Called my state AG this evening and spoke with one of his people.

I asked him to please join the Texas lawsuit in front of the USSC. The person was well aware of the lawsuit and the other states who had joined... So I am guessing they have been getting plenty of calls

Come on Ohio, get some!

Isn't the GA AG a real Republican? Or, is he just another RINO swamp rat? And the AG from AZ? Same?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Isn't the GA AG a real Republican? Or, is he just another RINO swamp rat? And the AG from AZ? Same?

Rhetorical?

I am not so informed of the Equal Protection Clause and find it applies to discriminatory issues. Can someone take the time to inform us how this may give us ground to stand on in this law suit ? And thank you Texas for leading the way.

David Lee,

The video a few posts up breaks it down pretty well.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Kook:
David Lee,

The video a few posts up breaks it down pretty well.

Thank you. I went back and watched it again. Sent it to a family member to add to his confusion.. . Hope more states join in this.

I didn't need to make any calls. I knew damn well where our South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and her Attorney General would queue up!

from the Texas filing:





https://twitter.com/ProfMJClev.../1336532454803386369

Joey D
12/07/20

No description provided.

Forgive me Cliff, but I'm getting confused.
Hasn't this interview been superceded by the recent SC rejection of the PA case.

I greatly hope that the Texas case will bring about a fair result.

quote:

Originally posted by ClivefromtheMed:
Forgive me Cliff, but I'm getting confused.
Hasn't this interview been superceded by the recent SC rejection of the PA case.

SCOTUS did not reject the PA case. They denied emergency injunctive relief.

See oddball's post, a dozen posts or so back.

But, while I'm commenting...

Forgive me, Cliff, but would it be too much trouble to provide a brief description of what the video's about? Something more descriptive than "Joey D mm/dd/yy No description provided," so the reader might have some clue as to whether they want to watch it?

in cliff's post, DiGenova makes the key point about the video showing the absentee ballot counting late on 3 Nov 2020

For all the talk about "debunking" the video, there are multiple recorded cases where the GA election officials told the REP observers the counting was over until the next morning. That is the key to the fraud. They didn't want to pull those ballots out and run them thru the tabulator even though the observers were too far away to see much.

something was "special" about that batch of absentee ballots

REPs need to really be on top of their game for the run off elections in January. They should be demanding to be close enough to see what is going on.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

from shipwreckedcrew:

This is the theory behind the suit filed by Texas.
States have an obligation to defend their conduct to other states where other states are aggrieved by their incompetence.

Re the Texas case -- consider what the options would be for states aggrieved by the following facts:
States 1-20 are all governed by elected officials of Party X.
States 1-20 collectively represent 280 Electoral votes.
Elected officials in States 1-20 meet as a group.

As a group they agree to adopt election procedures that are intended and designed to insure that Party X continues to have control over the institutions of the state, including control of each state's election apparatus.

With control of the election apparatus they adopt rules and procedures that maximize the accumulation of votes favoring Party X such that they are certain each state's electoral votes will all be cast in favor of the Presidential Candidate of Party X, including acting in secret.

What legal options are available to States 21 to 50 to compel States 1-20 to conduct an election process that is fair and transparent where the ability of States 21 to 50 to have a meaningful say in the outcome of the nationwide election of POTUS and VP?

Are States 21 to 50 forced to endure such a predetermined state of affairs in perpetuity -- where the uncontested facts are that the outcome every four years is being engineered by Party X to the benefit of Party X?

If not, then the Supreme Court has a role to play in managing a dispute between states over the fairness of each state's execution of its Constitutional obligations to conduct elections for the two national offices in a fair and competent manner.

Are States whose electoral votes are cast for the nominally losing candidate in a national race powerless to contest the incompetent manner in which other states conduct their election in a national race?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

shipwreckedcrew uses the term "incompetent". What we saw is not "incompetent". It was well executed massive illegaL election fraud and cheating.

Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...reaking-2020-12-09-1

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and/or members of his legal team would join, as intervenors, the lawsuit brought by Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton to the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump said in a tweet.

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

In the lawsuit, Texas is alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced last-minute unconstitutional changes to election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.

The suit, filed on Dec. 7 and docketed the next day, is also seeking to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

Trump’s remarks about joining the suit as an intervenor came after several states expressed their support for the lawsuit. Attorneys general for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of Paxton’s motion.

On Tuesday, the president wondered if lawmakers or judges have the courage to help him challenge election results in key battleground states.

“Let’s see whether or not somebody has the courage—whether it’s a legislator or legislatures, or whether it’s a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court. Let’s see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right,” Trump told a press conference in Washington during a summit on COVID-19 vaccines.

In the complaint to the Supreme Court, Paxton argues that the four battleground states had acted in a way that violated their own election laws and thereby breached the Constitution through enacting and implementing new measures, rules, and procedures right before the Nov. 3 election.

In some instances, the defendant states enacted such measures through the use of so-called friendly lawsuits, in which the plaintiff and the defendant collude to procure a court order, the lawsuit alleges. In other instances, a variety of state election officials allegedly exceeded their authority to promulgate rules and procedures that should have been enacted by each state’s legislature, as required by the Constitution’s Elections and Electors clause.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton said in a statement.

Attorneys general from the defendant states have disputed the allegations in the lawsuit.

Paxton argued that the actions he outlined in his complaint “constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials” and, as such, votes cast by Electoral College electors pursuant to these actions should not be considered constitutionally valid.

Texas is also asking the Supreme Court (pdf) to grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 10.

Figures...

YouTube to Delete Content Alleging Presidential Election Fraud
By Jack Phillips
December 9, 2020 Updated: December 9, 2020
Print

YouTube announced that from Dec. 9 it will block and remove content that contains statements “alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election.”

The Google-owned firm said that it was because the “safe harbor” deadline on Dec. 8 in the presidential election had passed, claiming that “enough states have certified their election results.”

However, there are still outstanding legal challenges, including one in the Supreme Court, that could change the outcome of the election. YouTube’s statement made no mention of these, and it made no mention of the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote date.

The Epoch Times has not declared a winner of the election.

But according to the San Bruno, California-based company, “We will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. presidential elections.”

“For example, we will remove videos claiming that a presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come,” the firm wrote. “As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific, or artistic context.” It did not elaborate on the context it requires.

The company then said that it will “guide” people to “authoritative information” provided by corporate news outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN. Over the past month since the election, those news outlets have provided little coverage of lawsuits or allegations of election fraud.

The Epoch Times has reached out to President Donald Trump’s team for comment.

On Twitter, YouTube’s announcement was slammed by conservative commentators, who said the company is engaging in censorship.

“YouTube has declared you are now forbidden from criticizing the government’s handling of the election,” wrote OANN’s Jack Posobiec. Several weeks ago, OANN’s YouTube channel was suspended and demonetized.

The move is sure to draw the ire of certain members of Congress and Trump himself, who in recent weeks, have suggested social media and tech companies should not have the protection of the federal Section 230 law. Lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties have signaled the law should be rewritten or repealed, arguing that it shields such firms from responsibility.

Critics of the measure say that it allows Big Tech firms to get away with censorship and make poor content moderation decisions. Many conservatives have said YouTube and other social media companies have engaged in censoring pro-Trump or conservative viewpoints.

An October 2020 lawsuit filed against YouTube said the firm repeatedly breached its own terms of service by deleting their pages or suspending them without cause and didn’t tell them the reason why.

“Plaintiffs remain baffled as to what, specifically in their content-led them to be part of the massive de-platforming, other than the commonality that they are conservative news channels with widespread audience reach,” wrote attorney M. Cris Armenta in the complaint, which was filed in California federal court on behalf of several plaintiffs. Armenta argued that YouTube violated their First Amendment rights, saying it “engaged in state action by capitulating to government coercion” to purge the accounts.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-fraud_3611197.html

quote:

I just emailed our AG...

I also e-mailed AG Schmitt yesterday afternoon. The two of us must have some pull, because as of last night he's in.

Thanks for the clarification

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ClivefromtheMed:
Forgive me Cliff, but I'm getting confused.
Hasn't this interview been superceded by the recent SC rejection of the PA case.

SCOTUS did not reject the PA case. They denied emergency injunctive relief.

See oddball's post, a dozen posts or so back.

But, while I'm commenting...

Forgive me, Cliff, but would it be too much trouble to provide a brief description of what the video's about? Something more descriptive than "Joey D mm/dd/yy No description provided," so the reader might have some clue as to whether they want to watch it?

I hope other states would intervene in the TX states. Strategically from a public point of view, it would help.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I hope other states would intervene in the TX states. Strategically from a public point of view, it would help.

Maybe we should just secede?
Three countries: Left coast, East coast, and everything in between.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I just emailed our AG...

I also e-mailed AG Schmitt yesterday afternoon. The two of us must have some pull, because as of last night he's in.

Ditto in Indiana.

I'm surprised Utah hasn't joined. Their AG, Sean Reyes, took a leave of absence shortly after the election to aid President Trump's team. I'd like to see them shove it down Romney's throat!