[RomanCatholic1953]

HOW TRUMP MAY WIN

Trump currently seems likely to lose the fight over the election outcome. So far he has not shown any evidence that a significant extend of fraud has happened. While there will always be some votes in doubt the numbers in play now are not large enough to explain Biden's presumed victory. The courts are therefore likely to reject Trump's current challenges.
The media, including Murdoch's stable of right wing organs and the social media giants, have firmly declared a Biden victory and are thereby of no help for Trump.
But the Republican Party and Trump will want to keep fear, uncertainty and doubt alive at least until January 5 when the two Senate run-offs in Georgia get decided.
While the Republican incuмbents are leading the race the Democrats will put a lot of resources into the state to move those seats to their side. They would give a hαɾɾιs/Biden administration control over the Senate.
It is also possible that Trump may actually try to stay in office by manipulating the Electoral College process.


There are several more steps and deadline in the elaborate election process for the presidency.

Trump could, even without finding the necessary votes, (ab-)use the Electoral College process to shift the result to his side. He can try to block or delay certifications in certain states and/or he can push Republican state legislators to appoint Trump electors.
There is precedence for that from the 1876 election:

Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the constitutional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.

In both cases the Supreme Court, with six of its nine judges nominated by Republicans, is likely to find in favor of Trump.
There are some variants of such a play:

If a lawsuit successfully stops certification of results in a state, legislators there could step into the void and pick a pro-Trump slate of electors.

• The lawyer, who requested anonymity to speak about the scenario, said Trump's team now appears to be trying to throw enough dirt at the process for counting late ballots to argue that accurate results can't be ascertained.
• The next step could be to try to get federal or state courts to enjoin secretaries of state from certifying results.
• Any move to provide an alternative slate of electors could force the first real test of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and could land before the Supreme Court.
• Among the key swing states, Arizona and Georgia have GOP governors and legislatures. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have Democratic governors but GOP legislatures.

The Democrats are of course aware of such a possibility. They therefore play up the certainty of a Biden's victory even as the election process is far from decided.
But one should never count Trump out. Despite four years of getting Russiagate bullshit thrown at him he has managed to stay in office and to proceed with much of his program. He is also the first president in a 100 years who resisted the intense pressure to launch a new war. He is therefore unlikely to fold and to concede that he has lost the race.
There is only one person that could stop Trump from being successful with a 'dirty' Electoral College strategy. That is of course he himself. Over the last four years he has failed to select competent advisors. He will now need the best strategists and lawyers that are available. Jared Kushner and Rudi Giuliani will not do. Trump will also need the full backing of his party to put pressure on state legislators.  He will have to make concessions to get the necessary support.
Meanwhile we all, as bystanders, will have to up our popcorn supplies to sustain the next two month.

Posted by b at 17:36 UTC | Comments (328)
Moon of Alabama

[RomanCatholic1953]

Anti-Trump Engineer Of Dominion Voting Systems Said "I ...
https://en-volve.com/2020/11/16/anti-trump-engineer-of-dominion-voting-systems-said-i-made-sure-trumps-not-gonna-win-in-secret-call-with-antifa-claims-man-who-infiltrated-group/
As claims are being made that voting systems created by a company called Dominion are linked to potential fraud in the 2020 election, a man who infiltrated Antifa now says he was in a conference call where an engineer from Dominion said he "made f sure" Trumpwouldn't win the election.

[Matthew]

ALERT! Possible Truckers Strike (Over the Election Frauds)

https://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M263-Tru.html

I believe this is fake news.

[RomanCatholic1953]

COLORADO PROFESSOR COMPARES QUESTIONING VOTING RESULTS TO h0Ɩ0cαųst DENIAL
Published: November 15, 2020
Share | Print This 









SOURCE: JONATHAN TURLEY


We have been discussing how the celebration of Joe Biden’s election as a “unifying” and “healing” moment has been lost on many who are calling for blacklists and retaliatory actions against anyone viewed as “complicit” in the Trump period.  Indeed, for years, I have been writing about a rising McCarthyism in our country  and the growing threat to both free speech and academic freedom. This hateful or unhinged rhetoric has on occasion come from law professors, but most academics have retained a modicuм of restraint and tolerance.  For that reason, it was disappointing to read a bizarre attack from University of Colorado Professor Paul Campus who compared my discussion of possible voting irregularities to h0Ɩ0cαųst denial.

Professor Campus writes for a legal site called Lawyers, Guns and Money and clearly took umbrage over my discussion of recent challenges filed over the 2020 presidential election this morning. The segment addressed the recent ruling in Pennsylvania that the Secretary of State violated the law in extending a deadline.  I also addressed President Obama’s comments about how these challenges may be undermining democracy. I noted that confirming the vote count only reinforces democracy, particularly in identifying problems for future elections.
 


My comments on a computer glitch in Michigan was the focus of the posting and generally my statement that we need to review the actual evidence that emerges from these cases. I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe that the current challenges are likely to overturn the election of Biden as the president-elect. However, I have stated that there is no reason why these challenges should not be considered and problems addressed. There have been irregularities ranging from the improper order n Pennsylvania to deceased voters in Nevada to wrongly awarded votes in Michigan.  Again, I have emphasized that these remain localized problems and there remains no evidence of systemic problems that would overturn the results in various states.
Campus however ignores the very interview that he references and falsely claims that I am “going on national TV telling lies to promote a paranoid conspiracy theory believed by tens of millions of Americans: that the presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by massive amounts of voter fraud.”
Every interview that I have given has included a statement that there is no such evidence and that it is unlikely that such evidence will emerge.  However, while some were claiming the absence of serious irregularities within 24 hours of the race being called for Biden, I have noted that we are still waiting to see any underlying evidence in these cases.  At the same time, I have criticized the Trump legal team (in the very interview Campos references) and said that it was time for the team to produce claimed evidence. I have also criticized President Trump for his rhetoric.  Indeed, liberal sites have cited my interviews as expressing doubt over the evidence of widespread fraud.
Yet, Campos declared that this commentary amounts to h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. (By the way, he includes a tweet from a person falsely suggesting that I failed to reveal that the software in Michigan may actually have been the result of human error. I actually said repeatedly in the interview that it appeared to be human error and that there was no evidence of any nefarious purpose. I argued that it would be useful, regardless of the findings, to look at the performance of new systems and software:

“What I don’t understand about this rush to end all challenges is what is being achieved here? People treating the president-elect as the president-elect. Most of us are supporting his going forward with the transition.
But we also don’t see the great harm to democracy in guaranteeing that votes were counted. If nothing else, not just for his election but for future elections. This is a very different election. We used new systems, new software; shouldn’t we take a look at that and resolve these questions?”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Campos however called for my termination for stating such views:
[/font][/size]

Should a history department continue to employ a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier? Let me sharpen that up a bit: Should a history department continue to employ a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier whose academic speciality is the h0Ɩ0cαųst?…
To pursue this analogy further, Turley is the kind of mendacious troll who would just ask questions about whether the gas chambers and the death camps really existed, while of course acknowledging that many Jews — maybe even hundreds of thousands! — died because of “harsh conditions” in the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs etc. etc. so you’re actually libeling him by calling him a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier etc. etc. (BTW before anybody gets to that I don’t know or care whether Turley himself is Jєωιѕн, or whether he lost family in the Holcaust [sic] etc. etc. because the analogy is valid in any case m’kay snowflakes?).

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Campos goes on to call for my shunning by my faculty and professors everywhere.  He also notes that I would ideally be fired for such an interview:[/font][/size]

“If Turley were a contract faculty member it would be appropriate to fire him immediately for promoting paranoid conspiracy theories directly related to his area of purported professional competence…. It’s s tricky question, but it’s a real one, and Turley should at a minimum be excoriated and shunned by anyone in legal academia in possession of a brain and a conscience.”

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
We have been discussing efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views of the basis or demands of recent protests, including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard.  It is part of a wave of intolerance sweeping over our colleges and our newsrooms.
It is therefore an ironic moment as someone who has been writing about the growing intolerance of dissenting views on our campuses and efforts to fire academic.  Some have been targeted for engaging in what is called “both sides rhetoric” rather than supporting a preferred narrative or viewpoint.
Campos is arguing that it “would be appropriate to fire” any professor who stated that we should allow these challenges to be heard even though they have not and are unlikely to produce evidence of systemic fraud to overturn these results.  That is now a common view of academic freedom and viewpoint tolerance in academia.
In the end, I would defend Campos in his posting such views. Unlike Professor Campos, I do not believe that he should be fired for holding opposing views or even calling for others to be fired. That is the cost of free speech. Indeed, Professor Campos is the cost of free speech.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE...[/font][/size]

[RomanCatholic1953]

I believe this is fake news.

I disagree, Go to DuckDuckGo.com
https://teamtrumpusa.com/truckers-are-planning-to-strike-across-the-nation-in-response-of-the-mass-voter-fraud/