A good summary of the legal issues in the Texas et al. SCOTUS case…
…can be found here. Recommended reading.
In particular:
Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially…
…[T]the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion…
…Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution…
In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution…
In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president…
Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.
Much more at the link.
I clicked on the link but it doesn’t work. When I hover the cursor over the link a URL doesn’t appear.
Yes, I found it interesting too.
Sadly, for people hoping this is the key case for Trump, it should be noted that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of Texas on every single count, and it still not change one single Electoral Vote. But it might at least restore a little bit of faith in the process, and perhaps prevent in the future a little bit of the banana republic type election we just had.
neo: “can be found here” looks like a link but doesn’t click like one.
It looks like there aren’t enough GOP members of state legislatures willing to stand up and be brave.
This case is the most important one since Bush v. Gore or Brown v. Board of Ed.
The libs are hammering on standing. Trust me. SCOTUS can find standing if it wants to.
I’m really, really upset about this. We, as a nation, have seen massive election fraud and it looks like the Dems are getting away with it and I don’t understand why.
We lose our country if the Dems steal this election. Nothing will ever be the same again. I’m not be dramatic here at all.
There will be a crisis in the next four years and there is no way that Joe Biden can deal with it. Heck, he doesn’t even know the name of his own HHS nominee. Or, I should say, “Health and Education Services.”
Another disturbing thing is that some people are afraid to confront the Dems on this election theft because of their threat of violence. WTF?
I do, however, have faith. Thomas and Kavanaugh were brutalized by the Dems. I think they are fearless. I also think the same can be said for at least 3 others. John Roberts is a wimp.
I just read that Ron Klain, secret unelected president and Biden’s proposed chief of staff, was the head staff guy when the Senate conducted its high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.
Payback!
Cornhead:
I agree with you on the dire straits we’re in. I think most people here agree, too.
But I don’t think this will get a majority on SCOTUS. I don’t know the law well enough – and isn’t this basically a case of first impression? And even if they throw it back to the state legislatures (the remedy asked for), I don’t think the swing state legislatures have the cojones to vote differently than the recorded tally in their states.
huxley:
Thanks, fixed.
This was the approach suggested by Mark Levin three weeks ago. I’m glad the Texas AG decided to implement it. IMO, the complaint is legally sound, although I’m no lawyer, I do know that the Constitution requires the state legislatures to make laws concerning national elections in the states, not the AG, Secretaries of State, or judges. This was done in all the defendant states. They will claim they had to act as they did due to the Pandemic. But that claim is unfounded because all other states were able to hold their elections legally without resorting to violating the Constitution.
The remedy is quite simple. Declare the elections in the defendant states as fatally flawed and thus invalid. The state legislatures in the defendant states would then vote for the electors from their states. Simple, right? Yes, if there was no looming threat of violent civil unrest – BLM/ANTIFA mobs rioting, burning, and looting across the U.S. If the SCOTUS declares the elections invalid, will the state legislatures have the back bone to select Republican electors? These are the questions that loom.
If Trump and the governors could work in concert, the rioting and violence could be squelched pretty quickly. But most Dem governors will not stand up for law and order. The next step would be for Trump to declare a state of insurrection and go around the governors to utilize the National Guard to stop the rioting. What will happen? I know what I would like to see, but I’m afraid the needed courage is lacking in the SCOTUS and/or the state legislatures.
Looks like the number of states in the suit is now up to 17: “In addition to Missouri, the states joining Texas were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia”, from Newsmax.
Can the SCOTUS really ignore and not take seriously the claims of a third of the states?? Well, of course they can as Roberts The Wimp is in charge. But I suspect they do so at the peril of the Republic….maybe not how they may want to be remembered in history.
I appreciate the elegance of this legal approach and hopefully it has a chance of being hear and ruled on quickly, since they don’t need to prove outright fraud in each of the relevant states. They just need to show enough evidence to justify negating some or all of the votes in the states that violated procedures. However, I don’t see this or any SCOTUS wanting to be in the position of throwing out votes due to the actions that were no fault of the voters themselves. Or at least that would be the case for many of those voters. I also think there’s a bigger flaw in this action. Why should SCOTUS allow Texas to single out these states simply because they were the ones where the margins are presumably slim enough to overturn the results? Why not subject all states to scrutiny of their process? What stops another state from brining the same arguments against states that went for Trump. It’s a recipe for chaos that can’t be resolved before inauguration day. In a way it’s a mirror of what was wrong with Florida in Bush v Gore. The argument brought to the Supreme Court was that they were only conducting recounts in counties they thought would help Gore, and treating those counties differently than others.
I think SCOTUS takes up the case but walks on the remedy. Neo agrees with Cornhead about these “dire straights” of the nation. “But I don’t think this will get a majority on SCOTUS.”
Why THIS? Because they have no clue that this is a good hill for Patriots to die on. The media Gestapo prevents anyone near their decepticon Fun House of Mirrors from knowing otherwise?
.
The only solution? TELL SCOTUS , TELL STATE LEGISLATORS, TELL CONGRESS otherwise.
The case for CW2 is easy to tell. A stolen election is our final straw because the Party of Slavocratic Tyranny wants to impose a New Tyranny composed of a Post-Constitutional New Order with a single party State to impose its will upon us. They say so.
We refuse fascism and will die to oppose it! Kill it! Or be killed!
The Slavocracy have used paramilitary intimidation force their will and intimidate us into submission. And then FAKE Democracy. No More! Never Again!
Such a scenario is common in history from the Weimar Republic to the Bolshevik Revolution.
If the Constitution is meaningless, then the Rule of Law is irrelevant. And when government becomes destructive of these just ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Or some such thing ALL Justices and Office Holders ought to know this.
Thus, Patriots will fight kinetically.
Does the Supreme Court not have a vested interest in protecting itself against the stated Democrat goal of ‘packing the Court’? Does the Chief Justice seek to rule over 20 or 30 justices, all but 5 of them put into place by Progressives? How far will their vision extend, one wonders.
Interesting times.
…and now we have 24 Democrat Blue states filing to oppose the Texas Supreme Court suit? Turning into Constitutional WrestleMania…
I am wondering about how the justices will decide. They’re all top of their class and can argue five sides of a three-sided question so the legal issues matter. But they have their personal predilections. They’re conservative or liberal. And the conservatives can see what a Biden administration will mean, especially now that the media are mentioning Hunter: cronies, corruption, idiot policies foreign and domestic. Can they ignore the fraud and on top of that what it will mean to go to Bidenville? Legal issues, ok, but what about the country? More interesting, following corn head’s idea of payback, I watched the film about Clarence Thomas, “Created Equal.” His confirmation hearing had to have been the most humiliating, painful episode of his public life and Joe Biden, then-chairman of the senate judiciary committee, ran it. What must Clarence Thomas be thinking? I’ve read that should it come to a 5-4 split with Roberts siding with the liberal minority, Clarence Thomas would choose who writes the majority opinion and could do it himself. The other justices are no doubt keenly aware of all that. What are they thinking? We’ll see.
The Democrat blue states were caught napping, and not have to change their nappies. What will the SCOTUS do? Heaven help us.
My dear friend Mr. Edit has gone AWOL again. “not” above should have been “now.”
I don’t believe the Supreme Court is going to disenfranchise millions of voters. It’s ironic how some on here see a Biden Presidency as the end of America. I see a SCOTUS ruling in favor of Trump and throwing out millions of votes that were cast in good faith as a serious turning point toward losing the Republic.
Trump’s team needed to be able to prove widespread election fraud. They haven’t gotten anything to stand up in court this far. Occam’s Razor says that’s because they don’t have anything. He already told us months ago that if he lost he would say it was rigged. This is all playing out to script. Trump doesn’t care about facts on the ground – he never has. Just his narrativea of strength and success and winning. This election violates those narratives so it’s not surprise it’s taking a crowbar to dislodge him.
I know many of you will never believe Trump lost. But I think it’s clear he did.
I know what it’s like to be unhappy with an election result. I haven’t been happy about an election result since 2004. But this is madness.
Well “Bill”, Biden said he had the most diverse election fraud organization ever. Why don’t you believe him?
Because that’s not what he meant. Again, we claim to believe in the rule of law. That means evidence presented in court that stands up. Not conjecture, you tube videos, wishful thinking, questionable statistical analyses. If the alleged widespread election fraud is such a slam dunk, then Trump’s legal team needs to prove it and we can all follow the truth wherever it takes us. But time is running out.
Side question: why are you putting my name in scare quotes?
and
Those people elected, selected, and stood by watching while the election was stolen, and their votes rendered null and void.
Sorry you’re both unable to grasp that, but ignoring the ACTUAL votes of about 120-odd MILLION voters in favor of fabricated and speciously attained votes mixed arbitrarily in with 5-odd million actual voters… most of whom ignored the actions of their elected and appointed officials?
I know which side of that I’m on, and which side I think our Constitution is on. And Texas is an argument in favor of the latter.
The REAL FACT is that not less than 70% of Republicans and 30% of DEMOCRATS openly believe that it is “somewhat likely” that Biden stole the election. And 60% and 20% consider it “very likely” that Biden stole the election. Literally 47% of the entire plebiscite believes it is “somewhat likely” that the election was “won” by fraud.
A government with that kind of perceived invalidity cannot be allowed to stand in a Republic.
Hell, I’m open to a bipartisan commission being established to define rules for a re-vote, and a “twin place-holding” presidency to apply until it gets accomplished.
No, there’s no precedent for it, but, it’s equally unprecedented that, whether this is a Republic OR a Democracy, it cannot be acked as legitimately elected when there is that level of perceived invalidity.
To proceed with a Biden presidency will lead to violence and extreme chaos. Period. That’s not a threat, it’s a prediction. Sure, continuing with a Trump presidency may well also do it, but there’s a chance if we act properly that that will be the action of a disaffected collection of temper-tantrum-throwing malcontents, rather than widespread enraged civil action.
Because these idiots are ignoring the fact that they had to steal the election, and are already talking about mask mandates, gun grabbing, and “The Great Reset”. Because they think everyone is a sheep.
This is … “interesting times”, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
P.S., someone should just fucking shoot George Soros in the head, when things go to shit.
}}} “Because that’s not what he meant.”
“That’s not what he wanted to say” is not the same thing as “That’s not what he meant”.
The real fact is, while I laughed before, I can easily see this as a slip of an addlepated tongue — a Freudian gaffe — rather than a simple misstatement.
Because he almost certainly HAD assembled the greatest fraud team in history, judging from this election’s relentless and blatant chicanery and counter-factual results.
As I have noted many times in this forum — no, there is no “trout in the milk”.
There are, however, so many fucking MINNOWS in that bucket, there’s no room for any milk.
Well, again, it has to be proven. What’s been fascinating to me is how many people just assume it’s been proven, but there hasn’t been one court case that has taken up the evidence being presented, and many of Trump’s legal efforts have been summarily dismissed. Why?
The burden of proof is on Trump’s team. There have been counts, recounts, audits, recertifications. Republican and Democrat governors have certified the election. This is the system we have and – from my point of view and based on the evidence I’ve seen – it’s working.
Trump has been saying for months that the only way he would lose is if the election was rigged. What we’re seeing right now is that narrative playing out (not a rigged election, but Trump’s belief that it *must* be rigged because there’s no way he can lose).
To the commenter(s) upthread predicting violence. Unfortunately, I agree. It’s my biggest concern right now. I wish everyone could calm down. Follow the evidence. Why has Trump’s team been unable to get anything to stand? It hasn’t mattered if the judge is Republican, Democrat, or even Trump-appointed. Why?
I don’t think SCOTUS is going to even take the case. But I’ve been wrong before, plenty of times. I guess we’ll see, soon.
Bill has spoken, the election was not rigged. All hail China Joe and the Ho.
Sorry to be so rude Bill, but this group well versed in election fraud and has been studying it for 6 months. We have only been taken by surprise by the brazenness and the vast extent of it. Those of use who expected election fraud have been shocked that it has been much worse then we expected.
Bill said…
“Well, again, it has to be proven. What’s been fascinating to me is how many people just assume it’s been proven, but there hasn’t been one court case that has taken up the evidence being presented, and many of Trump’s legal efforts have been summarily dismissed. Why?”
Because voter fraud is extremely hard (damn near impossible) to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt after the fact. Our anonymous and private ballots, while a good thing, ensure that. And the Democrats worked very hard this year to make it even harder, with the changes to how mail-in ballots worked, and with the other changes mentioned in the suit.
You can have a thousand statisticians point out how improbable this is. You can have videos and testimonies out the wazoo which call out suspicious activity, “red flags”, etc. And while red flags might be good enough for me as an employer or business owner to not hire someone or not do business with another entity, they don’t reach the level of burden of proof that the law requires. They create suspicion. They don’t confirm it.
The only way to halt voter fraud is to stop it before it happens. One party in America is actively seeking to do that and has been for some time. Another party has done everything possible to hinder that. That really tells you all that you need to know.
The next best thing is to put in very strict rules regarding ballot integrity (chain of evidence type rules) and give the courts the power to throw out ballots when they don’t meet those standards, and then require them to do so.
We’ve done neither of these things and that’s why I said back in July that the declared loser of this election would have no reason to ever believe in the validity of the results. Time has proven me correct.
And it was the Democrats goal all along.
OBloodyHell: You are misunderstanding me. I am almost certain there was rampant fraud, and would like the situation to be rectified. I’m just not sure if we can do that at this time given what has happened. For instance, if mail-in ballot envelopes were tossed it is hard to prove in court that ballots coming in after the deadline were counted. And I do believe there were voters who followed the rules and would have their votes tossed due to the misdeeds of election officials or other voters. I don’t like that fraud is rewarded, and I would like the results in these states to be overturned but the nation may not hold together if half the population thinks that 5 justices changed the results without solid proof of fraud.
…[T]the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion…
_________
shipwreckedcrew at RedState has an article up saying that Thomas and Alito dispute that, and argued previously that the precedents are mistaken.
Also, there are two problems with the “fraud hasn’t been proven” argument.
1. All too often it’s presented as though the standard were “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But that is the standard for a criminal case, which it isn’t.
2. The cases I’ve seen were all dismissed without actually being tried on their merits. The plaintiffs were unable to actually go to trial. And those running the elections have not had to testify under oath. That makes a difference in just what the dismissals mean. The judges may have said “not enough evidence”, or words to that effect, but their actual dismissals have been for matters of timing, standing, or the like. That does not show any failure of proof.
The 3rd Circuit court dismissed a recent case with this language (the judge who wrote this, Stephanos Bibas, is a Trump appointee) – 11/27/2020
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.
The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.”
More at the link. This has been typical of the dismissals. https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
Bill,
A point about the “election fraud has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
I read a story years ago, possibly apocryphal, about a young U.S. Navy officer who left a decrypted eyes-only communication unattended on his desk for a minute or so while he stepped away to answer a question or take a phone call. Because of that seemingly minor violation and the extremely remote possibility that the communication’s contents could have been compromised, the commanding officer decided to scrub a major naval exercise. Operational security had been violated.
We have election rules in order to prevent not only fraud itself, but the possibility, appearance, or suspicion of fraud. It’s the same with conflict of interest regulations. If the rules are diluted, violated, or circumvented, it is not necessary to prove to a fare-thee-well that the offense actually occurred. It is enough to plausibly show that it could have. That goes double in cases where the rules have been diluted, violated, or circumvented *deliberately*, with much planning and preparation. You want to apply a criminal legal standard to the entirely predictable mess that this election has become. In fact, the mess *was* predicted, emphatically, by AG Barr and many others. Some of them tried to avert it, unsuccessfully. Nothing the courts do or don’t so at this point will avert or neutralize the national crisis that we are, tragically, facing. Again, it goes back to the inescapable fact that this is a bitterly divided country.
Bill:
Are you the same concerned progressive “Bill” of Texas from 2016 that was so emotive about undocumented persons from other geographic areas divided by imaginary lines on maps and man-made impediments of free and unfettered movement (aka borders and illegal aliens)? Or are you some other progressive “Bill?” Inquiring minds want to know.
Bill:
That nice about what that other judge had to say, sorry but that is a different case, see:
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/11/states-opposing-texass-right-to-file-a-complaint-fail-to-address-key-differences-from-earlier-cases-involving-similar-factual-claims-n292851
Here is a quote for you to cogitate on, the argument of PA, MI, WI GA etc. :
“This argument, while superficially appealing, lacks a sound legal foundation. The problem stems from 1) the fact that Texas was not a litigant in any of those proceedings so the outcomes are not “res judicata” as to Texas, and 2) in cases of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court makes its own independent judgment on the facts based on the evidence presented to the Court in the first instance, and it is not bound by a factual record created in some other Court.”
I’m the same Bill.
I was a Republican my entire adult life until 2016 and would still be one if the party had nominated anyone else.
I don’t care anymore to argue about whatever label you want to put on me. Think what you will.
well, well someone else doesn’t trust WA elections either.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/republican-gubernatorial-candidate-loren-culp-sues-washington-secretary-state-2020-election-mismanagement-demands-audit-ballots-voting-machines/
Bill:
I thought so. Some people don’t learn from their mistakes, so concerned you were then, spots haven’t changed on your pelt. Don’t go away mad just try harder to make your arguments. Feelz don’t cut it.
Bill:
So you are good with China Joe and K the Ho? Just a sanity check question.
Hi Om, nice of you to remember me.
I’m the one arguing for an evidence basis for disputing the election results.
Bill:
What part of the PA process for modifying the election methods don’t you understand? The PA Constitution? The role of the PA Supreme Court?
After those basics, don’t trot out disenfranchisement argument (there is a difference between valid and invalid votes, dead and lie voters, resident and nonresident voters) or is that one of the undocumented voter effects?
I think when hundreds of thousands of voters have in good faith followed the law plaintiffs are required to marshall a significant legal argument to prove the voting method was unconstitutional and throw those votes away. I can’t imagine that happening.
Bill:
You are showing your trollishness again. The process used change the PA process was, here, read slowly, unconstitutional. Not valid. Do not pass Go. No Get Out of Jail Free Card.
Just because you can’t imagine something doesn’t make it invisible.
If the SCOTUS rules that it was unconstitutional I will accept it. That they’re job.
I have friends in Ga that are saying “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. If the SC does not stop this foolishness of fraudulent elections we could see election violence on both sides and 100 of millions of ballots cast. “If bad behavior is ignored or not punished the more bad behavior is the result”.
Our SCOTUS is 6-3 conservative. If they dismiss the suit or accept it but rule against Texas I realize that won’t be enough for many but for rule of law people that will be the definition of the rule of law. Trump won’t have been stopped because of a liberal court or the MSM or George Soros or whatever other villains can be named.
One doesn’t have to prove fraud. One doesn’t have to show that the other candidate would have won. All you have to show is that actions taken in the states violated the Constitution. It doesn’t need to have anything to do with fraud. That’s why it seems difficult for SCOTUS to refuse cert in this.
Bill:
In what world is John Roberts considered a conservative? Seriously?
The “rule of law people” as opposed to the ‘rule of the mob’ people? Are the ‘rule of mob’ people aka BLM/Antifa?
You forgot to call out the white supremacists and Q-Anon. If you are going to troll please keep up with the talking points.
Bill:
On the contrary. First of all, Roberts is not a conservative. Secondly, there is a conservative argument that can be used for refusing to grant cert. It has to do with whether there is standing for one state to challenge another over these particular issues, or whether it violates the federalism principle. It’s not a slam dunk either way, IMHO, and whether the Court decides to hear the case or not has nothing to do with whether the election was won by Biden through fraud, also.
Biden may indeed have won through fraud, but even if he didn’t, he won through the MSM spiking anything good about Trump and anything bad about Biden, including the Hunter story.
The start of the chain of ballot integrity is the signature verification process. Since we no longer have a person standing in front of another person claiming to be the person legally allowed to vote (unless the state has voter ID), the signature verification is the only stopgap measure to insure a legal vote is being cast.
Georgia changed it’s rules so that the signature on the absentee ballot application is the signature that is matched on the returned ballot envelope, not the voter registration signature on file.
Once the ballot is accepted, there is no way for it to be identified or disallowed.
Pennsylvania changed its rules to allow any signature (including a random squiggle) to suffice as a verified signature. The only ballots that could be rejected were those without any signature.
And we know from affidavits filed in Michigan that ballots received without signatures were added from a voter from the voter verification file that hadn’t already voted.
“That’s not proof”, a willfully blind person says.
But it certainly sets the stage for illegal votes to be accepted as valid. How many? In this election enough to swing the margin to Biden.
But that’s where we are. If this election stands the only alternative will be an equal amount of fakery in heavily Republican counties in contested states. Yes, the balance will still swing to Democrat counties.
I haven’t seen anyone mention Andrew McCarthy– Neo’s go to legal expert.
He considers it “frivolous”.
I didn’t read it closely, but it appears to me he’s mis-representing the crux of the Texas claim. They are not calling for the SC to overturn the election, but to return the power to the state legislators, since changes were made to the voting process that are unconstitutional.
There is no guarantee that the legislators in the defendant states would appoint a different set of electors, as I understand it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/
Neo,
One state suing another state over disagreement with that state’s election procedures would seem to be a very anti-federalism, anti-conservative action.
I think so, at least.
Brian – I think McCarthy is correct. Even Texas’ Solicitor General did not sign on with Paxson.
I think(?) most GOP leadership knows this is going nowhere but they are as afraid of Trump out of power as much as they are of Trump in power. I think they know they can’t win without the votes of his base.
Brian E:
Montage brought up the Andrew McCarthy article two days ago in the comment thread about “Election fraud articles of the day”
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/12/09/election-fraud-articles-of-the-day/
“Montage on December 9, 2020 at 9:21 pm said:
Andrew McCarthy at National Review says there is no way the SCOTUS is going to entertain the Texas lawsuit. I realize he’s out of favor at the moment in some conservative circles but he’s fairly smart and a good writer. The link is behind their paywall.”
Robert Barnes reply to Andy was :
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1336827267805110273
om on December 9, 2020 at 9:41 pm said:
Montage:
here is the specific Tweet from Robert Barnes:
Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
·
2h
Just in case you had any doubt what team
@AndrewCMcCarthy
was really on the entire time, when he was covering for Comey before he was covering for Durham.
Quote Tweet
Andy McCarthy
@AndrewCMcCarthy
· 4h
Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States – my @NRO column … https://nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/
One thing that’s been fascinating to me is how easy it is to fall out of favor these days if a person or entity shows less than 100% fidelity to the Trump narrative.
McCarthy has been a huge supporter of that narrative. But now we know “what team he was really always on”. Kemp in Georgia. Ducey. Fox News accusing Bill Barr of all people of being a traitor to Trump. Meanwhile Fox News is seeingTrump’s base abandon them after all they’ve done because Fox is now “liberal’. The GOP is unpersoning people right and left no matter how loyal they have been in the past.
It doesn’t seem healthy to me.
Bill,
A years long investigation of the President based on Russian propaganda.
Claims that the President was illegitimate for four years
Attempts to impeach the President using spurious charges and anonymous ‘whistleblowers’.
It doesn’t seem healthy to me.
The point being, the country isn’t healthy, and it didn’t start with President Trump. He’s just polarized the left so you can see how dangerous they have been.
Brian E., on Andy McC:
“it appears to me he’s mis-representing the crux of the Texas claim”, when it wasn’t such a hard claim to understand.
Straw-manning has been standard fare for such Bushies as McC, and for almost all Leftists nowdays.
Bill:
In case you haven’t noticed, that’s the way politics has been for many years, and the left is even more extreme than the right at eating their own. Some of it, however, is an artifact of the internet and social media, both of which exaggerate the tendencies. It’s my observation that most people who don’t follow politics so assiduously and perhaps obsessively don’t react in such quick and dramatic fashion.
Bill is still concerned.
Bill the GOP has never had a cult of loyalty like the Democrat party and the Progressives, or haven’t you noticed the GOPe and RINO phenomena, it’s not a “new” thing. As for people being “unpersoned” consider that the left is doing to Tulsi Gabard right now. FOX’s ratings have tanked after the Chris Wallace debate debacle and their election night games, or didn’t you notice those things either?
Again I have to ask, are your good with China Joe and K the Ho?