Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know.
"By Tom Hals
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of the battleground state of Pennsylvania, dealing another significant setback to Trump's bid to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 election.
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel.
"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," he wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump. The case could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania certified Biden, who won the state's popular vote, as its winner this week. Under Pennsylvania law, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the state's 20 electoral votes.
Trump, a Republican, has refused to concede to his Democratic rival and continues to claim, without evidence, widespread voter fraud.
But as his legal challenges to the results fail, Trump said on Thursday he will leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Biden, the closest he has come to conceding the election.
On Monday, Trump's administration cleared the way Biden to transition to the White House, giving him access to briefings and funding even as Trump vowed to continue fighting the election results.
Soon after Friday's ruling, Trump posted a video from Newsmax on Twitter about alleged voter fraud in Nevada.
The Trump campaign filed the Pennsylvania case earlier this month, saying that county election officials had treated mail-in ballots inconsistently and asking U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann to halt certification of the results.
Some counties had allowed voters to fix minor deficiencies with their ballots, such as a missing "secrecy envelope," while others did not.
Brann dismissed the case on Nov. 21, saying the case was based on "strained legal arguments" and "speculative accusations."
He said he did not have the authority to strip the right to vote from "even a single person, let alone millions of citizens."
On appeal, the campaign said it was focusing on the "narrow" question of whether Brann improperly refused to allow it to amend its lawsuit a second time. It had sought to add back allegations that it had earlier dropped, including claims that its due process rights were violated.
(Reporting by Makini Brice in Washington; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Alistair Bell)
More From Reuters:
Trump would have the nerve after all of his baseless claims were denied by lower courts to now go to the Supreme Court?
If the SC even gives Trump an audience they reduce themselves to partisan hacks.
Certainly we should not give the President of the United States his day in court! But if that isn't enough - the election went Democrat and thus should NEVER be challenged. For any reason whatsoever - no "election" that produced a liberal politician should be challenged
The President has not presented any proof beyond his allegations. Which court in the land is going to give any serious attention to that?
Challenge all you want, but it had better be good, and I suspect that it won't be.
Well, certainly not a liberal court! I particularly liked the Pa. judge that denied it because "it would mean disenfranchising millions of votes" if elections were fair and just.
It will certainly be interesting to see if the SCOTUS will hear arguments or uphold lower courts.
Looks like all the Courts that denied Trump's numerous claims were "liberal"?
I will be watching just to see if Trump actually gets an audience.
Why would you say that all courts that have denied Pres. Trump's legal team challenges are liberal? Is that what you think Conservatives think? I am a self-described 'Conservative' and I think the courts have ruled justly—so far.
I would welcome a SCOTUS decision, primarily as a way to put this matter to rest.
Remember Cred, Trump supporter, and Conservative, are not synonyms.
You missed it, GA, it was a rhetorical question. I was responding to Wilderness who claimed that the adverse rulings Trump have been receiving regarding his claims was due to the issue of the courts being liberal.
For as many failed attempts that Trump received in this matter, I would not be unreasonable to assume that many of those courts and judges were conservative as well.
Even if Trump supporters and conservatives are not synonyms, there is more of a correlation between the two than not. I would be correct in saying that the preponderance of conservatives supported Trump? That wouldn't be far fetched, would it? Because there is no correlation found between liberals and Trump supporter, the terms are mutually exclusive.
"I would be correct in saying that the preponderance of conservatives supported Trump? That wouldn't be far fetched, would it?"
No. As you have been told a hundred times, Trump was elected by default because there was no one else even remotely acceptable. Ditto this time: while he has a small die hard fan base, the majority of votes for him came from those that simply cannot abide either Joe Biden or the liberal agenda. Pretty much, then, as the reason Biden won; from what I hear most Democrats don't like him and voted for him because of the alternative.
And as I will tell you a hundred more times that default stuff is BS. You are either liberal or conservative. Half this country has voted for the more liberal candidate. The majority of Trumps votes come from white nationalists or Ideological conservatives wearing the title of GOP. They certainly did not come from liberals
So, What you "hear" is only half right.
With the largest vote tally in the historyof elections who did the conservatives vote for, Biden?
So we disagree, what else is new.
We have been getting testy lately, is that still over Trump's loss?
"You are either liberal or conservative."
Hogwash. I don't know of a single person that swallows whole either the liberal of conservative platforms.
"We have been getting testy lately, is that still over Trump's loss?"
Naw. It is, and always was, about applying labels that are not true. Like "conservatives support Trump" when in truth they voted for the lesser of two evils. I don't personally know of a single conservative (and that's most of my family and friends, but not all) that actually likes Trump - they voted for him because the alternative is unthinkable. The same reason you voted against him - you can't actually support giving amnesty to 20 million criminals within the country and rewarding their illegal actions with citizenship (for the third time, encouraging another cycle of the same), yet you voted for a man that will do just that if he can.
Thank you Wilderness, no person is entirely liberal or conservative. Each person has varying degrees of liberal & conservative. To believe the opposite is immature thinking. For instance, I am 70% liberal & 30% conservative. I shall go further, what is liberal & what is conservative- really?
For instance, I am pro-choice, support same sex marriage-while some call such liberal, I consider such things humanistic, even evolutionary. I also believe that the best government is a small, compact government. I believe that each able-bodied person should do for themselves. This is considered conservative but I consider such commonsense & a measurement of maturity.
Ok, you have your made your point about conservatism, etc.
There is a large swath of people who don't like Trump yet voted for him anyway as the lesser of two evils. Many liberals supported Biden for the same reason, at least I did. As for the amnesty and such, that is a matter of opinion deserving its own thread.
Would you not say that Trump's policy stands are considered conservative? You don't have to like the people you vote for as long as their policies adhere with your values.
But I did recently find this New York Times poll that indicated that self professed conservatives gave Trump 85 percent of their vote, if this information is relevant to this discussion?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … ident.html
Yes, the link is relevant. It says what I did, and you agree with - that the policies mean more than the character of the person. Trump does espouse far more of my own philosophy than Biden did and thus got my vote. I don't have to like the man personally to understand that his actions agree with what I would like to see done more than his opponents (projected) actions would.
No, no, no. Come on Ced. ou have to expand your horizon.
"You are either liberal or conservative. "
This is BS, and if the discussion were to a point directed at Liberals, I think you would be one of the first to disagree.
"The majority of Trumps votes come from white nationalists or Ideological conservatives wearing the title of GOP. "
Holy cow, and this from a black fellow that argues against stereotypes. Geesh.
You need to focus your Republicans vs. Democrats rhetoric to appropriate venues. As a blanket theory, it is a failing effort.
We agreed to disagree that the distinctions between Conservative /conservatives and Republicans that you identify are in fact in existence.
There has been plenty of evidence that white nationalism and Trump support are somewhat interrelated if not totally so.
If you vote and support Trump, what difference does it make how you identify yourself?
There has been plenty of evidence that the disarming of the American people, in direct violation of our Constitution, and the Democrat party are somewhat interrelated if not totally so.
There has been plenty of evidence that the murder of children, and the selling of their organs and other body parts for profit, and the Democrat party are somewhat interrelated if not totally so.
As you voted Democrat, what difference does it make how you identify yourself and what you disavow of the party's agenda?
(It's all in how you spin it, right?)
Update--- Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend the election...Getting interesting.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to block the Electoral College votes in the four states - a total of 62 votes - from being counted. Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election's outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes.
Texas also is asking the Supreme Court to delay the Dec. 14 deadline for Electoral College votes to be cast.
https://www.aol.com/news/texas-asks-u-s … 56499.html
Plus --- Cruz offers to argue the Pennsylvania election case before Supreme Court. They could not in any respect get better than Cruz, just my view. So pleased to see him step up.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/529 … reme-court
I think you would be more correct if you said "Republicans" rather than "Conservatives."
I am going to be stubborn on this point Cred, Conservatives and conservatives are different animals. Relative to the court judges, you are probably correct, as in conservative, as in Republican. But, we Conservatives are not liable to that same correlation. ;-)
You have been stubborn about it, if you check an earlier post to Wilderness, a poll made of self professed conservative indicate that they supported Trump by 85 percent.
I am trying to take in account the distinctions you continue to draw. Am I right in saying the self professed Conservatives (capital C) gave Trump 85 percent of their support?
No, I don't think you would be right. I would guess that the majority of that 85% was lowercase conservatives, aka Republicans.
And even if I am wrong, I will deny it. I am a Conservative, but I am not a Republican, and I am not part of that 85%. So there!
I don't think you would be wrong when you say most conservatives support Pres. Trump.
But I would say that there is a difference between support and unqualified allegiance.
Pres. Trump demands the latter, but Conservatives aren't biting. Our support is not of unqualified allegiance. Republican support may be, but not mine or my fellow Conservatives.
"But I would say that there is a difference between support and unqualified allegiance."
But, from where I stand, there is no difference, both vote for Trump. If these not having unqualified allegience as you say chose to not vote for either candidate as you did, I could give that explanation more credibility.
You mean Judge Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Trump? Yes, I liked it too. I liked that Bibas wrote that on behalf of a panel of three judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.
Btw, I also liked when he said: "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so... Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections."
It would appear you are correct he literally has rushed through the court system in record time in several states, I would say record time. One has to go the route before being heard in the Supreme Court. He is now at that point. Gis attorneys seem to hastily file, and the claims were presented sloppily. Maybe, biding their time while working on the evidence? If he can't present evidence the Supreme court will not hear his case.
Alan Derschowitz opinion --- https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a … residency/
"If he can't present evidence the Supreme court will not hear his case."
I think that the court would want to avoid partisanship and beinginvolved in a political thicket, that I think that they just as soon avoid.
I disagree. I think that if this reaches the level of a Supreme Court review, it should be given.
I think such a review will be against Trump, but to deny it will leave everything in limbo—subject to all kinds of partisan claims. I don't think the Trump legal team has a leg to stand on, let's let the Supreme Court confirm that. And put this issue to rest, once and for all.
I don't know, the only reason that this issue has been raised is the fact that Trump lost the election. If things remained the same as to the electoral process this time, would Trump had said anything if he had won? This is not like the hanging chad issues of 20 years ago.
Doing the post-Mortem thing, the Coronavirus and how handled it was the reason he lost. Much of this beyond his contro, but a great deal of it was. It has never been an easy thing to deny an incumbent a second term.
As far as popular vote variance and those of the Electoral College, what is Trump trying to accomplish short of a do over for the entire election, that is simply without merit. He simply lost too much for there to be much contention regarding the present outcome.
But, I will bet you a ham sandwich that the Supreme Court will duck out from this one. It will be impossible for the court to give to Trump what it is he seeks.
Yesterday Rudy G. presented a witness Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron that gave testimony in regard to the Dominion voting machines he explained how the machine is faulty and easily and quickly used to change votes. This hearing was televised in a few places online, but the media did not cover the hearing. This stuff is shocking! This testimony is an hour-long but clearly provides evidence that the Dominion voter system may have been used to give Biden fraudulent votes. Hopefully, Arizona will do an audit on the machines as Col. Phil Waldron the key witness suggested to ascertain if fraud was committed. Can't believe the media did not cover this man's testimony.
Right. Those who have been paying attention have known about this fiasco (and the massive fraud) all along. I wish you would have opened with this news instead of the other.
This is why Republicans always lose. They are ever polite and fair, unlike Democrats, who go for the jugular and don't mind destroying lives, frankly..
No one here is paying attention to your latest newsfeed now... although a few of the usual Biden (mostly female trolls) may show up to relieve their boredom as usual....
But for the record, these current hearings are preliminary. No one expects the Democrat judges to agree with anything, but the evidence has to be presented. It is a process.
But emge is correct. There is not much time. There NEVER was. That is why Trump's lawyers work day and night. Trump won. Biden did not. The evidence is already there.
What is most important now is that Republicans win the Senate. (Georgia) If we lose that, Biden will pack the courts. Our system of checks and balances will disappear. One half of the country's vote will no longer count in future elections.
This fight is not for Trump; It is for America. That is why Giuliani and his Team continue to fight, unlike most Republicans. As for "conservatives" here they may as well be Democrats.
That is not a compliment, nor do I expect them to care.
But, I do wish that Republicans here would stop acting like apologists for Democrats... because in case you haven't noticed yet, our Republic is at stake.
It is well evident that most here don't have the stomach to face what is truly going on in our Government. I have made it a point to post relevant blatant problems the country is facing. And I hear crickets or see my thread merely flipped to another subject. And yes I agree with you some here that confess to being conservatives walk a careful line.
I am with you in believing our Republic is deeply threatened. And what's is more shocking it looks like a majority of Americans could care less... What the hell happened to our society?
I won't watch Hannity, but I did watch the youtube videos of his three whistleblowers.
The truck driver is doubtful in my mind. He claimed to be able to see information on the ballets. That doesn't seem credible to me. If ballots are being loaded by the pallot, I doubt they would be loaded in uncovered boxes that would allow him to see the actual ballets.
The girl that spoke of disputed ballots being arbitrarily attributed to Biden does seem credible. My next question would be the degree of scope. Is she talking about several ballots or thousands of ballots? Whether several or thousands, it is a problem if true. But unless she is talking about thousands, (tens of thousands?), if wouldn't change the outcome.
The ballot worker guy . . . seems to be like the woman. If his story is true it is a problem. But, the reference to hundreds of thousands of votes seems pretty iffy.
I am not adamant that there were no election irregularities, but I am skeptical there were enough to change the results.
That's about where I fall, too. No doubt there was some "election irregularities" (fraud), but skeptical there was enough to change the results.
But that doesn't mean that my skepticism, or anyone else's, is sufficient reason not to thoroughly investigate. The "whys" and "wherefores" of those crying out to NOT investigate are a enigma to men.
Just wondering who said election irregularities should not be investigated? Investigation is warranted. Proclaiming massive voter fraud and that the election results are wrong, as Trump has done and is still doing, is not only not warranted, it is a self-serving lie designed to keep his supporters riled up and the money rolling in. I pity those who keep giving money to the com man.
I'm watching him on TV right now, proclaiming massive fraud in multiple states. ".....very bad criminal stuff." "....the most fraudulent election ever." "....a rigged election."
Is it as pathetic as denying there was massive fraud without ever investigating the possibility? Is it as pathetic as actions designed to stop investigations? Is it as pathetic as lies that Trump filed 30+ suits, all thrown out of court?
I think so. The left's insistence that there IS no fraud and thus no need to investigate witness claims is pathetic. Some of Rudy's claims look to me like simple spin and/or exaggeration. An effort to make something look far worse than it is. But some of them, if true, indicate fraud (whether falling under the legal definition or not) on a massive scale. They should NOT be set aside and ignored because "We know there is no fraud", without ever checking into the allegations.
You still didn't tell me who said election irregularities should not be investigated, yet you repeated the assertion.
The reality is they are being investigated and no massive fraud has been found. You, oddly enough, don't seem to care that Trump makes unfounded assertions, yet fully engage the famous "Wilderness Nitpick Mode" for those who rightly declare there is no evidence of massive fraud. At what point will you begin to feel silly?
Aw c'mon PP - you hear this everywhere. The media reports, nightly, on the "false" claims of Trump, making sure to include the word "false" every time without ever checking or looking into it. You don't investigate false claims. You see it every day on social media. Only those with eyes closed could ever claim that there is any support at all, from the left, to investigate claims of fraud.
You need to read Barr's statement a little more closely, particularly the part where he says he found nothing violating federal law to the point of changing the election, and that he isn't interested, or authorized, to investigate violations of state law. Of course it is the states that have election laws, so his statement isn't of much value.
I won't feel silly even when no massive fraud is found. The allegations are made, by more than a few eyewitnesses, and they must be checked. Not set aside and forgotten because the left won this time. It is most curious that the left demanded an investigation into Russian interference; an investigation (based on a false report) that eventually found Russia put up faux facebook posts as the only fraud they committed (and even that isn't fraud in their country), yet deny that the eyewitness reports of gross malfeasance don't need checked when they win. Only when they lose.
Skeptical --- relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible. Really, have we become a country where it's impossible to get to the truth? Is falling back on being susceptible wise at this point?
I ask what if there are more than enough to right this election? What If...
As a rule, I don't watch any talk jocks... But it is unfortunate Hannity is the only one covering these hearings, and interviewing witnesses. They have literally seconds to tell a bit of what they saw. I in no way going to take the time to defend these whistleblowers, although I could... These people hundreds of them have stepped up to tell what they saw. They are pretty dam brave if you ask me. People that stepped up to monitor our election. They got off their butts and did, not just talked about what was done as we are doing.
I watched the actual hearings live online. These three that I mentioned were much more descriptive of what they saw when speaking in front of the hearing's oath. The witness Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron that gave testimony in regard to the Dominion voting machine was very clear about what these machines could do, and what he felt they did by following how the numbers jumped severely in a short given time span. He has asked to have access to them and claims he can prove his there if it was conducted. He feels the fraud is up in the hundreds of thousands in the states where he saw the swings take place within a very short time. The fraud is done very quickly and the system will show dumps.
I don't feel it would be wise for me to get into any detailed discussion of what I have watched in these hearings. It would land on deaf ears,
not many are actually interested in hearing what went on or will go on from this election on. And for the Media crickets --- It's all out there if one has the fortitude to look.
Let's just assume the numbers won't change anything, nice and easy is it not? This attitude is just one of the reasons we needed a Trump at this time in our history. We have become so logical it is now biting us in our asses. Frustrating, true, and funny.
Savvy --- "But, I do wish that Republicans here would stop acting like apologists for Democrats... because in case you haven't noticed yet, our Republic is at stake."
Friday, December 4, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Legislative Leaders call for audit of Maricopa
County election software and equipment
https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/54LEG … NAUDIT.pdf
Sharlee... Thanks for the link. Let's see if the audit happens. It would be a much needed step, to say the least. The rest of the action must occur through the judicial branch, as you well know.
As an aside, I realize this year has been hell... For the record, I've appreciated your research on Biden. That's only the half of it. Biden is corrupt through and through. He said himself, "I am willing to prostitute myself."
He meant it then. He means it today.
I did do tons of research on Biden, starting as far back as the internet would cooperate... To be kind it was not at all pretty. I find it so unbelievable this man was elected, a man that did not campaign, and has nothing to offer.
In regard to Biden's corruption. I felt the Bobuliski allegations were very compelling, and shocking. He presented very good evidence of the dirty dealings of the Biden family. I am very hopeful the FBI will do their job in regards to Hunter, Joe, and the rest involved. I ask myself --- what the hell next?
Sharlee, for my part, I no longer have any confidence whatsoever in the FBI or the DOJ, William Barr.
There are very few truly brave people in this world who are willing to do the right thing. Even lawyers, willing to work for Trump, have quit because their families lives and their own have been threatened by powerful Democrats who will make good on their promises to destroy.
Right now, winning Georgia... as I mentioned before, is of the utmost importance. Otherwise, our Republic is lost.
BTW, Here is Warnock, who is running for Senate in Georgia: He is much like Obama's Reverend Wright, who hated America...
https://nypost.com/2020/11/13/georgia-d … nate-race/
News 12/6/20 --- A Michigan judge is allowing a forensic investigation of 22 Dominion vote tabulation machines in rural Antrim County amid claims that votes there were compromised. This investigation in my opinion should help provide facts in one way or another... So, pleased to hear this news.
So back to the subject for a moment. If this investigation shows serious voter fraud or computer errors, does this move, Trump, closer to being heard in the Supreme Court?
If neither is confirmed, do you think he will drop his fight, and move on?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … n-machines
https://www.record-eagle.com/news/court … f1bea.html
Trump must have a shot at the Supreme Court but I wonder whether the Court will overturn the election. But sitting a bit far I do see so many anomalies in the election but.....?
Trump is running out of time and whatever he has to do he better do it fast..
Did you catch the whistleblowers on Hannity last night? Their accounts of firsthand voter fraud were riveting, and these citizens are being ignored as are their allocations. If this form of fraud is ignored we have now no need to vote... The media is just not reporting their allegations. They need to be heard.
This is the last hurrah for Trump. He better move fast as time is not on his side. Let the SC decide the legality of the election. What next?
Yes, time is not on his side. What a horrible shame it is not...Our Government promoted a two year bogus Russia investigation... But we have no time when it comes to voter fraud allegations from hundreds of citizens. This is disgusting. We are talking about our voting system, one I no longer trust.
by Scott Belford 18 months ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Credence2 5 months ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
by crankalicious 11 days ago
MAGA nation along with people like Michael Flynn are calling on President Trump to invoke The Insurrection Act to overturn the election and keep Trump in power.This would allow President Trump to use the military to keep Biden from becoming President and to put down and resulting protests.Do you...
by Readmikenow 4 weeks ago
Texas Files Multi-State Election Lawsuit, Ensuring That Fraud Is Heard By SCOTUS NowOn Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.Texas brought a suit against four states...
by crankalicious 8 days ago
This is your President:a man who claims fraud in the 2016 election and organizes a committee to find fraud which fails and disbands.a man who again claims fraud in the 2020 election before the election even happens and does not commit to the peaceful transfer of power.a man who claims fraud after...
by Readmikenow 5 days ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|