quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


Is unfettered mail-in voting expressly forbidden in the TX state constitution as it is in Pennsylvania?

I don't know, I'm not very familiar with either states constitution. Though just having done some quick searching it appears the PA state legislature passed (senate voted 35-14, house voted 138-61, then governor signed it) legislation that changed mail in voting in October 2019.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Did it? Did Texas violate its own Constitution and laws in extending mail-in voting? Michigan, for example, clearly did, an Appellate Court judge's opinion notwithstanding.

Like Balze's it's a good question, and I don't know the answer. Though I don't think it's a violation of the MI constitution. I don't see anything about must be counted by the 8pm on election day in the state constitution, though I may have missed it. That requirement is probably in some state law or regulation, just not in the state constitution.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...-Constitution-II.pdf

"Top Men" are now after Texas AG who filed the SCOTUS lawsuit...

https://www.washingtonexaminer...al-ken-paxton-report

The FBI has reportedly served at least one subpoena this week on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office in its investigation into a whistleblower report that the Republican abused his office to aid a campaign donor.

Three sources confirmed that at least one subpoena for records had been issued, but they did not know whether more had been filed, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.

"At all times, as in every matter, I ask my staff only to search for the truth, wherever it leads," Paxton said in a Thursday evening statement. "That's my responsibility as Attorney General of Texas."

The report about a subpoena comes just days after Paxton received renewed national attention for filing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court, joined by 17 other states, attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes. President Trump refuses to concede to Biden, claiming the contest was "rigged."

Federal agents have reportedly been investigating Paxton since at least mid-November regarding a complaint from members of Paxton's staff earlier this year alleging that the attorney general improperly used the power of his office to shield real estate investor Nate Paul, a campaign donor and friend, from legal scrutiny. The FBI has not confirmed the investigation.

Paul's home and office were raided in 2019 by the FBI, after which he complained that he "was treated unfairly and illegally by state and federal law enforcement," according to the Houston-Chronicle. After the raid, Paxton announced that he was initiating his own investigation into the matter, which prompted the whistleblower complaint. They claimed Paxton was using the criminal process to help his donor, who contributed $25,000 to Paxton's campaign.

Paxton has since called off the investigation.

Since the whistleblower complaint was filed, three of the whistleblowers who accused Paxton of wrongdoing have been fired, and the others have either been put on leave or resigned. Four of the accusers filed a second whistleblower complaint against Paxton alleging wrongful firing and retaliation.

Issuing a subpoena on a state attorney general is a "highly unusual move," according to the Austin American-Statesmen, that likely would have required approval from the upper echelons of the Justice Department.

The initial whistleblower complaint is also being investigated by prosecutors who were already looking into Paxton about potential securities fraud charges. The previous charges accused Paxton of convincing investors to buy tech stocks without disclosing that he would be compensated for the sales.

In a previous statement, Paxton said he is prepared to defend himself against all of the allegations.

“Unfortunately, I know a little something about being falsely accused and being forced to counter allegations that are the result of overreach by prosecutors and law enforcement,” Paxton said. “I make no apologies for being a fierce investigator and defender of individual rights in the face of potentially unreasonable and authoritarian actions.”

Texas replies to defendants in the filings to the Supreme Court (done today)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/D...Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

Doesn’t the lawsuit hinge on the fact that Governors violated the State constitution by bypassing the legislature and declaring COVID related changes by fiat?

I can’t speak for Texas and the legality of their changes. Maybe they aren’t being sued because they did everything legally.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:
Though I don't think it's a violation of the MI constitution.

It's laid out in black and white in Texas' complaint.

DEM Cynthia Johnson continues her string

"Biden and Harris owe Detroit"

How pathetic this woman is a Michigan state representative.

Although, one could argue that Biden "does owe Detroit" for its election fraud and corruption

video at

https://twitter.com/i/status/1337138069506494465

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Did it? Did Texas violate its own Constitution and laws in extending mail-in voting? .

TMK, Texas did not violate or illegally change its election laws for Nov. 3rd. Mail in ballots were still classified as absentee ballots, obtainable ONLY by special request, and meeting certain requirements (over 65 yo, disabled, military, out of county w/ proof). Texas also did not use Dominion Voting Systems.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


Is unfettered mail-in voting expressly forbidden in the TX state constitution as it is in Pennsylvania?

I don't know, I'm not very familiar with either states constitution. Though just having done some quick searching it appears the PA state legislature passed (senate voted 35-14, house voted 138-61, then governor signed it) legislation that changed mail in voting in October 2019.

Which violated the state constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could change the mail-in voting prohibition.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

It's laid out in black and white in Texas' complaint.

Contrary to what some believe, everything about this case is black and white. We are going to find out today just how much control the Swamp has on our country. Roberts is going to be pushing hard for them to punt this. There is no way he wants "his" court to be known for determining an election like Rehnquist.

The only question is do we have 2-3 other justices who support the Constitution? If they kick it today, and they may, then we have our answer, but it won't be based in law. It will be based on the power of the Swamp and self interest. Period.

quote:

We are going to find out today just how much control the Swamp has on our country. Roberts is going to be pushing hard for them to punt this.

I think that's right. He doesn't see it as signing his Court's death warrant but many of us do.

Roberts sees himself as an institutionalist and he tries to be a centrist to protect the institution. What he doesn't get is that for some things there is no middle ground.

Where’s the fast forward button? The suspense is murder.

I’ll just keep reciting good things come to those who wait...

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


Is unfettered mail-in voting expressly forbidden in the TX state constitution as it is in Pennsylvania?

I don't know, I'm not very familiar with either states constitution. Though just having done some quick searching it appears the PA state legislature passed (senate voted 35-14, house voted 138-61, then governor signed it) legislation that changed mail in voting in October 2019.

Which violated the state constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could change the mail-in voting prohibition.

That's just not true. It may be in other states, but not PA. The PA state constitution specifically says (among other things) "All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved." It clearly says "as may be prescribed by law" and the state law was changed. They don't need to alter the state constitution at all. I don't want to argue over every nuance of state law, there are so many states involved and so many legal filings flying around. But seriously, do even a little research into what you're saying. And while it kind of worked out this way I'm not just trying to single you out Balze, that's good advice for anybody including myself. So many terrible sources of information are passed around here.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

There is no legal justification for them turning down the case. That's BS from the other side.

The filing (if you read even just the title) by Texas recognizes SCOTUS doesn't have to hear the case. It's a "Request of Leave to File a Bill of Complaint." Request of leave or in the Navy "by your leave" means requesting permission.

There's another articled linked in this thread that talks about that and discusses how the TX filing makes the argument that SCOTUS does indeed need to hear the case without having to hold a hearing on whether they grant the leave. Holding a hearing on whether SCOTUS grants the leave just prolongs the timeline.

I've been laying off a Barr for awhile because others here felt he should be given a chance and perhaps rightfully so. But now there's this report out there from the New York Post. It makes sense that he would do this because it's policy (written or unwritten?) the DOJ does not discuss or release anything that could possibly impact an election and he has stated it several times himself which is why Durham did not before the election nor has he produced anything as of yet.

This just seems like a wrong headed policy. Isn't it important that the American people know before an election that the son of a candidate is being investigated for financial wrong doing and possibly criminal activities involving foreign countries? Activities that could mean at the very least the candidate could be compromised by his son activities and dealings with hostile foreign entities to our country.

I started to lose faith in Barr over a year ago and that developed into outright distrust not long after.

quote:

Attorney General William Barr knew about two contemporaneous federal investigations into Hunter Biden for months — and worked to keep them from the public ahead of the election, according to a new report.

The nation’s top law enforcement official avoided providing information about the probes to Republicans in Congress without explanation, a person familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal.

Link

Buchanan: Is Our Second Civil War Also A "Forever War"?

by Pat Buchanan

When the Electoral College meets Monday, it will almost surely certify former Vice President Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States. And he will take the oath of office Jan. 20.

There is, nationally, a growing if grudging realization of that reality.

Yet millions of Americans will refuse to accept the legitimacy of that election and its outcome and will continue to believe, with President Donald Trump, that it was “rigged.”

“Was the 2020 election stolen by the establishment to get rid of a president, Donald Trump, whom it loathed?” will be debated decades hence — as are questions such as, “Did FDR have advance knowledge the Japanese were going to attack?” and, “Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone in Dallas?”

That perception that something was afoot first arose in the minds of millions in the hours after the election on Nov. 3, when 83% of Republicans polled by Gallup said they did not believe reports of Trump’s defeat.

Things perceived as real are real in their consequences.

And there was justification for that perception.

Who was not stunned to learn that as Trump seemed to be pulling ahead in the voting count on Nov. 3, suddenly, around midnight, the vote counting appeared to stop in the crucial swing states, and we were told it would begin again early the next morning? Why the halt?

Again, things perceived as real are real in their consequences.

The Washington Post reports this week that, midway between Election Day and Inauguration Day, only 27 congressional Republicans would acknowledge Biden’s win. Some 220 GOP members of the House and Senate — 88% of Republicans serving in Congress — would not say who won the election.

And Trump continues to fight on, millions behind him, to persuade public officials in such battleground states as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada to withdraw their certifications.

He is said to be working the phones to get Republicans in Congress to reject the designation of Biden as president.

He has joined a suit by 17 states’ attorneys general to have the Supreme Court accept Texas’ argument that late alterations in the voting processes in four swing states be declared unconstitutional and illegal.

Among the more credible charges is that, due to the pandemic, late changes were made in the voting processes of states, especially with mailed-out and mailed-in ballots. The contention is that votes cast as a consequence of changes done contrary to state laws or constitutions should be thrown out. Most of those votes came from the urban precincts where Biden’s margins were massive.

While some 50 lawsuits filed in Trump’s cause may have been rejected in courts, the hourly allegations of fraud in the collection and counting of ballots have given credence to a generalized belief that Trump was cheated of votes he received and Biden received votes that were illicitly cast.

Where will this leave us Jan. 20?

American politics will be even more poisoned and polarized than it has been for the last four years. Tens of millions of Americans will see themselves as disfranchised and believe that the greatest champion they have had in decades was illegally driven from power by the same deep state-media conspiracy he fought for four years.

Reinforcing this perception is the sudden revelation this week that Biden’s son Hunter is indeed the target of a federal tax investigation.

That is a story the mainstream media not only refused to cover but sought to bury. And it further buttresses a widespread belief that the mainstream media were in the tank for Biden and will use the power they have to fix the outcome of future American elections in favor of the establishment to which they belong.

For scores of millions of Americans, the mainstream media have lost any credibility and moral authority they once had.

The media have spent four years promoting the falsehood that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump conspired to steal the 2016 election, a charge for which the two-year Robert Mueller investigation could not find any substance at all. They championed the cause of impeachment of Trump over a single comment in a phone call to the president of Ukraine.

And all the while, they painted Trump as racist, sexist, homophobic and treasonous, and his followers as torch-carrying deplorables.

The hypocritical calls from the mainstream media today for us all to come together, after the atrocities they perpetrated, boggle the mind.

Amazing. And now that the Democrats appear to have captured the White House, the message is, “Can’t we all just get along?”

What lies ahead?

Some see secession. But though secession is unlikely, a secession of the heart has already taken place in America.

We are two nations, two peoples seemingly separated indefinitely. Can a nation so divided as ours, racially, ideologically, religiously, still do great things together, as did the America of days gone by, to the amazement of the world?

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-o...a-forever-war-142441

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:



That's just not true. It may be in other states, but not PA. The PA state constitution specifically says (among other things) "All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved." It clearly says "as may be prescribed by law" and the state law was changed. They don't need to alter the state constitution at all. I don't want to argue over every nuance of state law, there are so many states involved and so many legal filings flying around. But seriously, do even a little research into what you're saying. And while it kind of worked out this way I'm not just trying to single you out Balze, that's good advice for anybody including myself. So many terrible sources of information are passed around here.

Did the PA legislature change it to 3 days or did the PA SC? Hint, it wasn't the legislature. Clear violation of the Constitution and there is no middle ground.

This is like the 1972 USA basketball team getting screwed by Jones, who decided to come out of the stands and overrule the ref, which he later admitted he had no authority to do during the game.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I've been laying off a Barr for awhile because others here felt he should be given a chance and perhaps rightfully so. But now there's this report out there from the New York Post. It makes sense that he would do this because it's policy (written or unwritten?) the DOJ does not discuss or release anything that could possibly impact an election and he has stated it several times himself which is why Durham did not before the election nor has he produced anything as of yet.

This just seems like a wrong headed policy. Isn't it important that the American people know before an election that the son of a candidate is being investigated for financial wrong doing and possibly criminal activities involving foreign countries? Activities that could mean at the very least the candidate could be compromised by his son activities and dealings with hostile foreign entities to our country.

I started to lose faith in Barr over a year ago and that developed into outright distrust not long after.

quote:

Attorney General William Barr knew about two contemporaneous federal investigations into Hunter Biden for months — and worked to keep them from the public ahead of the election, according to a new report.

The nation’s top law enforcement official avoided providing information about the probes to Republicans in Congress without explanation, a person familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal.

Link

Could it be there are ongoing grand jury investigations which cannot be discussed (witnesses coerced and/or evidence tainted)?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...-in-blockbuster-case

Texas on Friday morning filed a "reply brief" with the Supreme Court as it asks the tribunal to hear its lawsuit that aims to essentially nullify the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin -- putting the ball in the justices' court to issue an order in the case.

The "briefing stage" of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a "reply brief," which Texas did Friday morning.

The justices now could simply issue an order saying that they refuse to hear the case. They could also agree to hear the case and promptly dismiss it or rule in favor of Texas. The justices could also request oral arguments before ruling.

The crux of the Texas case is the argument that the four states it is suing -- all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden -- unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:


That's just not true. It may be in other states, but not PA. The PA state constitution specifically says (among other things) "All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved." It clearly says "as may be prescribed by law" and the state law was changed. They don't need to alter the state constitution at all. I don't want to argue over every nuance of state law, there are so many states involved and so many legal filings flying around. But seriously, do even a little research into what you're saying. And while it kind of worked out this way I'm not just trying to single you out Balze, that's good advice for anybody including myself. So many terrible sources of information are passed around here.

It most certainly is true. The law passed by the state legislature (Act 77) created a “no-excuse mail-in” voting system. There is a provision of the Pennsylvania constitution that only allows for limited reasons for voting by mail. They clearly violated that.

I'm engrossed in the politics of this state on a daily basis, particularly around Philadelphia. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Keep the condescending tone to yourself.