2020 Presidential Election

[CrazyNotCrazie]

If they are powerful enough to steal the election. They are powerful enough to cover it up afterwards. Just saying.

I'm just wondering who is putting these ideas in his head. I guess he theoretically often retweets other sources so is that where he claims to be getting information from? If he says "Dominion did XYZ!" then I want to know why he thinks that. I'm pretty sure he is not getting fed this information from classified government sources.

[OldPhiKap]

I think the message they should try to get out of him is that Ossoff and Warnock are part of the Democratic party deep state that cheated him out of an election, so Georgia voters need to vote against them. That way he gets his airing of grievances, which seems to be the only thing he is capable of doing right now, and his message is at least somewhat relevant to their races.

I am still waiting for a brave soul to ask Trump for detailed proof of all of these accusations, but I'm not holding my breath...

I am sure the last thing the folks in GA want is Trump taking questions. Get him in, fire up the base to vote, get him back on a plane.

Trump has split the Republicans I know in this area (since this is a local election, I guess we can talk about local experiences?). Some feel Kemp and Raffy are getting unjustly pilloried for doing their job. Others feel that Trump was rooked and that these "traitors" are not doing enough to stop it. I don't know which group is bigger, but the second group is certainly much louder and more visible.

And I'll raise something I've mentioned before - every week I get a mailer from the Georgia GOP reminding me to request my mail-in ballot. But I have a GOP President claiming that system is rigged, and even Kemp making vague statements about having to do some new form of signature auditing for mail-in ballots in the runoff. Some GOP legislatures want the governor to recall the state legislature to enact some sort of ballot signature thingy before the vote. So query -- if I am a steady GOP voter, do I feel comfortable voting by mail?

Cross-purposes.

If the Republicans win Georgia, it will be despite the President not because of him IM_O. But he certainly will take the credit if history is any guide.

[MChambers]

Well, for one, he’s misleading his donors if he’s telling them those funds are paying for the electoral legal challenges when they’re actually going to the RNC and his new PAC. His new PAC is what’s called a Leadership PAC by the FEC and there are regulations about how funds can be used but Trump could, say, hold rallies and events at his properties for the foreseeable future to essentially “launder” the PAC money into his businesses same as he’s done with our tax dollars.

Given how he’s treated other regulated entities like his foundation, my guess is he treats the funds like his and just does anything he wants with them.

I'm amazed to learn this, but the former GC of the Federal Election Commission agrees with you:

The money in the Save America PAC, unlike money contributed to a standard campaign committee, can be used to benefit Trump in innumerable ways. Memberships at golf clubs. Travel. Rallies. Even payments directly to Trump himself, as long as he declares it as income.

“With a candidate committee, there is a personal-use prohibition,” Noble explained. “So they cannot use money in a candidate committee for anyone’s personal use: They can’t pay exorbitant salaries, they can’t give gifts to people. If you’re talking about a leadership PAC or an independent expenditure PAC” — more on that in a bit — “there’s no prohibition on how they use the money.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-can-cant-do/

[Bostondevil]

I think what we are seeing from Arizona, Georgia, and other places where Trump has questioned the integrity of the process is that local officials are darn proud of the effort it takes to pull off an election. In most cases, they have been working at it for many months (if not years) and they see his attacks on their results as an attack on their competence as well as a personal insult. Many of these folks are partisans who personally back the President, but he is essentially saying, "You had one job... and you screwed it up." I don't care who you wanted to win the election, that's tough to stomach, especially if you are pretty sure you did nothing to screw it up and think that the whole thing actually went off without a hitch.

I have to think this kind of thing threatens to split the GOP. Either you believe, without any evidence, that the election was rigged or you think it was fair and have to question the motives of your party's leader. Trump is making it so you cannot support him and also believe that the election was legitimate. I just don't see how these Governors and Secy of State and local election officials who are members of the GOP can continue to back him in a meaningful way... and we sure as heck won't see him back them, I suspect.

-Jason "I am really eager to see if all of this really does impact the Ga senate races... and I am dying to see how Trump acts when he comes to Ga to campaign next weekend" Evans

Pretty much sums everybody who works in public health right now.

[Lord Ash]

I'm amazed to learn this, but the former GC of the Federal Election Commission agrees with you:

The money in the Save America PAC, unlike money contributed to a standard campaign committee, can be used to benefit Trump in innumerable ways. Memberships at golf clubs. Travel. Rallies. Even payments directly to Trump himself, as long as he declares it as income.

“With a candidate committee, there is a personal-use prohibition,” Noble explained. “So they cannot use money in a candidate committee for anyone’s personal use: They can’t pay exorbitant salaries, they can’t give gifts to people. If you’re talking about a leadership PAC or an independent expenditure PAC” — more on that in a bit — “there’s no prohibition on how they use the money.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-can-cant-do/

Fascinating. The mechanics of money in our politics is really stunning. I doubt it will never, ever change.

[Mike Corey]

The lawyer who has been spearheading Donald Trump's unsuccessful efforts to subvert the will of American voters has reportedly discussed receiving a prophylactic pardon for whatever he's been up to:

Mr. Giuliani’s potential criminal exposure is unclear. He was under investigation as recently as last summer by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for his business dealings in Ukraine and his role in ousting the American ambassador there, a plot that was at the heart of the impeachment of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a message seeking comment. Christianne Allen, his spokeswoman, said, “Mayor Giuliani cannot comment on any discussions that he has with his client.”

[OldPhiKap]

The lawyer who has been spearheading Donald Trump's unsuccessful efforts to subvert the will of American voters has reportedly discussed receiving a prophylactic pardon for whatever he's been up to:

I guess we know what "we'll work out the payment later" means now.

[bundabergdevil]

Trump apparently retweeted someone that said, “why bother voting for Republicans if Kemp and Ducey are what you get”. Reagan’s 11th commandment is long gone it seems.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1764483.html

[Kdogg]

If they are powerful enough to steal the election. They are powerful enough to cover it up afterwards. Just saying.

Also they were sly enough to not flip down ballot Dem races. Too suspicious.

I use to think that the endgame was getting any of these cases before the Supreme Court and Donald thinking they will crown him winner. I don't think that anymore. Everything is gas-lighting and a distraction so we don't pay attending to what the left hand is doing. After some point even the most "unconventional" actions become accepted and we move on the the next absurdity.

Donald's not build a war chest with his PAC. It's a piggy bank. The bulk of those funds will be legally diverted to Trump's interests. By inauguration day it will have around $250-$350 million. In six to twelve months at least $100 million could be business and personal income for the Trumps.

[OldPhiKap]

Also they were sly enough to not flip down ballot Dem races. Too suspicious.

I use to think that the endgame was getting any of these cases before the Supreme Court and Donald thinking they will crown him winner. I don't think that anymore. Everything is gas-lighting and a distraction so we don't pay attending to what the left hand is doing. After some point even the most "unconventional" actions become accepted and we move on the the next absurdity.

Donald's not build a war chest with his PAC. It's a piggy bank. The bulk of those funds will be legally diverted to Trump's interests. By inauguration day it will have around $250-$350 million. In six to twelve months at least $100 million could be business and personal income for the Trumps.

AFAIK, Trump has not petitioned for certiorari (i.e. asked for an appeal) from the Third Circuit's decision against him. One would think that would be ready to go and have been filed over the holiday weekend if the effort to go to the Supremes was serious.

Doesn't mean they won't file something closer to the Electoral College vote or Safe Harbor deadline to try and force a timing crisis -- but that would mainly be for show and drama. Courts do not like being put in that position, even sympathetic ones (which I do not believe this one to be).

[bundabergdevil]

Trump also retweeted someone whose handle is bubblebathgirl today so there’s that.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The lawyer who has been spearheading Donald Trump's unsuccessful efforts to subvert the will of American voters has reportedly discussed receiving a prophylactic pardon for whatever he's been up to:

I guess we know what "we'll work out the payment later" means now.

Will the pardon be on top of or in lieu of his 20K per day pricetag?

[Kdogg]

AFAIK, Trump has not petitioned for certiorari (i.e. asked for an appeal) from the Third Circuit's decision against him. One would think that would be ready to go and have been filed over the holiday weekend if the effort to go to the Supremes was serious.

Doesn't mean they won't file something closer to the Electoral College vote or Safe Harbor deadline to try and force a timing crisis -- but that would mainly be for show and drama. Courts do not like being put in that position, even sympathetic ones (which I do not believe this one to be).

I'm not a lawyer so is it safe to assume that there are no Perry Mason moments during any of these potential appeals? They can't introduce new evidence that was not presented to the lower courts? I ask because otherwise it seems pointless.

[OldPhiKap]

Will the pardon be on top of or in lieu of his 20K per day pricetag?

Let me do some quick calculations. I used to know what an indulgence cost in the late 1500's . . . .

[gumbomoop]

Is Trump the first President to actively campaign for other candidates, welcomingly, as a loser in his own race?

The election of 1860 provides not an exact parallel, but it is an important, even uplifting moment in American elections history. We could all use a little uplift this week.

At that time states did not all vote on the same day. In a 4-candidate contest — essentially between Stephen Douglas and Lincoln in the north, and John Bell and John C. Breckinridge in the south — Douglas knew in October that he had already lost several key northern states. He understood he would not be elected, and that his longtime foe Lincoln would secure a majority of the country’s electoral votes. Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in most southern states. But he didn’t need to be, for the vast majority of Americans in 1860 lived in northern states, so that’s where the vast majority of electoral votes were. In the end, Lincoln was legitimately, constitutionally elected President with just under 40% (!) of the popular vote, because he won a solid Electoral College majority. (You could maybe win a lot of money on Jeopardy! with this info.)

Douglas also understood that Lincoln and the nascent Republican Party were misperceived in the South as abolitionists. He understood this, in part, because he himself had cruelly and misleadingly race-baited Lincoln during their 1858 Illinois Senate contest, which Douglas won. That 1858 country-bumpkin loser became, surprisingly but actually sort of logically, the Republican standard bearer two years later. The country got lucky. (Hope that’s not too partisan.)

Knowing himself the loser this time, deprived of his life’s goal, but understanding full well the seriousness of secessionist threats in the aftermath of Lincoln’s assured victory, Douglas did something remarkably courageous: he went south to try to persuade Southern states that Lincoln was not a direct threat to slavery. They must not countenance secession. It was a noble effort, heartfelt, truly patriotic, no mere gesture. But, to return to CB&B’s question, Douglas wasn’t “welcomed” by an angry, panicked South.

(A few years back, Oly Fan, swood1000, jimsumner, and I, and for awhile others, too, engaged in a spirited conversation on secession. You could look it up. I don’t know whether you’d find it uplifting.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

The Kraken has been released and the astounding ineptitude of it all is mind boggling. Maybe she hired a few of her football player alumni to assist with the writing.

https://thebulwark.com/the-kraken-la...yz7oVKtAYQ6wz4

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not a lawyer so is it safe to assume that there are no Perry Mason moments during any of these potential appeals? They can't introduce new evidence that was not presented to the lower courts? I ask because otherwise it seems pointless.

That should be correct. Generally speaking, appellate courts only review the record that was developed at the trial court level. (There are exceptions but I do not believe any apply here). If you submitted "newly found evidence" as an exhibit to your brief, though, I guess theoretically you could use that to support a request to remand the case back to the trial court.

And it's not like Rudy & Co are really a stickler for following the rules. This is all political theater, not real legal cases, at this point.

[Kdogg]

Trump also retweeted someone whose handle is bubblebathgirl today so there’s that.

Yesterday he retweeting catturd2 (three times). I would love to see the algorithms that put these accounts in front of him,

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Trump also retweeted someone whose handle is bubblebathgirl today so there’s that.

bubblebathgirl is a guy named Paul A Szypula who titles himself US Senate Candidate for NY in 22.

[JasonEvans]

It was there. I took the shot.

Clemmons = Alexander Hamilton? Or, Austin Rivers?

See, I thought of something different when I read that line: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e2b3c1b...b-cd8c730daaa3