Alice’s Tea Party has become infiltrated by at least 11 Stooges

There is not a shred of evidence of fraud. The best efforts of major law firms followed by loonies Powell, Wood and Giuliani could not convince 50+ courts that the evidence was even worthy. The Constitutional Hail Mary is not based on our Constitution, but rather legal pretzels that convince the ignorant and exploited by the right wing intelligentsia.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents state legislatures from delegation of powers as they see fit. Nothing. Anymore than it does prevent our own executive branch from doing the same. But the National Constitution Center, among others, notes that Supreme Court rulings allow legislatures to delegate their authority to other state officials. And if we need to resolve this, it should be through SCOTUS after a reasoned debate about election laws and procedures. And the ruling might affect the next elections.

Not that MI, AZ, NV, GA and WI allow delegation specifically. So if PA were tossed, the election is still Biden’s victory.

So that leaves threats, bullying, extortion and sedition. The first three failed due to state politicians and officials with enough integrity to ignore such breaches of ethics and the law.
Now we are told to expect violence, particularly led by cowardly thugs, paving the way for emergency powers as another attempt to steal a valid election. Violence abetted and encouraged by the president and others. Enablers in Congress are going to drag out the EC procedures allowing more time for mayhem and murder.
Saddest of all is the conjured justification for violence by Trump fans for these same yellow clad, fat, pretend militias. Pretend militias that are endorsed, encouraged and praised by an AWOL president. Pretend militias that fight for fun and attack lone groups of demonstrators.We’ve seen this movie before so this is not novel. And we have a president who literally wrapped himself in the flag and held a Bible for a blood soaked photo op.

38 thoughts on “Alice’s Tea Party has become infiltrated by at least 11 Stooges

  1. The positive way to see this sorry spectacle is to recognize that it is part of the death throes of the Republican Party. It is no longer a serious institution to be taken seriously by serious people. It is now a party for ignoramuses who want to be lead by a gaggle of seditious clowns, cowards and racists. IMHO.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Ah yes, the oft touted “Rule of Law”. It seems to be a problem for Trump fans when it comes to state and federal Supreme Court rulings.

        “We don’t like it despite stacking the courts with every ideologue we can turn out.” LR, 2021.

        So now we turn to spineless GOP pols and the cowardly street thugs.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Yes it was.

        “Stop the Steal” and we’ll see how much bloodshed Trump will be responsible for on the 6th.

        He was in bed with the Mafia and Russian oligarchs for so long he is one of them.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Your link refers to prohibitions on delegating legislative powers. So? Do you think that is a state does not specifically prohibit delegation of a power to the Executive of Judiciary, that it has automatically done so?

    That’s not how it works.

    If a State legislature wrote into its election law that, ‘in the case of an emergency, the Sect of State(or Governor or Courts) may make reasonable adjustments to election procedures’ then you night have a case, but those states have no such provision.

    Thus, those adjustments were violations of State law and of the US Constitution which vests the state legislatures with the power to determine the manner of choosing electors.

    Squirm as you might, the elections in key states were conducted unlawfully. Whether it changed the outcome or not, and what the appropriate remedy would be, are subject to debate and litigation, but the fact remains that the procedures were unlawfully changed, and changed in a manner that made detection of fraud impossible, whether it happened or not can never be known.


      1. Bad loser?

        Did I say that the election should be reversed? Or did I say there was no suitable remedy and that I would be satisfied with lengthy prison terms for the officials who violated the Constitution in such a manner that the outcome could never be resolved?

        It is simply fact that state officials, including courts, willfully violated the Constitution. The voters may have acted in good faith, but these officials did not and should be held accountable.

        Or is the law unimportant so long as you get the outcome you want?


        1. LOL!

          What you state to be “simply fact” is nonsense.

          What I find particularly disgusting about your sore loser bullshit is that it is actually the Republican Party that has been committing massive election fraud in its efforts to dis-enfranchise “urban” people. Pointless hurdles to voting. “Mistakes” in purging hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls. Cutting back on polling places where “urban” people vote. Absurdly restricted drop-off points for early ballots. Slowing down Post Office operations. De facto poll taxes. Illegally racist Gerrymandering. These frauds are wide-spread and have changed the outcomes of elections.

          But, hey, keep on whining about the Constitution being violated in the best-run national election ever even when no court could be persuaded to agree with your “simply fact” nonsense. Whining is what sore losers do.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Isn’t that what you call a ‘word salad?’

            It should be simple then.

            Explain to me(your words, not an appeal to authority) how conducting elections in a manner not authorized by the state legislatures is consistent with the Constitutional requirement that electors be chosen in the manner determined by the legislatures of the States.

            If it is such a simple matter you should be able to enlighten me.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Simple: the legislature approves a system in which the details of election procedures are up to the Secretary of State and his appointed staff.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. When you look in the mirror and finally see how hypocritical you are on a daily basis, then maybe you can call out Paul. But he is dead on accurate and you just can’t stand it.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. All the Electors WERE chosen by the methods established by the Legislatures of the states. And like every Legislature they make the broad decisions and delegate explicitly or implicitly the operating decisions to the Executive. This is how elections have been conducted since the beginning of the country. Should disagreements arise between the Legislature’s intent and the conduct of the Executive, the courts of THAT state straighten them out.

            Is that simple enough for you?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. By the way, that is not a “word salad.” It is a litany of the many serious election frauds that the Republican Party has engineered in the last two decades in their desperation to subvert the democratic underpinnings of our Constitutional order.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Sorry, you are wrong. Our system is not about waiting for outcomes, then ginning up phony reasons to nullify votes.

      You want to challenge the laws, then do so by voting out the pols you don’t like, getting new judicial appointments and make a case for the next election.

      30 states changed the rules to accommodate the pandemic. Are they all wrong and only you and Trump fans are right?

      You might even have some credibility if you didn’t believe that Hugo Chavez or Frankfurt Germany were in on the deal. Or that a lying postal worker changed his story under torture. But you do believe that crap because they were some of the “evidence” the courts heard and evaluated.

      Now you want to round up 50, or 90 really, judges some that your hero appointed himself?

      See you in DC if you truly believe your principles.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You mentioned Chavez, not me.

        Most of those dismissals have been based on standing issues, which is how judges avoid cases they don’t want.

        You do not have standing to sue if you think you will be adversely impacted, you have to wait until you actually are damaged, and you don;t have standing in states where you won because you weren’t damaged


          1. The postal worker who lied about the predated mailed in ballots was part of a 9 hour evidentiary hearing. Judges that commented on the affidavits or questioned the witnesses certainly saw the evidence before they ruled on it. Also, the legal teams would offer up a bunch of affidavits, then pull them once the judge starting looking at them.

            But you want to put these judges in prison for defying Trump, so there is that problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. ??

            The only judges I want in prison are those who changed election procedures by fiat in contradiction to their own State constitutions and the US Constitution.

            Those powers are reserved the the legislatures unless the legislature as specifically delegated them.


          3. “It’s easier to count how many went to an evidentiary hearing,


            And THAT is a measure of the fact that there was no evidence worthy of a hearing in ANY of those 50 or so cases.


        1. I have mentioned this before.

          Brown v. Board of Ed ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. All well and good.

          You would have had all those students re-educated, the law makers in prison and teachers flogged.

          However, we just accepted that the laws were bad, and paved the way to change them in the future.

          You want retroactive election results and that is if the laws were broken, not by the voters but by the officials who told them the rules.

          That would be like jailing the teachers in Brown.

          If the laws are not to your liking, then sue to change them in the future. If nothing else, the Constitutional questions are complex and will need good cases brought by good attorneys during a regular SCOTUS schedule.

          Waiting until seeing if the results are what you want, then suing is not good.

          Trump lost fair and square. His grumbling is not the problem. His call for riots and insurrection is.

          That should worry Americans more than whether mailed in ballots arrive by closing time.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. More straw men.

            I agree that the laws on standing are ludicrous, but they still limit what you can do.

            ANY CITIZEN should have standing to sue for an injunction against an unconstitutional act by government, as any time.

            But as of now, you have to be damaged to sue.


          2. Of course you have to be damaged to sue…for damages.

            The courts are clogged now. How many more courts are you willing finance so that every arm chair citizen can sue to anything they consider unconstitutional.

            Millions of people think that not printing their story in the media is unconstitutional. So there are about a million cases a week.

            So which judge gets the slammer. The first one who threw out the case, the appeals judge who agreed or the Supremes who agreed again?

            I would agree with a grievance that one judge ruled wrong and was turned over on appeal for all the cases. But we are talking about a total of 90 judges in six states, multiple appeal courts both federal and state plus supremes in several states and SCOTUS twice.

            Are you suggesting they all collaborated, Republican and Democrat appointments?

            You must be one heck of a legal whiz.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. For a start, the judges that decided signature matching on ballots was not necessary because the application for the ballot was signed.

            Even if you think that was harmless, it was not the law and it was prohibited by both the PA and US Constitution.

            Judges who will not be constrained by the law are an existential threat to liberty.


          4. Bring that up to the courts for changes in the future. Or lobby the state legislature to amend the laws.

            And your saying that PA broke the law means zip. That is your opinion and means nothing until courts in the future decide.

            There are opinions that say the Consititution referral to “state legislatures” is broad and may very well mean include courts and executive branch officials, elected or not. As far as I know, that has not been adjudicated specifically. Perhaps it should be.

            Funny you sound like Lin Wood who wants to imprison Kemp and Raffesperger because they did not turn over the election, illegally I might add.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. I have no idea what Lin Wood wants. and don’t care.

            But words mean things and the Constitution is quite clear. The framers were quite aware of the difference between the legislature and the executive, and the idea that a court would dictate policy would have them grabbing for their muskets.


  3. “ Or is the law unimportant so long as you get the outcome you want?”

    The irony is almost tactile.

    That is the Trump logic. Screw the law, take it to the streets.

    We use courts for resolution. 50 lawsuits, evidentiary hearings and Supreme Court rulings and all you have to say is they need to be in prison.

    Do you really believe that all judges are wrong? And that you are right?

    You prove the point the the rule of law is a phony talking point for you and the Trump fans. A unicorn to be hunted down and shot.

    You do want a dictatorship despite your protestations. Third World autocrats lock up politicians and jurists who don’t follow the party line.

    You want a violent overthrow, then arm yourself and stand up for what you believe in. Grab a yellow sweater.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Good summing up by Sen. Lankford. The only reason so many people are confused is that our media have so completely given up the idea of reporting facts, A very sad development.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The only reason 45%, or 39% or whatever, believe that the election was rigged was because of a drumbeat by Trump that all elections are rigged except the one he wins.

      And his followers believe him. He even believed the election he won was rigged. I might go along with that if we had scrutinized the 77,000 vote margin in 3 key states. After all, that is where the polling data that Trump’s campaign manager, Manafort, gave to Russian intelligence.

      But this charade, including the pathetic Lankford lies, is why Trump and his buds have decided to incite violence in the streets on January 6.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Blaming the media for what Trump has said and done is pathetic. It is also very Trumpian. It is projection and Trump and his cronies have been practicing it from the beginning. You are just feeding it.


  5. Your very first sentence is pure unadulterated bullshit. Of course there was fraud. There has been fraud in every election for a very long time. Whether there was enough to change the outcome is another matter but to unequivocally state there was not one shred of evidence is a flat out lie that destroys your creditability every time you say it. Illegally changing mail in ballot deadlines, accepting mail in ballots with no postal date stamp, etc are indeed fraud for starters.


    1. Don’t be silly. Yes, there may have been some isolated instances of fraud. As a matter of fact they found a man registering his dead mother. To vote twice for Trump.

      So yeah, you are right. There were some cases here and there, but that is not the issue.

      Should we throw out all the Trump ballots because of that one Republican cheater.

      No, of course not. And that is the point.

      Now if states, through legislation, delegation to officials or by judicial decision are a problem, then we should examine those cases through the regular process and amend the laws as needed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like I said, you claimed there wasn’t a shred of evidence. One guy illegally voting 1 dead person for Trump compared to how many thousands of dead people voting for democrats? Isolated my ass but proving there was enough to change the outcome is problematic at this point thanks to your side mixing them all together.


        1. Do you have any evidence of thousands of dead people voting? Or just Trump’s say so?

          My side evidently includes a lot of Republicans and Trump supporters who ran, supervised, controlled and enforced the election procedures and laws. Governors, Secretaries of State, local officials and legislatures. If you have an issue, take it up with them, not the Democrats.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes there was. And most of the proven fraud was ny Trump voters. Ironically so, doncha think?

      THe last election that had enough fraud in it to change the outcome was NC-09 in 2018. Fraud by the GOP. How can you only saw there is fraud by Dems when all of the proven fraud is conducted by the GOP?


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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