WSJ outlines a history of the election and lawsuits…and dangers

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-challenges-to-election-face-end-of-the-legal-road-11607518944

“In a challenge to Michigan’s results, she [Sidney Powell] filed a supporting declaration from a witness who claimed voting-data irregularities in Edison County—a place that doesn’t exist.”

That seems to be an apt description of this truly sad, truly dangerous, and infuriating attack on our elections, the officials, volunteers, governors, legislators and most egregiously, the American people. And all to satisfy a deranged president’s warped ego. Yet, the passive acquiescence of Republican Congressional leaders is even more disturbing. To know that they fear our president would be a shock to our founders who struggled to create a system where this could not happen.

The article points out that the election was not really close with about 300,000 votes separating the candidates in the key states. Never mind the 7 million popular vote count. Much larger margins, by far, than 2016. Ted Olsen, a lead attorney for Bush in 2000, said the Florida legal battle was over about 500 votes. No comparison. Trump, however, has set new parameters for our elections. Lose and litigate. Even if you can’t prevail, you will look tough. 

Now his tweets say OVERTURN THE ELECTION in caps. No more pretense as to what he wants the Court to do. Or ever did want since 2016 when he declared all elections are rigged. Unless he wins. 
And that is the basis for putting our nation through needless, expensive and perilous obstacles while we are also fighting a pandemic and economic uncertainty. 

37 thoughts on “WSJ outlines a history of the election and lawsuits…and dangers

  1. Democracy dies in darkness and trump keeps turning off the lights and drawing the blackout curtains closed.

    And his bas will cheer him for it. Until they realize that what he is doing is damaging to ALL of the country.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. One hopes they will, in fact, realize it. Actual patriots understand how fragile our form of Government is and how important it is to preserve it. The “center” continues to hold, the rule of law continues to prevail, and I’m still hopeful that we will learn some useful lessons from this experience that will reduce the probability of it happening again.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Amen, brother, amen.

        “Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?

        To which Franklin supposedly responded, at once both witty and ominous: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

        WaPo 12/19/19

        I fear that Trump’s base would prefer a crown on his head than a continuation of the longest running democratically elected representative government we have.

        Or had.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: “I fear that Trump’s base would prefer a crown on his head than a continuation of the longest running democratically elected representative government we have.”

          A Biden win, based solely on a media declaration, would not represent in any form the functioning of a “democratically elected representative government.”

          Letting media decide the election is what you are advocating.

          Like

          1. Bullshit. Biden was legally and fairly elected. You know that as well as I do.
            You just don’t like it.

            The dozens of court cases that failed had nothing to do with media influence.

            Trumps threats on the lives of those who won’t kiss his ass was not media either.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Bullshit. Biden was legally and fairly elected. You know that as well as I do.”

            No, I don’t. Maybe you just don’t like the possibility that Trump actually won.

            All that aside, the only institution in our society that is claiming Biden won is the Fourth Estate, which has no authority in the matter.

            Like

          3. “All that aside, the only institution in our society that is claiming Biden won is the Fourth Estate, which has no authority in the matter.”

            As usual, you are full of shit. As a matter of FACT when you wrote this bullshit the Secretaries of State of enough states to carry the Electoral College had already formalized his victory. We are now past the Safe Harbor date which means that neither Congress nor anyone else can interfere with the decisions by the states.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. …”based solely on a media declaration”..

            By your “logic” then, none of the 25 states that Trump won count either. There fore, no body wins. I mean seriously, every news org called Indiana upon polls closing. How i that even possible?

            See, logic.

            Like

    2. I am starting to come to the conclusion that Trump supporters don’t want America to succeed anymore. They would, as Trump is doing, burn down the house rather than have a new president. I suppose it can be either ignorance or malevolence, however, I believe it is a bit of both.

      “Locker her/him Up” is a chant that belies any notion of fealty for patriotism.

      ““If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” she said about signing the letter, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

      This quote is from the Pennsylvania Republican State Senate Majority Leader, Kim Ward, when she was asked about signing a declaration by 63 Pennsylvania State Legislators challenging the 20 electoral votes from her state on January 6, 2021.

      The challenge came after Trump called legislators demanding they overturn the election in his favor.

      Is this what we want to allow any president to do in the future. Rule by fear? Overturn elections that didn’t suit the president?

      This is precisely what Third World autocrats do to gain and keep power. And we are witnessing it in our own country.

      “Enemy of the People”? He is sitting in the Oval Office right now.

      And some folks wonder why I see Trump as a traitor to America.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “This is precisely what Third World autocrats do to gain and keep power. And we are witnessing it in our own country.”

        No, what Third World autocrats do is blatanlty steal elections, then assassinate their opponents. What Trump has done is legally (Constitutionally) dispute the election.

        WSJ is probably right that the opportunity for court proceedings will soon expire. But that doesn’t change the fact that the dispute isn’t over until one of the candidates concedes or the inauguration happens.

        I don’ buy the argument that our republic is harmed in some way because events are unfolding as they are. Quite the opposite.

        Like

        1. …”the dispute isn’t over until one of the candidates concedes or the inauguration happens”

          The dispute will be over on December 14th. Period. Even if certain Trumpkin members of Congress contest the results, they will be voted down.

          It is O-V-E-R.

          And it is now Trump who is attempting to subvert the will of the people through use of the courts. And, thank G-d, failing miserably. And Trump didn’t assassinate his opponents (However, the 2A solution he suggested was a tad close for me.), he tried real hard to have them prosecuted. Begged for it actually.

          Like

          1. RE: “The dispute will be over on December 14th.”

            Constitutionally, Dec. 14 is an arbitrary date. Even the appointment of electors is reversible.

            Like

        2. So threatening with physical violence is legal? The president calling on the governors to overturn the results, even though it is against the law to do so. Then tweeting insults and threats.

          I did not know that.

          Like

          1. RE: “So threatening with physical violence is legal?”

            What in the world are you talking about?

            RE: “The president calling on the governors to overturn the results, even though it is against the law to do so.”

            It is not against the law for the president to solicit support from the governors, nor is it against the law for the governors to give it.

            Like

          2. Jeez, what is wrong here?

            It is against the law for the GA governor to interfere with the election. Trump demanded he do so, and when he refuse, he berated him to all his fans.

            And Trump thugs threatening the lives of state officials is fine with you?

            You want a king.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “It is against the law for the GA governor to interfere with the election.”

            Is it against the law for the GA governor to use the powers of his office to serve justice? I doubt it.

            RE: “And Trump thugs threatening the lives of state officials is fine with you?”

            Not fine with me, but “Trump thugs” and “Trump” are not the same. Even if the “Trump thugs” broke the law, Trump can’t go to jail for it, illustrating the nature of the agency fallacy you are committing.

            Like

          4. Of course he isnt going to jail for encouraging his mobs to threaten folks.

            But that does not make it right, moral or decent. Now if they actually do some stuff and he just keeps it up, then he should be charged.

            So how was the governor supposed to interfere in the election?

            And why would he? There has been no credible evidence that any fraud took place. Forget the surveilance video. Anybody with a brain can tell nothing wrong was going on if they watched the entire thing. And credible officials testified that nothing happened that shouldn’t.

            There have been 3 recounts. Signatures were verified as they were supposed to be by law.

            Like

        3. “No, what Third World autocrats do is blatantly steal elections, then assassinate their opponents.”

          And armed Trump thugs hanging outside the Secretary of State home harassing and threatening here life is ok if she is not actually killed? Or the PA Senate leader literally afraid of violence if she did not go along with the letter challenging the 20 electoral votes from her own state.

          And that is what I meant when I said it may be a combination of ignorance and malevolence.

          And, of course, Trump is trying to steal the election, not through he courts which have rebuffed him dozens of times, but through fear and intimidation, relying on his fans to do the dirty work.

          You don’t see that because…why? Tell me it is not ignorance or malevolence.

          Like

          1. RE: “And armed Trump thugs hanging outside the Secretary of State home harassing and threatening here life is ok if she is not actually killed? Or the PA Senate leader literally afraid of violence if she did not go along with the letter challenging the 20 electoral votes from her own state.”

            Antifa did the same to the mayor of Portland. Did you complain about that? I’m guessing NO, since your oomplaint would have been based on a falacious allegation of agency. The same applies here: You can’t blame the president for things other people do.

            RE: “And, of course, Trump is trying to steal the election…”

            So you say. I say Biden and the Democrats tried to steal the election. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful since — factually, legally, and morally — there is no official winner yet.

            RE: “You don’t see that because…why?”

            Because Trump’s actions are both legal and Constitutional. This might even be true if he declares martial law, although I don’t want or expect that to happen.

            Like

  2. The attack on the election came when various state officials unlawfully changed the rules of the election without the consent of the legislature or in accordance with their own state constitutions.

    This is a belated counterattack.

    That would be my primary criticism of the Trump team’s methods. Most of these suits should have been placed before the courts prior to the election.

    Some, of course, had to be done after the fact because of abuses that happened in real time, but those challenging the methods imposed in supposed response to the pandemic would have been more apt before the outcome was known.

    Of course in some cases, they were, but they were not considered because no one had been harmed yet and thus did not have standing.

    Like

    1. …”when various state officials unlawfully changed the rules of the election without the consent of the legislature”…

      Not entirely true. But not really surprised at all by your assertion. Specifically, the PA legislature made the changes they themselves sued over.

      Like

      1. RE: “Not entirely true.”

        What’s not true about it? That very contention is the factual basis of the Texas lawsuit.

        Like

          1. SCOTUS has not refused to take the case, it refused emergency injunctive relief.

            The case is still active but it must proceed through the appellate court.

            Like

          2. RE: “These court battles have shown a weakness in our system.”

            What weakness is that? Should we not have a judiciary?

            Like

          3. Honestly, that is a pretty dumb comment.

            Court settlements are not out of the ordinary in elections. Endless court filings are. Lying about election results for 4 years is certainly not productive. Waiting to see the outcome to file a suit is also wrong.

            But the really egregious thing is to use the powers of the presidency to extort and threaten state officials who don’t cheat or try to overturn votes is a high crime.

            If Georgia can have a law that prohibits the governor from interfering with The Secretary of State and his election officials, then the federal statutes can do the same.

            No contact of state election officials and their staff or workers by the administration regarding elections should be permitted on or after Election Day until Congress gets the electoral votes. There is no reason for that. That is what the courts are for.

            Like

    2. One of the judges early on berated the lawyers for bringing post election suits regarding procedures. He accused them of waiting to see the outcome, then suing.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. that is a weakness.

        Were it not for the standing issue, it might be a fatal one.

        In any case, the courts will sort it out and we’ll abide by the results.

        But we should not allow it to ever happen again.

        At the least, states should assure that voters, either in person or by mail, are positively identified, qualified to vote, and chose to vote on their own initiative.

        Like

        1. “At the least, states should assure that voters, either in person or by mail, are positively identified, qualified to vote, and chose to vote on their own initiative.”

          They do now, but not necessarily to your satisfaction. Again, the biggest scandals in years were in VB and NC, both Republican.

          So for that reason you may have a point.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s