↓
 
Home » Evidence and more evidence: the Arizona hearing, Bill Barr, and overturning an election

Evidence and more evidence: the Arizona hearing, Bill Barr, and overturning an election

The New Neo Posted on by

Republican state representatives held a hearing to air election fraud allegations yesterday, and here are some highlights.

For example:

There are YouTube videos of the whole thing, which seems to have lasted ten-plus hours. I don’t have the stamina, but here it is:

You can find shorter excerpts among these videos.

Of course, if an Arizona hearing falls in the forest and no one but the right is there to hear it…

Today AG Barr said this:

Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they’ve uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election. Barr was headed to the White House later for a previously scheduled meeting.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.

Note how lawyerly the wording is.
–“To date” = up to this point
–“attorneys and…agents have been working to follow up” = working, but how many agents, how much are they working, for how long, and on what? Just to follow up on information they’ve received? No effort whatsoever to obtain information themselves?
–“on a scale that could have effected a different outcome…” So, is that the standard now? If the challengers don’t have access to the information that they would need in order to prove the scale, how can they ever prove it? So if there’s an election and fraud is committed on a vast scale, and yet it’s covered up by computer programs that can’t be audited, envelopes that are tossed or not allowed to be examined, required observers who are nevertheless thrown out, unexplained counting stoppages in the wee hours of the morning that aren’t stoppages at all but that involve huge vote dumps, all in Democrat-controlled cities and changing the election from a win for the Republican to a win for the Democrat – that’s not enough to raise a high enough suspicion that something must happen?

Apparently not.

And in fact that doesn’t surprise me. Barr and all the rest do not want to overturn an election without something on the order of, not just a smoking gun, but a radioactive smoking nuclear blast. That kind of evidence can never exist in a situation like this where the alleged perps were careful to cover up or dispose of the evidence, and the proof positive must somehow be discovered and proven in record time.

If there really was no evidence, it wouldn’t be such a problem. Only a fringe group would believe the election had been stolen by fraud. But that’s not the case. The evidence is actually quite strong, just not strong enough to meet what amounts to an impossible standard of proof when combined with the speed that’s necessary because of election deadlines. If the election was indeed stolen, the thieves were counting on exactly this state of affairs.

Here’s the response from the president’s lawyers:

And here’s a distinction that Kemberlee Kaye of Legal Insurrection points out:

Barr’s statement appears limited to criminal prosecution: “He said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.”

That’s a legal distinction that’s probably lost on most people.

[ADDENDUM: And in a related matter – the emergency application for writ of injunction in one of the Pennsylvania election cases – here’s a piece by none other than commenter “Cornhead,” AKA attorney David Begley.]

Comments

Evidence and more evidence: the Arizona hearing, Bill Barr, and overturning an election — 65 Comments

  1. Be still my heart! If the PA certification can be overturned, Biden will be at 284 electoral votes. One more state should do it, or two smaller ones. Then the election goes to the House.

  2. I’m not going to rip Barr on this, except maybe for his wording. His focus IS narrow, and on criminal activity. And that’s not what the Trump team is looking for. No doubt they’d like to, but there is no way there would be time to do anything about it fast enough. I hope that will happen subsequently. In fact, I’d love to see a special prosecutor appointed for just that purpose.

    Even if Biden were to end up President, he (or really, Kamala and co.) would have to spend considerable capital to end it. The same goes for Hunter’s laptop, and the Flynn fiasco. With Durham now a s.p. for Russiagate, that makes 4.

  3. Mark Levin dedicated a large portion of his show (9 days ago perhaps) to pushing the idea of civil court cases concerning election fraud. I can’t add anything beyond of the obvious: the standard of evidence is much lower for civil cases.

  4. Up till now I’ve been willing to give Barr the benefit of the doubt concerning the lack of apparent movement on the criminality of democrats. I hoped he was building an ironclad case against them.

    Constitutional governance by the consent of the governed dying and Barr resorts to legalisms.

    But it’s now clear that Barr is indeed a Deep State operative.

    His statement can only be seen as support for treason. Yes Treason…

    He has to know that neither the FBI or the DOJ has actually investigated the fraud.

    A literal fire storm of evidence demonstrates that massive fraud took place and Barr says, ‘nothing to see here, all that smoke is an illusion, move along now’.

    His earlier tough talk was just a smoke screen for his treason.

    Good people have no need to pretend to be bad people. Bad people frequently pretend to be good people. Barr has just demonstrated an example of the latter.

    The traitor never reveals themself until the very moment when they slide the knife into the back of those they betray.

  5. It looks like the President is allowing the various dog and pony shows to playout as a way to educate the population. After all the paper and procedure fraud, the server is just the cherry on top. Otherwise, “normies” might get uypset and even hostile when the boys from Kraken shackle the bad boys to a convenient firplug or grating and start swinging. They have blood in the game.

    I understand that there is a lovely site in Langley, Virginia that will soon be available for re-developement. Maybe as a sewage-treatment facility or a Federal Prison….. Just sayin’.

  6. “He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials…”

    The same “state or local officials” who participated in and are enabling the cover up of the most massive fraudulent theft of any nation’s Presidency in history? The same “state or local officials” guilty of the most massive treason in history?

    Yeah, that’s a legal ‘distinction’ that God himself will have trouble accepting…

  7. No cure for this but Civil War.

    The rot is far too deep and widespread.

    Abstain from war and you accept a new dark age in which the individual’s liberty ceases to exist.

    Starting with implementation of China’s “social credit” system. The left has to be literally drolling over the prospect of imposing it upon Amerika. You’ll ‘awaken’ or else…

  8. I really think Trump wins that PA case. That’s David D. Begley the lawyer speaking; not Dave Begley the conservative blogger.

  9. Evidence has a great relevance, and each of these investigative leads should be pursued, if for no other reason than to catch the coverup – but there is a simpler and more direct route. Insist on signature matches. In order to keep Kanye West off the ballot, one state – I think it was MI – was scrupulous on this aspect when inspecting the petition. Guess what? 60% rejection rate. Normal rejection rates in any election hovers around 5%. This election: < 1%. People should be screaming their heads off for election officials to be following their own procedures. There is still time to order recounts with properly-overseen ballot processing. But for that – somebody has to organize the disenfranchised voters to become an implacable, vocal force to be reckoned with. Isn’t happening, is it? Robert Barnes spent quite a bit of time on this in his past two weekly podcasts with Viva Frei (David Freiheit).

  10. No cure for this but Civil War.

    The rot is far too deep and widespread.

    Abstain from war and you accept a new dark age in which the individual’s liberty ceases to exist.

    That’s not going to happen. There will be no effen Saxon smouldering, bursting into rebellious flames; partly because there ain’t no Saxons in most of the country; and partly because the cuck life that many males not only have gotten used to but embraced eagerly, suits them.

    If there were a “civil war” in this country, it might be something like the dirty wars seen in Latin America, but of much shorter duration, given the technological resources at the disposal of any government ruthless enough to employ the means at their disposal. This would not be a war of truck drivers against purple haired lesbians and their soy boy allies.

    And the fact that most city dwellers have no land means nothing when the government can send in the military to appropriate the functioning farms, and destroy all the rest, as a socialist administration would have no hesitancy in doing. Hell, as the Union had no hesitancy in doing back in the 1860’s.

    Theoretically, a well organized movement numbering in the millions could destroy the urban infrastructures of most Democrat cities rendering them temporarily uninhabitable just by destroying the power generation facilities and the water supplies. But those people would not just die off in a couple of days; and the government would probably move to quarter them on you: at which point you would have the choice of whether to kill them and die yourself, or yield. In any event, we are talking a duration period of weeks at most.

    The government would just take what it wanted from you, to distribute to your ideological enemies.

    So, in my estimation, talk of a “civil war” unless it’s a Saint Bartholomew’s Day type of event is just talk. And how many of your own socialist sisters in law or nieces – or heaven forfend, daughters and sissy sons – are you willing to whack? … Because that is how we got here in the first place, and that is what such an event would entail.

    This is a cultural, even an anthropological development, conflict. It won’t be settled by traditional means; unless the comfortable conservatives decide to out breed their enemies at the cost of their comfort, and quite possibly the selection of mates they enjoyed.

    Funny, we are probably on the cusp of technological revolutions which will make many of the “classic” causes of the left into moot points. But then, if the classic causes enabling leftist subversion and power seeking were in play, instead of some kind of generalized neurosis on the part of a mutant snowflake population, Trump would have been hailed as a working man’s idol, and we would not be where we are now anyway.

    This is clearly not about economics in the traditional sense; but about a totalitarian demand for validation, and a requirement for your personal investment in the lives of the dysfunctional and obnoxious.

  11. Dave Begley’s article is excellent.

    On the point of whether SCOTUS would take a case merely on the basis that a state (e.g., Pennsylvania) is violating its own constitution, I’m not so sure. See,
    United States v. Rundle, 271 F. Supp. 948, 950 (E.D. Pa. 1967) (“The interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution is a matter for the Pennsylvania courts. No federal question is presented unless the state court’s interpretation of its law violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. ”)

  12. Ira:

    I left out plenty, but I’m satisfied jurisdiction exists. The PA lawyer really had the state and federal law down cold; five pages of authorities.

    I communicated with him on Linkedin and he said “it was a challenge” to get that brief done in record time. I would say so! He deserves a medal.

  13. “how many agents”
    My understanding is that ALL fbi agents are occupied investigating the assault on Jussie Smollett and the garage pull “noose”.
    When those cases wind down resources can be expended on the Presidential election

  15. Civil war: unlikely. Electoral retribution against any GOP senators voting to confirm any potential Biden appointees: highly likely.

  16. Pass the salts; I have the “fraud vapors”.

    I simply cannot follow the intricacies. To my unsophisticated brain it is simple. In any state in which election officials modified the process without legislature approval, the election is illegal and void. If procedures were corrupted so that meaningful audits cannot be completed; and there is evidence of fraud–however slight as the saying used to go in another context–the level of proven fraud is irrelevant. The results must be thrown out. Tell me how it turns out

    Family keeps asking if I am depressed. I respond, “what normal person would not be?”. Our emotions are bombarded on all sides. Today, my formerly favorite college basketball team knelt for the National Anthem in support of social justice. We are being brow beaten by the most privileged generation in the annals of human history; and are seemingly complicit. I saw about three standing. One proud American white boy (7’1″) with his hand over his heart. Bless him. . Couldn’t tell, but I assume that the others were foreign players displaying a courtesy toward their host nation that the native sons will not.

    But, some really good news today to learn that Barr has appointed Durham as a Special Prosecutor. So, maybe all of the dirt will not simply be swept away assuming that Biden prevails.

    Fished in Huntington Harbor, Ca today and saw two lonely, and somewhat worn “Trump 2020” banners displayed on moored yachts. I did not see the owners to congratulate them on their diehard attitude. A few weeks ago, those flags abounded on yachts and mansions around all of the bays in Orange County.

  17. Banned Lizard,

    “Electoral retribution against any GOP senators voting to confirm any potential Biden appointees: highly likely.”

    So you don’t think that to preserve the left’s voting majority, the democrats won’t simply manufacture the number of votes needed to ensure reelection of those GOP Senators who can be counted upon to see it their way?

  18. Oldflyer,

    Barr appointed Durham as a Special Prosecutor for SpyGate, not Fraudgate. Barr knows that a Biden administration will ensure that investigation goes nowhere. Hillary Clinton was caught dead to rights violating national security in a manner for which others have gone to jail. Nothing happened to her, in fact she got a shot at the Presidency. Laws are for the unconnected.

    Barr is demonstrating a tactic that Orwell spoke of; “When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, [and meaningless gestures] like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”

    It’s misdirection and cover, he’s blatantly lying and saying that it ‘proves’ he can’t do his job. But that his appointment of Durham as a Special Prosecutor ‘proves’ he’s doing the best he can within the limits of the law. Another lie, since there are signed affadavits by numerous witnesses, who have seen the law breaking corruption but who both the FBI and DOJ refuse to contact.

  19. Apparently, there’s some confusion—and misreporting (surprise!)—regarding what Barr actually said:
    ‘From a DOJ spokesperson: “Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.’
    https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1333937356185997312

    Update: I just saw that Instapundit is leading with this same qualification:
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/417591/

  20. Arizona was great but THIS lady needs the rockstar treatment

    Super Boom!! Dr Linda Lee Tarver just shreds and eviscerates!!!

    https://youtu.be/MCWE9Qi84I8

    OMG she DESTROYS THEM!!!
    You KNOW she’s got their attention since most witnesses were only given 3 minutes. THIS LADY got 30 GODDAMNED MINUTES!!

    Trump needs to hire this lady to be the Information Czar that Limbaugh was talking about. She can come up everyday and field and bulldoze these arrogant and stupid reporters the way she did today. NOBODY challenged her. Not even the nasty Santana bi-tch. The one Democrat who tried got his as-s handed to him. DemAs-s first tried blameshifting to Trump, then to the Republican state govt; and she wasn’t having none of that! Give her a general’s star and get her up to Team Trump like yesterday!!

    #OpenTheBoxes
    #EatShEitAllah

  21. Regarding media malfeasance and perversity (nothing new, certainly), there is an eye-opening (though I may be exaggerating a bit—let’s call it “entertaining”? Actually, “nauseating”….) thread regarding the “CNN Tapes” that were recorded by Project Veritas, I believe (or maybe someone else):
    https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1333923839500296202
    H/T Lee Smith twitter feed.
    https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1333980610130546689

  22. DNW,

    Oh, it’s going to happen, it’s just a matter of when and of which trigger wire will set it off. The reason it’s going to happen is because intolerable tyranny creates an equal and opposite reaction. A tyranny that the Left is ideologically compelled to impose.

    Let me give you a small example that speaks volumes; “OUTRAGEOUS: 15 New York Agents DRAGGED Triple Amputee War Hero Brian Kolfage From His Wheelchair Into Backseat of Their Arrest Vehicle in Florida”
    “Two weeks ago war hero and triple amputee Brian Kolfage was arrested for [on] bogus charges related to building a wall on the Southern Border. The 15 New York USPIS agents who arrested him dragged him into their arrest vehicle with [by his] one good arm!
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/outrageous-15-new-york-agents-dragged-triple-amputee-war-hero-brian-kolfage-wheelchair-backseat-arrest-vehicle/

    Gun confiscation. Hate Speech laws. Social Credit systems. Forced ‘reparations’. Defunding the police. Whites guilty of racism until proven innocent (an impossibility). Christians forced to pay for abortions and to marry gays and transgenders. Waves of massive illegal immigrant invasion. Emptying the prisons. And that’s just off the top of my head.

    “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…”

    Civil War will come because the left will force it upon us.

  23. DNW,

    As for the futility of fighting Federal and State thugs and the US Military…

    Look up 4th Generation warfare. We couldn’t win in Afghanistan because of the ROEs. If the left gets brutal, it erases their moral credibility. It will also elicit a reactive brutality. Jihadists aren’t the only ones who know how to make IEDs and finding out where the leadership and thugs live won’t be hard to do. Plus, the NCOs and Chiefs that actually run the military are going to face a choice; embrace the Nazi’s “just following orders” or defend the Constitution from those whose actions prove them to be domestic enemies of America.

    You mistake a great reluctance on Trump’s supporters to act out of a deep desire to preserve Constitutional governance for moral cowardice.

    But if the left manages to steal this election, there will be nothing left to preserve and the left, as they “cut down all the laws” will make that reality undeniable.

  24. Hong,

    Dr Linda Lee Tarver is a VERY impressive woman. I agree, should Trump prevail he needs to offer her an appropriate position at the highest level possible. Have her report directly to him.

    Thanks for the link.

  26. A google search on the phrase “voter fraud” gets 30 million results. I usually thought of “voter fraud” as a dishonest act committed by an individual. But what we’re seeing in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia is “election fraud.” The fraudsters were government-appointed election officials, aided and abetted by minions of the Democrat party. Further investigations may unearth additional bad actors.

    The evidence of fraud in these states is voluminous and convincing. The earliest discovered evidence was from statistical analysis, which the media and the fraudsters denigrated as “circumstantial evidence.” Recently, witness testimony has been forthcoming. Nonetheless, the culprits and their enablers maintain that we citizens don’t have enough proof.

    A vague memory from my 2nd-year Evidence class prompted some research (in Virginia law, but fraud derived from English Common Law, which all states share). Fraud is easy to charge, but the burden is on the plaintiff to establish it by clear and convincing evidence. It may be established by circumstantial evidence, which must be clear enough “to satisfy the conscience of the [court], who should be cautious not to lend too ready an ear to the charge.”

    The elements of actual fraud are: (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to the party misled. It is incontestable that those elements have been met in the four swing states.

    Once a party has established a prima facie case of fraud, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. This is as it should be, because the essence of fraud is deception; the hiding of evidence. Equity (estoppel) prohibits the fraudster from positing plaintiff’s lack of proof as a defense when the fraudster has hidden the evidence.

    I don’t know the procedure after the burden of proof is shifted to the defendants, but it would seem that they would be under a great deal of pressure to prove their case promptly, since they have been withholding the evidence for a long, long time.

  27. Hong, I share your sentiments about Dr. Linda Lee Tarver. I saw her appearance live on OAN. She was great. And she was strong. She did not let a state senator put words in her mouth. It was a very encouraging performance.

  28. I am so proud of the Michigan witnesses who were at TCF with me. I am so proud of Dr. Tarver who internalized Martin Luther King’s vision of an equal color blind society. For these people I will fight. For these people I will not submit. Yet I feel a bit like Cicero who say and spoke against the dying of the Roman Republic. (Anthony Everitt’s book is a good read).

    But I will not bow my head to the soldier sent to kill me. I will fight. I will struggle. I will stay involved. Not for myself but for my children and grandchildren. I am not a summer soldier. I am not a sunshine patriot. I am American along with 80M of my fellow citizens. This battle may look hopeless but be of good cheer. We will win in the end. Old Flyer @ 10:31 stay the course. Fight the good fight with good cheer and bonhomie. You are free and that is what matters.

    For I am Spartacus

  29. The rot is far too deep and widespread.

    Just so you know, this is only about 10-25% of the Deep State dark vampiric cabal. Wait until the 2021 Dawn of the Golden Age, Disclosure/Revelations/Apocalypse for some of the rest.

    This Rabbit hole goes deep. Deeper than humanity can imagine.

  30. Decertifying these elections isn’t enough. That will still give Biden the Presidency, and I believe that’s the Democrat’s backstop if Biden doesn’t win the legal fight outright. What you need is to throw out the illegal ballots and recertify for Trump, and I fear that legislators and judges don’t have the guts to do it.

    SCPA’s ruling that, effectively, the PA legislature doesn’t have to comply with the PA constitution regarding election law is the canary in the coal mine. SCOTUS is loathe to intervene in purely state law matters, and whether the PA constitution requires or forbids something is for PASC to decide. I predict SCOTUS will refuse cert. Once that happens I believe that signals SCOTUS will offer no relief in any other state, and the election is over.

  32. Barr is a big disappointment. He could have said nothing. Instead he sided with the Biden Campaign. FBI & DOJ have no credibility—they literally framed both Gen. Flynn & President Trump while turning a blind eye to Hillary’s destruction of evidence under subpoena and Biden’s admitting bribery. Sorry, but Barr’s Comey-like statements convince me even more that President Trump has an airtight case, given that US government agencies have been hopelessly corrupted. Hope the Postal Inspection Service can prove mail fraud…FBI is obviously now a political persecution operation targeting Trump .

  33. Neo: In case anyone hasn’t told you lately, you do a great job.

    You spend a lot of time looking into stuff, and do a thorough job of it.

    Thanks.
    – – OBH.

  34. From the linked piece: “Any first year law student will tell you that you can’t amend a constitution with a statute, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court thinks that is okay in 2020.”

    I say exactly.

  36. This is the same Bill Barr who was responsible for Ruby Ridge. And was personally instrumental for the charges against Lon Horiuchi being dropped.

    Durham is the person who let Mueller skate in the Whitey Bulger scandal. He strung it out, charged a couple of small fish, and walked away.

    These are evidently the best champions we can find in a corrupted “justice” system.

  37. }}} “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…”

    Civil War will come because the left will force it upon us.

    I personally suspect we can expect the French Revolution to occur. Yes, the French, not the American. With the PostModern Left as the Jacobins.

    What comes out the other side will be… interesting…

    A renewed American Republic, or a brand new American Empire??

    THAT will be the result of the American Right — particularly the new, 911 generation — stepping up to meet the challenge, or failing to do so.

    Our job, as conservatives, is to make sure we keep the power for them to accomplish that step-up.

    As the apocryphal Chinese curse goes … “We live in interesting times.”

  38. The Barr/Durham situation is a genuine disappointment.

    Barr has made it clear in past statements that the problem is politically-driven criminal activity. Not to have released a report (at least) prior to the election demonstrates a failure of will on the AG’s part. It’s very hard to see Durham successfully indicting any big fish now.

  39. It has been suggested that Barr elevated Durham to Special Counsel in order to keep the investigation going, because as long as the investigation is on-going Trump cannot declassify all the documents.

  40. @ I Am Spartacus,

    Good work, and thanks. I think Tarver’s presentation got off to a great start, but faltered briefly when she repeatedly and puzzlingly referred to “opening ballots” as a need – when she apparently meant to say, reopening sealed ballott boxes.

    The moment she became untongue-tied on that phrase, she began connecting effectively with references to “ballot boxes”. This, because she is correct that most of us, obviously including the legislators she was addressing, do not have a firm visual grasp of either the ballot counting and balancing process, nor the letter of those applicable laws which she ably cited.

    This problem became noticeable when the state senators were themselves grasping at concepts and procedures which they were apparently not in full and command of.

    See video @ 18:24 as she corrects a Democrat state senator on the issue at hand and the mechanics of the counting and balancing process.

    Lucido, a Republican, while making a couple of good points seems to have attended the Sean “I gotta say” Hannity Sports Broadcasting School of Rhetoric and Elocution.

  41. Essential reading–“The Separation”, by “Rebecca”:

    https://americanmind.org/features/a-house-dividing/the-separation/

    Addresses many of the questions and scenarios we have been going back and forth on, and in a practical way.

    Excerpts:

    “America needs a separation, not a divorce. The objective is to save America—not destroy it. The Separation is an orderly agreement allowing Red and Blue America political living space while acknowledging the practical bonds of geography, commerce, currency, debt, diplomacy and military force. Secession as pique, willy-nilly, by individual or small groups of states, will end badly. Divorce by secession will again require mariticide.

    In the course of human events, it can become necessary for people to relax the political bands connecting them. America is divided, but it is interesting that both sides still claim fealty to the Constitution. This is non-partisan: America has a genius for designing constitutional government. This trait must serve us again.”

    […]

    “How Would the Separation Work?

    The answer for America is old and familiar, not experimental and unproven: Federalism. The greatest problem the founders recognized was designing a centralized power to govern a diverse, free people. Jefferson doubted it was possible. It took 200 years for him to be right.

    The Separation is not a departure as much as return to the Constitution of the founders. The Articles of Confederation foundered on the three key functions required of the federal power: an effective army, a unified foreign policy, and a treasury that can incur liabilities for national functions. The federal government would retain its authority and taxing power for these functions.

    Activities outside these spheres and the refereeing of interstate issues would be seated with the states. Broader latitude is provided to the states to effect and fund policies for their citizens. Blue states would no longer “subsidize” Red states. Greater funding for everything from climate change to social programs will be possible. The dust would be blown off the 9th and 10th Amendments.”

    Read the whole thing.

  42. ” I personally suspect we can expect the French Revolution to occur. Yes, the French, not the American. With the PostModern Left as the Jacobins.”

    Just reminded me of a couple of technically off topic items I meant to mention to Geoffery.

    First, re., the possible form of a “conservative” and reaction driven civil disturbance involving violence.

    I judge it as completely unlikely, and that any “successful” manifestation would follow very roughly the trajectory ( not methods) and about with the same level of real success, as did the pattern of the OAS reaction to deGaulle’s handling of the Algerian crisis.

    Next. I would expect that during a Biden Administration, pressure would grow among the woke populace to move initially toward a “Second Founding” interpretive, and subsequently legal movement, to formally break the historic legal continuity of the republic and to construct new legal paradigms in its place: a true, revolution: to be accomplished largely through democratic seeming means. This has long been the aim of marxian theorists looking at the US, and it would give real flesh to Obama’s cryptic aspirational horatory.

    The 1619 Project as many have pointed out is in effect publicly laying the ideological groundwork for initiating and justifying such a process, “intellectually” .

    Some will point to the fact that we are already on our third republic in practical terms of having overthrown the old legal orders anyway; the second beginning in 1865 and prior during the war, and the third with the Judicial Revolution and rise of the Administrative State.

    The next will not merely establish a new order but make clear the break, and demand that it stand unchallenged, and celebrated.

    That would be my most bleak assessment.

  43. Thank you Neo!

    Over 600 people have read my blog post on the SCOTUS case.

    Slam dunk! I’m calling my shot! (Basketball and baseball metaphors mixed by DDB!)

  44. Huxley, I agree in principle.

    The problem is that the totalitarian psychology of the left rejects in principle, as it always has done ( unless it functions temporarily in their interest – cite Chaz etc) the very concept of Federalism.

    They desire a unitary sovereignty in a consolidated state, as they always have.

    Any interest the left has in buying into separation of powers or federalism, dual or otherwise, works to the same effect as peace treaties do in the Koran.

    But I will read it. She may have latched onto something new in the way of implementation or sales pitch.

  45. DNW,

    I think your comment was directed to me: Hubert, not Huxley.

    I take your point about the totalitarian Left and its insatiable drive for control. No illusions about that. But I also think it is useful, while issuing predictions about civil war or submission, to consider practical alternatives to those dire possibilities. “Rebecca’s” is the best one I’ve seen.

  46. Cornhead
    PA Act 77 was signed into law in October 2019.
    Why didn’t Trump’s legal team try this lawsuit last year [or earlier this year]? At this point the ballots have already been cast. The dilemma quite clearly is that 2.6 million voters in PA voted by mail-in in good faith. They were told they could vote by mail and did so. Telling them that sorry your vote now has to be tossed out would be an act of disenfranchisement that would cause far more harm than it seeks to remedy.

    The next question is this. Is the case being brought on the merits of an illegal change to voting in PA or is it being brought because Trump will win if those ballots are tossed? If it is the former the case is on shaky ground at this stage. If it is on the latter then it’s a positively cynical ploy that attempts to do in the open something similar to what many Republicans claim the Democrats did behind closed doors.
    I don’t see the SCOTUS just throwing out all PA mail-in ballots. If they take the case they would send it back to the PA SC to maybe consider a different remedy going forward – but it won’t change the outcome.

  47. Geoffrey Britain’s anticipation of a second civil war is correct,
    The alternative is for the US to abandon the Bill of Rights and turn into a socialist version of Germany, Where Merkel, raised by communists in East Germany, has been Chancellor for 15 years and believes a visit to a graveyard is equivalent to in-church worship of God.
    Her party is the Christian Democratic Union, but there are no longer any Christians in Germany, birth rate is way below replacement, and the social system supports hordes of unemployed Muslim men imported by Merkel. Muslims never convert to Christianity.

  49. Montage:

    The Trump campaign and the Republicans sued to stop many different aspects of that law prior to the election (see this, for example, as well as this and this). Those are just some examples; there are others. The PA supreme court is composed of 5-2 Democrat judges, and was not going to be ruling for the Republicans. Some of these cases went to SCOTUS, which had 8 members at the time and ruled 4-4, which basically meant the PA SC decision would stand. SCOTUS said bring these things up again after the election if there’s a problem.

  51. sad to find out in America law isn’t about who’s right or wrong but who is in control of the court.

  52. Neo,
    Justice David Wecht wrote on November 28th that the “Petitioners could have brought this action at any time between October 31, 2019, when Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law, and April 28, 2020, when this Court still retained exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to it.” They didn’t do that.

    Interpretation of law is interpretation of law. Obviously, there are judges that are biased and partial but that applies to Republicans as well. Why else would getting the case to the SCOTUS [which is notably rightward leaning] be so exiting for Republicans? They want Trump to win by having [Democratic] mail-in votes tossed out. From as unbiased a position as I could take I would find this problematic if it happened in a Red state and Republican ballots were tossed out. Voting is sacred. You can’t just toss ballots because the governor or the legislature passed a bad bill that may result in fraud.

    Still, it’s too late. There is no way the SCOTUS will toss that many votes. Recall down in Texas, Republicans challenged drive-thru voting stations. Three Republican judges [are they RINO’s?] rejected the case: They said even if the court decided the polling places violated state election law, Texas law and court precedent dictate that voters shouldn’t be penalized for election officials’ errors, and the votes would still be valid.” That is exactly right.

    One judge concurred: noting that he didn’t “necessarily find the voting to be illegal as opposed to the voting place.” This is important. Something similar, I think, applies to PA. Allowing mail-in voting itself may have been dubious even illegal legislation but the votes themselves are not illegal because many voters voted in good faith – even Republican voters. So, again, the only remedy is going forward.

    Dave on December 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm said:
    sad to find out in America law isn’t about who’s right or wrong but who is in control of the court.
    I agree.

  53. The election was stolen – the Dems were clever about most of their frauds. Trump got SO many legal votes, the Dems had to resort to more obvious (than just mail-in with signature) fraud of ballot dumps. Dumps without signature checks – illegal. Illegal but accepted, like “driving over the speed limit”.

    Once the fraud ballots get mixed with legal ballots, there’s no way to unmix them.
    The Dem PA court has ruled and is going to rule PA fraud is OK.

    Only massive, million person marches, in capital Harrisburg, PA, and D.C. might influence the SCOTUS to … do what?
    Not to certify PA election results.
    Because of clear evidence of fraud.

    No certification has to be the goal now.
    And I don’t see the Rep voters, the patriotic Americans, willing to stand in the cold for this uncertain result.

    I also call for massive car protests, to clog streets with cars — which cause inconvenience to other normal folk.
    Those unwilling, now, to disrupt their own AND other, “innocent” people – such folk will not successfully fight back against Dem deep state dictatorship.

    Dictatorship of the deep state – this is always the truth of commie and fascist and monarchial dictatorship. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is a silly belief; silly but destructive.

    If millions don’t protest now, don’t expect even thousands to be willing to fight in a shooting war. At least, not until the police are more fully defunded and most resign.

  54. Montage:

    The Republicans were never going to win on any of this in the PA supreme court, and they chose to fight the fights they thought had a better chance of winning, knowing that their only hope was to go to SCOTUS.

    And no, there is no “on the one hand, on the other hand” about judge bias being equal on two sides. That is because the judicial philosophy underpinning each side is quite different and it leads to different results. Simply put, the judges on the right have a tendency to stick to the law even if they’re not all that keen on the result, because they have a narrow judicial philosophy of how to interpret law and how to apply it. Liberal/left judges have an elastic concept of the law and interpret it with great flexibility to get the result they want. Read the first few paragraphs here, by Thomas Sowell.

  56. Simply put, the judges on the right have a tendency to stick to the law even if they’re not all that keen on the result, because they have a narrow judicial philosophy of how to interpret law and how to apply it. Liberal/left judges have an elastic concept of the law and interpret it with great flexibility to get the result they want.

    There are many ways laws have been interpreted through the years and, yes, there is bias but it is clearly on both sides. You know this.

    But sometimes even the narrow philosophy is not really that narrow. For instance, the 14th Amendment was meant to protect blacks from discrimination. But the Supreme Court has also interpreted it to prohibit discrimination against women. An interesting take on it since women weren’t even allowed to vote at the time it was ratified. Justice Scalia actually agreed with the court on that. Not so strict construction.

    Thomas Sowell’s view is interesting. He writes that ‘fair’ and ‘compassion’ and ‘social justice’ should not play a part but no doubt it has in many instances. Especially fairness.

    But he does write something that interestingly speaks to the PA voting case. He writes: The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids ex post facto laws so that citizens cannot be punished or held liable for actions which were not illegal when those actions took place.

    Replace the word citizens with ‘voters in PA’ and the word ‘actions’ for ‘mail-in voting’. It’s not about being compassionate to allow the mail-in votes to stand. But to some degree it is about fairness But fairness is a large part of what the founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.

  57. Montage:

    Citations please from the Federalist Papers for instance regarding what the founders “envisioned” when they wrote the Constitution. It is ironic or moronic that you have any concerns for what the authors of the Constitution envisioned; that living breathing “thing” and those old dead white men “thing,” you know?

    Not a big check it appears. Is he a free lance worker or part of the CA Union of Nominal Trolls?

  58. “fairness is a large part of what the founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution….

    Which founders and writers of the Constitution said that “fairness” was a large part of what they envisioned when they wrote the Constitution?

    Do you have any cites to this effect by the founders and Constitutional authors concerning the scope and extent of this supposed concern? Because in years of classroom study – albeit decades ago – centering on the founding and early days of the republic, I cannot call to mind even one famous essay on “fairness” as a guiding constructive principle in the formulation of the document.

    So, apart, perhaps, from a tortuous attempt to explain Senate representation in terms of an equity inducement for independent states to join the plan of union, or the enumeration of inhabitants provision [which was a practical bargain not a point of equity] it is difficult to think of any provisions that could not be more properly and precisely described in terms of a framework of fundamental rights, powers, and lawful process.

    Thomas Sowell in the passage referenced is at pains to explain with his extreme example of ex post facto applications, just how rampant judicial discretion, or in the instant case lawless law-making which recursively ignores the fundamental purposes of law, makes the law unknowable; and thus undercuts its promulgation: defeating an essential characteristic of any valid or non-nonsensical law, and rendering it meaningless in terms of anything but as an act of unrestrained will.

    And as Tarver nade clear in her presentation, the approach of numerous Democrat controlled municipalities in the face of the clear and unambiguous law which has provided them, have been to simply ignore the law wholesale, and to then defended their practices on the basis that to enforce honest, uniform, and transparent standards would be itself unfair.

    This is precisely what apparently occurred in Wayne County where 71 percent of the reporting precinct’s tallies could not be reconciled and should not therefore have been certified. And they would not have been, if the weak Republican canvassers had not been momentarily browbeaten by unfounded charges of racism and by physical threats and menace, into a certification which they then attempted to recind.

    To pretend that such a ridiculous political arrangement bears any resemblance to a functional Democracy where the impartial application of the law rules, or that such people as advocate such a corrupt parody are fit citizens of a real republic, is just self-delusional and destructive insanity.

    Of course some men seem to enjoy being cheated out of their lives and even seem to get a quasi-sexual thrill out of it. They won’t hold the violators to account, or even break relations, so cowardly and perverse are they. There is a rude name for that that has arisen recently. But usually we just call them modern liberals.

  59. There was a young woman, hired as an IT contractor by Dominion, who gave compelling testimony at the Michigan senate hearing on the election. Some interesting points

    In 27 hours she did not see one ballot for Trump.

    The election workers would cycle the same stack of ballots through the tabulating machines multiple times to “fix” a bad ballot.

    The head of Dominion and his number two were there with laptops working on the vote.

    Her final assessment was that the vote tabulation was “one hundred percent fraud”

    https://youtu.be/uOwbJqPlXHI

  60. Thanks Paul.

    Her accusations if true, should be astonishing, but given Tarver’s previous testimony, they are not.

    One problem she has as a witness is her apparent inability to separate out “her story” , from the simple facts of what she witnessed, when exactly, and where.

    The shock she felt, the danger her mother perceived in the parking arrangements, the petty slights she felt , the broken promises, are all fodder for her conversation with peers over coffee, but not helpful overall … unless they can later be tied convincingly into a pattern of deception and manipulation fearing discovery.

    It might be human nature, or female nature, or the signs of the times [answer: 1&3] but people cannot seem to relate simple facts in a straightforward manner without repeated prompting and guidance.

    “The facts M’am, just the facts please”

  61. Montage:

    You write:

    There are many ways laws have been interpreted through the years and, yes, there is bias but it is clearly on both sides. You know this.

    Again with the silly strawman arguments. Why, there is bias on both sides! Who would have thought it! Did you actually read what I wrote, or even try to understand it? Let’s repeat what I wrote:

    And no, there is no “on the one hand, on the other hand” about judge bias being equal on two sides.

    Get it? Of course now and then there is bias on the right, but it is not EQUAL on both sides.

    I added:

    That is because the judicial philosophy underpinning each side is quite different and it leads to different results. Simply put, the judges on the right have a tendency to stick to the law even if they’re not all that keen on the result, because they have a narrow judicial philosophy of how to interpret law and how to apply it.

    Get that? Conservative justices have a tendency to stick to the law even if it leads to results they don’t like. Obviously, they don’t always do so. But they do so many many many times more than a liberal judge ever would because – as I said in my next sentence:

    Liberal/left judges have an elastic concept of the law and interpret it with great flexibility to get the result they want.

    Others have addressed your errors on “fairness” and the Founders, so I won’t get into that.

    But I will add that you have no idea what an ex post facto law is if you think it applies to the PA voting situation. An ex post facto law is a criminal law:

    …any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.

    The term applies to a statute (passed by a legislature) that criminalizes behavior committed prior to the passage of the law. There is zero applicability to the current situation.

  62. DNW

    I lived on the South Side of Chicago in the 1970s. Old friends wouldn’t visit me there because of the danger, I had to meet them on the North side. Detroit is a dangerous place, I understand exactly what’s going on with her mother.

    The first three items in the list are simple statements of fact, no votes for Trump, illegal ballot counting, and the presence of the chief of Dominion and his second.

    She isn’t a great speaker, plenty of people I know ramble and add irrelevant information while they talk, so what. Nothing in your comments invalidates those facts.

  63. ” .. plenty of people I know ramble and add irrelevant information while they talk, so what.”

    So, it makes them appear to have less organized minds and thus be less credible when it comes to inferences they might have drawn. Not necessarily as to the specific actions which they have observed.

    ” Nothing in your comments invalidates those facts.”

    My aim was not to rebut her account. Nor do I contend that her statements were false. My contention is that her dragging in irrelevant material, makes sorting through what she said of value, more work.

    A good example of a more coherent presentation is currently ongoing as Republican poll watchers recount the obstacles they encountered and the ballot irregularities they observed in the TCF Center in Detroit.

    By NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrV_QPTtrk

  64. }}} Next. I would expect that during a Biden Administration, pressure would grow among the woke populace to move initially toward a “Second Founding” interpretive, and subsequently legal movement, to formally break the historic legal continuity of the republic and to construct new legal paradigms in its place: a true, revolution: to be accomplished largely through democratic seeming means.

    Indeed, this is one of my chief concerns with the notion of “fixing” things via a Convention of the States, as some on the right have argued for. The problem is, shall we say, “The Wikipedia Problem”.

    People on the left have an obsessive behavior pattern, and will spend insanely inordinate amounts of time overseeing and shepherding something to the end they want — vis-a-vis … ANY “hot button” subject page in Wikipedia.

    People on the right have jobs. We have lives. We have better things to do than constantly supervise anything to death.

    The end result of any Convention of the States is that the left will swarm it and control it to get what they want, and ignore the purpose of getting the USA **back** on track, instead getting it onto **their** track. And if we DO spend the time and focus, we’ll get something down exactly as we want it, and then we’ll stop paying attention… and behind our backs, the left will then shift, obfuscate, nullify, and otherwise negate everything that we spent time Getting Correct.

    Because that’s What They Do.

  65. }}} There was a young woman, hired as an IT contractor by Dominion, who gave compelling testimony at the Michigan senate hearing on the election. Some interesting points

    Indeed, she rips them a couple extra orifi during her testimony, as they try and browbeat her. She isn’t having any. If she isn’t telling the truth, she needs to get a special Oscar from the Academy and a long-term contract. She’s the best actress alive.

    She needs to be given a medal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑