me that you actually believe that there was widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud in this election. You seem very hesitant to outright state that. I can’t imagine why.

: D

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

When subjenius watches a Trump presser:



- Doc