bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Who Is Avril Haines And Why Should I Care?

Who in the world is Avril Haines , and why should I care ?
This is the first in the series Meet The Women of Joe Biden ’ s Administration : Avril Haines .
I hope you enjoy hearing about this amazing woman as much as I enjoyed writing them .
You will like her .
Avril Hanes is the new Director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) .
That would be the job that Mike Flynn left so quickly and oh , so unceremoniously .
Not only that , she is the first woman to hold down this job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Brilliant and longtime friend of the president-elect .
• Has the same sort of smile as Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris Avril Danica Haines spent her early high school years taking care of her sick mother , who was a painter .
When Haines was 15 , her mother died from avian tuberculosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease .
Ever since , Avril Hanes has been blowing through the male-dominated illusions .
Her father is a biochemist and professor emeritus at City College .
He started its medical school , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intrepid woman grabbed her high school diploma and headed out to Japan for a year .
When she came back in 1988 , she enrolled in the University of Chicago and studied theoretical physics .
In her spare time , she repaired car engines for a Hyde Park mechanic .
Haines also began flying where she met her husband David Davighi .
When she received the Biden nomination , she said : ‘ Mr .
President-elect , you know I ’ ve never shied away from speaking truth to power .
I accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want me to do otherwise … even when what I have to say may be inconvenient or difficult , and I assure you , there will be those times.
’ What Others Say About Her : ‘ She has serious credentials .
She is a really smart person , a person with serious horsepower and a nice person .
I don ’ t think you ’ re going to see a lot of drama out of her .
Just a serious professional .
‘ Having myself come up in the days when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership positions , to me it ’ s very significant .
There are so many women who for years have been capable of holding those jobs .
And so I think to actually see that come to fruition is a terrific thing.
’ What You Do Not Know — Yet • Haines went To Tokyo Japan ’ s Kodokan , an elite judo institute where she earned a brown belt • She dropped out of a doctoral program to buy a bar with her husband , which had been seized in a drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent book cafe .
• The cafe/bookstore featured her mother ’ s painting plus and an eclectic collection of literary offerings , local writers , erotica reading nights , and small press publications • She loves to rebuild cars and planes , then learned to fly • She bought a used Cessna and rebuilt the avionics herself and tried to fly across the Atlantic Ocean and crash-landed near the Newfoundland coast.
’ • Her undergraduate degree was in theoretical physics • First woman as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President for National Security Affairs in the Office of White House Counsel .
• as White House Deputy National Security Advisor in the Obama White House • National Commission on Military , National , and Public Service to review the military selective service process .
Developed recommendations to inspire more Americans , in particular young people , to participate in public service .
• Fellow at the Human Rights Institute and National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School .
• Discover whether CIA personnel involved in the hacking of the computers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on CIA torture .
She chose not to discipline them .
• First woman as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency • White House Counsel as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs Office at the White House .
• State Department as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs • US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority Senate Democrats • US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority Senate Democrats • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of State in the Office of Treaty Affairs • Legal Officer at the Hague Conference on Private International Law .
Law clerk for US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge .
• The Board of Trustees for the Vodafone Foundation The Mueller Report Adventures : In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page .
These quick , two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people .
Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery .
Interestingly enough , Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order .

Who in the world is Avril Haines, and why should I care? This is the first in the series Meet The Women of Joe Biden’s Administration: Avril Haines. I hope you enjoy hearing about this amazing woman as much as I enjoyed writing them. You will like her.
Avril Hanes is the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI). That would be the job that Mike Flynn left so quickly and oh, so unceremoniously. Not only that, she is the first woman to hold down this job. She will automatically oversee 16 departments.
Her Quote:
‘To our intelligence professionals, the work you do — oftentimes under the most austere conditions imaginable — is just indispensable.’
In A Nutshell
First Woman to Head Intelligence
Deep Experience in National Security
Experience in the Private Sector
Small business owner
Multi-faceted
Brilliant and longtime friend of the president-elect.
Has the same sort of smile as Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris
What Shaped Her?
Avril Danica Haines spent her early high school years taking care of her sick mother, who was a painter. When Haines was 15, her mother died from avian tuberculosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ever since, Avril Hanes has been blowing through the male-dominated illusions.
Her father is a biochemist and professor emeritus at City College. He started its medical school, and he also chaired the biochemistry department.
This intrepid woman grabbed her high school diploma and headed out to Japan for a year. When she came back in 1988, she enrolled in the University of Chicago and studied theoretical physics. In her spare time, she repaired car engines for a Hyde Park mechanic. Haines also began flying where she met her husband David Davighi.
Her Quote:
When she received the Biden nomination, she said:
‘Mr. President-elect, you know I’ve never shied away from speaking truth to power. I accept this nomination knowing that you would never want me to do otherwise … even when what I have to say may be inconvenient or difficult, and I assure you, there will be those times.’
What Others Say About Her:
Biden:
‘Brilliant, humble. Can talk literature and theoretical physics, fixing cars, flying planes, running a bookstore-cafe, all in a single conversation, because she’s done all that.’
CIA officer Rollie Flynn:
‘She has serious credentials. She is a really smart person, a person with serious horsepower and a nice person. I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of drama out of her. Just a serious professional. ‘Having myself come up in the days when there weren’t very many women in leadership positions, to me it’s very significant. There are so many women who for years have been capable of holding those jobs. And so I think to actually see that come to fruition is a terrific thing.’
What You Do Not Know — Yet
Haines went To Tokyo Japan’s Kodokan, an elite judo institute where she earned a brown belt
She dropped out of a doctoral program to buy a bar with her husband, which had been seized in a drug raid. They transformed it into an independent book cafe.
The cafe/bookstore featured her mother’s painting plus and an eclectic collection of literary offerings, local writers, erotica reading nights, and small press publications
She loves to rebuild cars and planes, then learned to fly
She bought a used Cessna and rebuilt the avionics herself and tried to fly across the Atlantic Ocean and crash-landed near the Newfoundland coast.’
Education
Her undergraduate degree was in theoretical physics
Doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University
Georgetown University Law Center
Career
First woman as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in Obama administration.
Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs in the Office of White House Counsel.
Tony Blinken’s replacement as White House Deputy National Security Advisor in the Obama White House
as White House Deputy National Security Advisor in the Obama White House National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to review the military selective service process. Developed recommendations to inspire more Americans, in particular young people, to participate in public service.
Fellow at the Human Rights Institute and National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School.
Columbia University, Columbia World Project senior research scholar working on the Columbia World Projects
First female Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA).
Discover whether CIA personnel involved in the hacking of the computers of Senate staffers authoring the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. She chose not to discipline them.
First woman as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
White House Counsel as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs Office at the White House.
State Department as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs
US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority Senate Democrats
US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority Senate Democrats
Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State in the Office of Treaty Affairs
Legal Officer at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Law clerk for US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Julian Boggs .
Boards and Advisory Groups
The Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Bio Advisory Group
The Board of Trustees for the Vodafone Foundation
The Refugees International Advisory Council.
Sources
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/us/politics/biden-nominees-national-security.html
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/939722113/the-winding-journey-of-avril-haines-bidens-pick-to-lead-u-s-intelligence
https://peoplepill.com/people/avril-haines/
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/players/haines.html
Featured image is a screenshot via YouTube.
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Trump Tweets At SCOTUS During Late-Night Emotional Collapse

Five weeks after the November 3 , 2020 presidential election ended , with Joe Biden the clear winner with 306 electoral college votes over Trump ’ s 232 and more than seven million more votes nationally , Donald Trump is still insisting that he won the election and will continue to do so as long as his hapless supporters continue to send him money .
Trump is , in fact , incorrect about being the only president to win Iowa , Ohio , and Florida and still lose the presidency .
Richard Nixon did so in 1960 when he lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets facts wrong , whether intentionally or unintentionally .
For instance , he also insists that he won more electoral college votes in 2016 than any president in history , which he says means that he ’ s beloved among American voters .
Richard Nixon actually holds that record too and we all know exactly how beloved he is today .
The truth is that Donald Trump is an impeached , one-term president who lost the popular vote twice and he just can not face that .
He will never concede , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a loser and because it ’ s just making him too much money to keep fighting the election results in court .
Republican elected officials in 19 states may be backing his fight to overturn the democratic process and disenfranchise millions of voters in the Supreme Court , but that isn ’ t because he ’ s right .
It ’ s because they ’ re terrified of losing the votes of his crazed , conspiracy-loving supporters .
Twitter was quick to let Trump know that , not only did he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liar who doesn ’ t know anything about American history .
Read some of their comments below :

Five weeks after the November 3, 2020 presidential election ended, with Joe Biden the clear winner with 306 electoral college votes over Trump’s 232 and more than seven million more votes nationally, Donald Trump is still insisting that he won the election and will continue to do so as long as his hapless supporters continue to send him money.
Trump is, in fact, incorrect about being the only president to win Iowa, Ohio, and Florida and still lose the presidency. Richard Nixon did so in 1960 when he lost to John F. Kennedy. Trump generally gets facts wrong, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, he also insists that he won more electoral college votes in 2016 than any president in history, which he says means that he’s beloved among American voters. Richard Nixon actually holds that record too and we all know exactly how beloved he is today.
The truth is that Donald Trump is an impeached, one-term president who lost the popular vote twice and he just cannot face that. He will never concede, both because it will mean admitting that he’s a loser and because it’s just making him too much money to keep fighting the election results in court. Republican elected officials in 19 states may be backing his fight to overturn the democratic process and disenfranchise millions of voters in the Supreme Court, but that isn’t because he’s right. It’s because they’re terrified of losing the votes of his crazed, conspiracy-loving supporters.
Twitter was quick to let Trump know that, not only did he lose, but he’s also a liar who doesn’t know anything about American history. Read some of their comments below:


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--Pennsylvania Forcefully Responds To Phony Texas SCOTUS Lawsuit

The court used the perfect word to describe what Donald Trump has been up to in his 55-plus frivolous lawsuits , “ seditious.
” It means an overt act of rebellion against the established order .
It often has an element of “ subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward , or rebellion against , established authority.
” National security attorney Bradley P. Moss , Esq .
honed right in on the meat of the Supreme Court response : FindLaw.com gives an excellent example of what sedition means : Moss continued , noting that sedition is related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group is dead serious in its intentions , but they ’ re thwarted by an FBI investigation that leads to arrests .
While sharing information and discussing ideas — even distasteful ones — is generally protected as free speech , the FBI believes this crosses the line .
The alleged ringleaders of the plot are charged with “ seditious conspiracy ” ( simply referred to as “ sedition “ ) , a federal crime related to treason and other anti-government offenses.
’ The court was not messing around when it condemned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sedition law was addressed in Title 18 of the U.S. Code ( which includes treason , rebellion , and similar offenses ) , specifically 18 U.S.C .
§ 2384 .
The result is , “ It is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States to commit sedition.
” In order to commit sedition there are three activities required : • ‘ To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them ; • ‘ To oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States government ; to prevent , hinder , or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States ; or • ‘ To take , seize , or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.
’ Of course , the government must “ prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force .
Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
” Okay , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ [ T ] wo or more people who give public speeches suggesting the need for a total revolution “ by any means necessary ” have not necessarily conspired to overthrow the government .
Rather , they ’ re just sharing their opinions , however unsavory : So what is the difference between sedition and treason ?
Sedition is identified in the Constitution ( Article III of the U.S. Constitution ) in a fundamental way : Twitter world went a little nuts when they saw this tweet .
Take a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Mueller Report Adventures : In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page .
These quick , two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people .
Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery .
Interestingly enough , Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order .

The court used the perfect word to describe what Donald Trump has been up to in his 55-plus frivolous lawsuits, “seditious.” It means an overt act of rebellion against the established order. It often has an element of “subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or rebellion against, established authority.”
National security attorney Bradley P. Moss, Esq. honed right in on the meat of the Supreme Court response:
‘”Seditious abuse of the judicial process” Dayum’
FindLaw.com gives an excellent example of what sedition means:
‘Suppose that over the course of a few months, a small band of armed militants has coordinated strategies to distribute firearms and take over the nation’s capital by force through a website on the clandestine “deep web.”‘
Moss continued, noting that sedition is related to treason:
‘All indications show that the group is dead serious in its intentions, but they’re thwarted by an FBI investigation that leads to arrests. While sharing information and discussing ideas — even distasteful ones — is generally protected as free speech, the FBI believes this crosses the line. The alleged ringleaders of the plot are charged with “seditious conspiracy” (simply referred to as “sedition“), a federal crime related to treason and other anti-government offenses.’
The court was not messing around when it condemned the president for his actions:
‘It refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. The following provides an overview of this particular crime against the government, with historical references.’
The federal sedition law was addressed in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. The result is, “It is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States to commit sedition.”
In order to commit sedition there are three activities required:
‘To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them; ‘To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or ‘To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.’
Of course, the government must “prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force. Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.”
Okay, this is what sedition is and is not:
‘[T]wo or more people who give public speeches suggesting the need for a total revolution “by any means necessary” have not necessarily conspired to overthrow the government. Rather, they’re just sharing their opinions, however unsavory:
‘But actively planning such an action (distributing guns, working out the logistics of an attack, actively opposing lawful authority, etc.) could be considered a seditious conspiracy.’
So what is the difference between sedition and treason? Sedition is identified in the Constitution (Article III of the U.S. Constitution) in a fundamental way:
‘Sedition goes beyond inciting rebellion against the authority of state. The more serious treason is described as “actively levying war against the United States or giving aid to its enemies. Another way of looking at it is that seditious conspiracy often occurs before an act of treason.”‘
Twitter world went a little nuts when they saw this tweet. Take a look at some of our favorite responses below:
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--20+ States & D.C. Sternly Rebuke Texas SCOTUS Lawsuit

A full 22 states , territories , and the District of Columbia have banded together in opposition to a lawsuit in which Texas is seeking to invalidate the election results in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Georgia .
Besides D.C. , the new filing in opposition to Texas ’ s case includes the following list of states and territories : California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Guam , Hawaii , Illinois , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , Oregon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Virgin Islands , and Washington .
The states and territories challenge fundamental claims in the Texas lawsuit , including that state court intervention in the electoral process is inappropriate and that expanded mail-in voting provided significant opportunities for fraud .
Texas challenges updates to electoral procedures that went through mechanisms other than respective state legislatures .
However , the Texas opponents insist that “ by demanding this Court police state interpretation of state law , Texas ’ s theory of the Electors Clause would reorder the Constitution and undermine our federalist system.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the case is filed , to weigh in on respective state governments ’ interpretations of their own state laws , no matter the established principle of federalism , under which states are responsible for many of their own affairs , with separate responsibilities delegated to the federal government .
This principle is fundamental — although Texas and its allies seem ready and willing to set an obvious application of federalism aside in order to further their political ambitions .
They ’ d like the Supreme Court to go against lengthy legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case outlines how the Constitution ’ s insistence that state legislatures handle electoral procedures in their respective states does not necessarily confine election-related policy-making and application to the official legislative bodies that are currently in place across the country .
If these legislative bodies did have this level of steep authority , then what role would state courts even have ?
The judiciary , of course , is supposed to act as a check on legislative bodies , while members of the executive branch are frequently tasked with putting laws into practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretarys of State handling elections across the country .
The challengers to Texas ’ s lawsuit also note that actual evidence of systematically election outcome-altering fraud accompanying the usage of mail-in voting simply does not exist .
In the context of this latest election , an agency of the Department of Homeland Security has already issued an unequivocal statement insisting that the recently concluded election was the “ most secure in American history.
” Local election officials around the country and even Attorney General Bill Barr have also confirmed that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this election .
Read the full filing against Texas ’ s lawsuit at this link .

A full 22 states, territories, and the District of Columbia have banded together in opposition to a lawsuit in which Texas is seeking to invalidate the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Besides D.C., the new filing in opposition to Texas’s case includes the following list of states and territories: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington. The states and territories challenge fundamental claims in the Texas lawsuit, including that state court intervention in the electoral process is inappropriate and that expanded mail-in voting provided significant opportunities for fraud.
Texas challenged updates to electoral procedures that went through mechanisms other than respective state legislatures. However, the Texas opponents insist that “by demanding this Court police state interpretation of state law, Texas’s theory of the Electors Clause would reorder the Constitution and undermine our federalist system.” Texas wants the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case is filed, to weigh in on respective state governments’ interpretations of their own state laws, no matter the established principle of federalism, under which states are responsible for many of their own affairs, with separate responsibilities delegated to the federal government. This principle is fundamental — although Texas and its allies seem ready and willing to set an obvious application of federalism aside in order to further their political ambitions. They’d like the Supreme Court to go against lengthy legal precedent.
The filing against Texas’s case outlines how the Constitution’s insistence that state legislatures handle electoral procedures in their respective states does not necessarily confine election-related policy-making and application to the official legislative bodies that are currently in place across the country. If these legislative bodies did have this level of steep authority, then what role would state courts even have? The judiciary, of course, is supposed to act as a check on legislative bodies, while members of the executive branch are frequently tasked with putting laws into practice — like in the case of individual Secretarys of State handling elections across the country.
The challengers to Texas’s lawsuit also note that actual evidence of systematically election outcome-altering fraud accompanying the usage of mail-in voting simply does not exist. In the context of this latest election, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security has already issued an unequivocal statement insisting that the recently concluded election was the “most secure in American history.” Local election officials around the country and even Attorney General Bill Barr have also confirmed that there’s no legitimate evidence of election outcome-altering fraud in this election. Read the full filing against Texas’s lawsuit at this link.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--Trump Admin Email Scandal Erupts Weeks Before Presidency Ends

Rep. James Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) , who chairs the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis , has revealed that Charlotte Kent , who edits the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ( MMWR ) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , had received an order to delete an email containing evidence of political meddling in the CDC ’ s operations .
According to Kent , she was informed that CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield himself had originally ordered the email deletion .
In the original message , Paul Alexander , who was a top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services Alex Azar at the time , angrily accused the CDC of trying to politically damage Trump with their releases of basic information about the COVID-19 pandemic .
Alexander “ was seeking changes in a scientific report on the coronavirus ’ s risk to children , ” The Washington Post summarizes , although the CDC did not change its reporting in the MMWR that Alexander complained about , according to a former official , who said that the report “ is where the line was drawn.
” In a Thursday letter to Redfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern about what may be deliberate efforts by the Trump Administration to conceal and destroy evidence that senior political appointees interfered with career officials ’ response to the coronavirus crisis at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
” Kent told members of Congress that she discovered the email already deleted when she attempted to look it up .
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that a full transcript of Kent ’ s remarks to members of Congress “ will show that during her testimony Dr. Kent repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MMWR process ” — but there ’ s a difference between successful and attempted political interference , the latter of which is what Kent seems to reveal .
In his original email in question , Alexander angrily ranted , in part , as follows : ‘ CDC tried to report as if once kids get together , there will be spread and this will impact school reopening… Very misleading by CDC and shame on them .
Their aim is clear… This is designed to hurt this Presidnet [ sic ] for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Trump himself has echoed the conspiracy theory that public health officials have been conspiring to make him look bad — which is , of course , a frankly bonkers and disturbingly self-obsessed suggestion .
In August , Trump claimed on Twitter that the “ deep state , or whoever , over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics , ” suggesting in the same tweet that the alleged nefarious activity was meant to “ delay the answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Separately , he ’ s insinuated that companies behind COVID-19 vaccine development work intentionally waited until after the election to release promising information .
There ’ s no legitimate evidence for these claims .
As the pandemic has continued to rage in the United States , Trump has seemed more interested in fighting against the election results than trying to conclusively confront the pandemic .

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who chairs the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, has revealed that Charlotte Kent, who edits the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had received an order to delete an email containing evidence of political meddling in the CDC’s operations.
According to Kent, she was informed that CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield himself had originally ordered the email deletion. In the original message, Paul Alexander, who was a top adviser to Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar at the time, angrily accused the CDC of trying to politically damage Trump with their releases of basic information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexander “was seeking changes in a scientific report on the coronavirus’s risk to children,” The Washington Post summarizes, although the CDC did not change its reporting in the MMWR that Alexander complained about, according to a former official, who said that the report “is where the line was drawn.”
In a Thursday letter to Redfield and Azar, Clyburn expressed “serious concern about what may be deliberate efforts by the Trump Administration to conceal and destroy evidence that senior political appointees interfered with career officials’ response to the coronavirus crisis at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Kent told members of Congress that she discovered the email already deleted when she attempted to look it up. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that a full transcript of Kent’s remarks to members of Congress “will show that during her testimony Dr. Kent repeatedly said there was no political interference in the MMWR process” — but there’s a difference between successful and attempted political interference, the latter of which is what Kent seems to reveal.
In his original email in question, Alexander angrily ranted, in part, as follows:
‘CDC tried to report as if once kids get together, there will be spread and this will impact school reopening… Very misleading by CDC and shame on them. Their aim is clear… This is designed to hurt this Presidnet [sic] for their reasons which I am not interested in.’
Trump himself has echoed the conspiracy theory that public health officials have been conspiring to make him look bad — which is, of course, a frankly bonkers and disturbingly self-obsessed suggestion. In August, Trump claimed on Twitter that the “deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics,” suggesting in the same tweet that the alleged nefarious activity was meant to “delay the answer” for the pandemic until after the election. Separately, he’s insinuated that companies behind COVID-19 vaccine development work intentionally waited until after the election to release promising information. There’s no legitimate evidence for these claims.
As the pandemic has continued to rage in the United States, Trump has seemed more interested in fighting against the election results than trying to conclusively confront the pandemic.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--Trump’s NYC Hotel Occupancy Rate Plummets To 16%

Uh , oh .
the president ’ s Trump hotel on Central Park West is in big trouble as is much of the travel and hospitality business .
The hotel must be 70 percent full at $ 600 per night to even break even .
Beginning in November , it has been only 16 percent full .
As much as Donald Trump tries to wish away the coronavirus and throw the empty catchphrases , his hotel is simply crashing due to the pandemic .
The Trump luxury hotel ’ s executives were depressed about the hotel ’ s financial health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , they told investors that the hotel ’ s business heads down in direct proportion to the number of cases increasing .
At this point in time , the virus is breaking all of its previous grim records , hitting over 3,000 deaths per day which would be another 123,000 before President-elect Joe Biden takes office .
And that is only if the 3,000 number remains fixed , which is unlikely .
The hotel ’ s general manager ( GM ) Matthew Vandegrift said on a conference call with investors who own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post : The high-end restaurant in the Trump hotel has to abide by New York City ’ s lockdown restrictions .
Chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten said that Trump ’ s company cut his rent by 25 percent .
During the first lockdown , he had to lay off 216 employees .
Now the city will be looking at another lockdown as the number of cases surge again .
The Trump Organization receives its income from hotel management , but it does not own the building .
Long ago , it sold off individual rooms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a profit this year , and will possibly have to invest more money just to keep the hotel running .
An executive showed losses of nine million for the whole hotel broken out by various categories of the rooms .
Next year does not look any better .
The executive indicated they anticipate losing up to 7.5 million dollars .
On the conference call , one investor asked : Douglas Russell chairs the building board .
Donald Trump Jr. is also on the board .
Russell said : The previous one million dollar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020.
” Although Donald Trump handed off his business to his two sons , Don Trump Jr. and Eric .
Most people who know the president do not believe he has been a disinterested bystander .
If he chooses to head his company again , which appears quite likely , then the pandemic will be a substantial worry to him if it is not already .
The business sector that Trump has been counting on maybe lose hundreds more jobs to the pandemic .
It could also mean Trump shuts down his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this point , the Trump hotel executives on the conference call said they had temporarily laid off around 80 employees since the start of the pandemic .
The Mueller Report Adventures : In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page .
These quick , two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people .
Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery .
Interestingly enough , Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order .

Uh, oh. the president’s Trump hotel on Central Park West is in big trouble as is much of the travel and hospitality business. The hotel must be 70 percent full at $600 per night to even break even. Beginning in November, it has been only 16 percent full. As much as Donald Trump tries to wish away the coronavirus and throw the empty catchphrases, his hotel is simply crashing due to the pandemic.
The Trump luxury hotel’s executives were depressed about the hotel’s financial health. After 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, they told investors that the hotel’s business heads down in direct proportion to the number of cases increasing. At this point in time, the virus is breaking all of its previous grim records, hitting over 3,000 deaths per day which would be another 123,000 before President-elect Joe Biden takes office. And that is only if the 3,000 number remains fixed, which is unlikely.
The hotel’s general manager (GM) Matthew Vandegrift said on a conference call with investors who own individual rooms, according to The Washington Post:
‘While we were seeing encouraging signs of growth and recovery, that momentum tempered down towards the end of October, with rising covid cases nationwide. The momentum we were experiencing has slowed as of late November.’
The high-end restaurant in the Trump hotel has to abide by New York City’s lockdown restrictions. Chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten said that Trump’s company cut his rent by 25 percent. During the first lockdown, he had to lay off 216 employees. Now the city will be looking at another lockdown as the number of cases surge again.
Vongerichten said:
‘We have no idea [what to expect].’
The Trump Organization receives its income from hotel management, but it does not own the building. Long ago, it sold off individual rooms to investors. They do not anticipate a profit this year, and will possibly have to invest more money just to keep the hotel running.
An executive showed losses of nine million for the whole hotel broken out by various categories of the rooms. Next year does not look any better. The executive indicated they anticipate losing up to 7.5 million dollars.
On the conference call, one investor asked:
‘Besides the money we unit owners have been losing in 2020, do we still have to wire more money?’
Douglas Russell chairs the building board. Donald Trump Jr. is also on the board. Russell said:
‘You’re certainly going to have to wire more money for 2021.’
The previous one million dollar hotel management fee may fall “substantially in 2020.”
Although Donald Trump handed off his business to his two sons, Don Trump Jr. and Eric. Most people who know the president do not believe he has been a disinterested bystander. If he chooses to head his company again, which appears quite likely, then the pandemic will be a substantial worry to him if it is not already.
The business sector that Trump has been counting on maybe lose hundreds more jobs to the pandemic. It could also mean Trump shuts down his Vancouver, B.C. hotel indefinitely. At this point, the Trump hotel executives on the conference call said they had temporarily laid off around 80 employees since the start of the pandemic.
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--Trump Allies Abandon Lawsuit In Pennsylvania As Presidency Implodes

Republican plaintiffs in Pennsylvania have abandoned a court challenge that they brought against presidential election results in the state .
The plaintiffs — including a group of members of the Pennsylvania state legislature — had sought to compel the decertification of the election results in Pennsylvania , where President-elect Joe Biden decisively won .
In a recent ruling , a Pennsylvania state court dismissed the plaintiffs ’ case on the grounds that they ’ d waited too long to file their challenge in the first place , although it ’ s worth noting that the court might have found issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was eliminated , considering the rapid pace of Republican court losses across the country .
Under Pennsylvania law , the deadline for “ election contests ” in court over the presidential election results in Pennsylvania was November 23 , but the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case in question did not file their lawsuit until December 4 , eleven days later .
The Republican plaintiffs ’ apparent disregard for the basic legal demand for timely legal filings regarding the presidential election results is pretty astounding .
In their new court filing announcing their abandonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against them , the plaintiffs don ’ t include a lengthy explanation .
Instead , there ’ s simply a procedural request to “ kindly mark this action discontinued as to all defendants.
” This week , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — a Republican who ’ s reportedly been under FBI investigation for allegedly using his position for the benefit of a political donor — announced a lawsuit in which he ’ s seeking to invalidate the results in Pennsylvania and three other states where Biden also won .
A full 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s own team subsequently joined the case in support of Paxton ’ s position , but there ’ s no particular indication that the U.S. Supreme Court , which has jurisdiction over interstate disputes , will rule in the GOP ’ s favor .
Legitimate evidence for election fraud hasn ’ t magically materialized in the time between the GOP ’ s previous dozens of court losses and this case .
This week , the so-called “ safe harbor ” deadline in the electoral college process passed , after which certified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law , although GOP legal challenges against the results have continued .
Trump ’ s allies have not come remotely close to changing the election outcome in a single state .

Republican plaintiffs in Pennsylvania have abandoned a court challenge that they brought against presidential election results in the state. The plaintiffs — including a group of members of the Pennsylvania state legislature — had sought to compel the decertification of the election results in Pennsylvania, where President-elect Joe Biden decisively won. In a recent ruling, a Pennsylvania state court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case on the grounds that they’d waited too long to file their challenge in the first place, although it’s worth noting that the court might have found issues with the challenge even if that issue was eliminated, considering the rapid pace of Republican court losses across the country.
🚨NEW: Another one of the meritless lawsuits filed in PA is dismissed. Trump and his allies are 1-55 in post-election litigation.https://t.co/mbkVpU2JdX — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 10, 2020
Under Pennsylvania law, the deadline for “election contests” in court over the presidential election results in Pennsylvania was November 23, but the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case in question did not file their lawsuit until December 4, eleven days later. The Republican plaintiffs’ apparent disregard for the basic legal demand for timely legal filings regarding the presidential election results is pretty astounding. In their new court filing announcing their abandonment of the case after the recent ruling against them, the plaintiffs don’t include a lengthy explanation. Instead, there’s simply a procedural request to “kindly mark this action discontinued as to all defendants.”
This week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — a Republican who’s reportedly been under FBI investigation for allegedly using his position for the benefit of a political donor — announced a lawsuit in which he’s seeking to invalidate the results in Pennsylvania and three other states where Biden also won. A full 17 Republican state Attorney Generals and President Donald Trump’s own team subsequently joined the case in support of Paxton’s position, but there’s no particular indication that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over interstate disputes, will rule in the GOP’s favor. Legitimate evidence for election fraud hasn’t magically materialized in the time between the GOP’s previous dozens of court losses and this case.
This week, the so-called “safe harbor” deadline in the electoral college process passed, after which certified statewide election results are considered final under federal law, although GOP legal challenges against the results have continued. Trump’s allies have not come remotely close to changing the election outcome in a single state.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-10--Jeb Bush Scolds GOP For Following Trump’s SCOTUS Lawsuit

This week , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , who is a Republican , announced a lawsuit in which he was challenging the election results in Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Georgia , all of which , he alleged , unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting ahead of Election Day .
A full 17 Republican state Attorney Generals from across the United States have joined the Texas lawsuit in support of Paxton ’ s position , and President Donald Trump ’ s own team has done the same .
Essentially , the lawsuit seeks the invalidation of the documented will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden clearly won .
On Twitter , Jeb Bush — a former Republican governor of Florida — insisted that there ’ s “ no legal theory ” behind the Texas case .
Bush was responding to comments from Texas Senator John Cornyn ( R ) , who also questioned the foundation for the lawsuit , which Paxton filed with the U.S. Supreme Court because of that court ’ s exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between states .
Bush commented as follows : Originally , as reported by CNN ’ s Manu Raju @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ It ’ s very unusual because when a state sues a state , the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction , so you don ’ t have to go through the ordinary procedure .
I read just the summary of it , and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it .
Number one , why would a state , even such a great state as Texas , have a say so on how other states administer their elections ?
We have a diffused and dispersed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it , they may think it ’ s unfair , those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level .
So it ’ s an interesting theory , but I ’ m not convinced.
’ Texas ’ s other U.S .
Senator , Republican Ted Cruz , has taken the opposite approach .
President Donald Trump has asked Cruz , who is a lawyer , to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court if the court agrees to hear the proceedings , and Cruz has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesperson .
Trump has vocally supported the Texas effort .
On Twitter this Thursday , he insisted that the Supreme Court “ has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States , ” but there ’ s no particular indication that the court is going to go along with his scheme .
In that same Twitter post , Trump claimed that “ 78 % of the people feel ( know ! )
the Election was RIGGED , ” which doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey found that 78 percent of respondents who believed that the election “ wasn ’ t free and fair ” thought “ that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud.
” Respondents who believed that the election wasn ’ t “ free and fair ” included 70 percent of Republicans , not people in general .
Featured Image via Gage Skidmore on Wikimedia Commons , available under a Creative Commons License .
Check out Twitter ’ s response to Bush below :

This week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is a Republican, announced a lawsuit in which he was challenging the election results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, all of which, he alleged, unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting ahead of Election Day. A full 17 Republican state Attorney Generals from across the United States have joined the Texas lawsuit in support of Paxton’s position, and President Donald Trump’s own team has done the same. Essentially, the lawsuit seeks the invalidation of the documented will of the people in four states where Joe Biden clearly won. On Twitter, Jeb Bush — a former Republican governor of Florida — insisted that there’s “no legal theory” behind the Texas case.
Bush was responding to comments from Texas Senator John Cornyn (R), who also questioned the foundation for the lawsuit, which Paxton filed with the U.S. Supreme Court because of that court’s exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between states. Bush commented as follows:
This is crazy. it will be killed on arrival. Why are smart people advancing this notion? Let it go. The election is over. https://t.co/ocvaAYnata — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 11, 2020
‘thank you Senator Cornyn. there is no legal theory and the conservative majority Supreme Court will reject it out of hand.’
thank you Senator Cornyn. there is no legal theory and the conservative majority Supreme Court will reject it out of hand. https://t.co/3UTDsrlWyC — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 10, 2020
Originally, as reported by CNN’s Manu Raju on Twitter, Cornyn commented as follows:
‘It’s very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction, so you don’t have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it’s unfair, those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level. So it’s an interesting theory, but I’m not convinced.’
Texas’s other U.S. Senator, Republican Ted Cruz, has taken the opposite approach. President Donald Trump has asked Cruz, who is a lawyer, to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court if the court agrees to hear the proceedings, and Cruz has agreed to do so, according to a spokesperson.
Donald Trump is openly trying to overturn American democracy, and most of the elected officials who backed his candidacy fall into two camps: those supporting him and those to afraid to speak up for democracy — Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) December 10, 2020
Trump has vocally supported the Texas effort. On Twitter this Thursday, he insisted that the Supreme Court “has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States,” but there’s no particular indication that the court is going to go along with his scheme. In that same Twitter post, Trump claimed that “78% of the people feel (know!) the Election was RIGGED,” which doesn’t appear to be correct. A recent survey found that 78 percent of respondents who believed that the election “wasn’t free and fair” thought “that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud.” Respondents who believed that the election wasn’t “free and fair” included 70 percent of Republicans, not people in general.
The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States. 78% of the people feel (know!) the Election was RIGGED. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2020
Featured Image via Gage Skidmore on Wikimedia Commons, available under a Creative Commons License. Check out Twitter’s response to Bush below:


bipartisanreport--2020-12-12--‘The Lincoln Project’ Goes For Mitch McConnell In Electric New Video

On December 2 , after more than 260,000 American lives had been lost to COVID-19 , with an upsurge in cases promising a long and dark winter with more deaths ahead , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) shed tears on the floor of the Senate .
Those tears weren ’ t for the many Americans who have lost loved ones or the millions of Americans living in poverty because of the virus .
In fact , he hasn ’ t shed a tear about that at all .
McConnell teared up during a farewell speech to Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t appeared to be concerned about the aftermath of the first wave of COVID nor the second that is surging today .
In fact , he ’ s held up a stimulus package meant to rescue Americans facing homelessness and abject poverty because of shuttered businesses and fear of the virus in homes with elderly or ill members .
His biggest stonewall in the debate over a second stimulus bill has been a provision barring Americans from suing their employers if they do not follow CDC guidelines to protect their workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , supports this provision .
When Georgians vote in the special election in January – Republican Kelly Loeffler vs. Democrat Rev .
Raphael Warnock and Republican David Perdue vs. Democrat Jon Ossoff – they are not just voting for those candidates .
They ’ re also voting whether or not to keep Mitch McConnell in his position as senate majority leader and self-proclaimed “ grim reaper ” of policies that help anyone other than the wealthy .
Twitter was in full support of the new ad by The Lincoln Project , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Read some of their comments below :

On December 2, after more than 260,000 American lives had been lost to COVID-19, with an upsurge in cases promising a long and dark winter with more deaths ahead, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shed tears on the floor of the Senate. Those tears weren’t for the many Americans who have lost loved ones or the millions of Americans living in poverty because of the virus. In fact, he hasn’t shed a tear about that at all.
.@senatemajldr Mitch McConnell is crying, but not Georgians. Check out our latest, up now. #gasen pic.twitter.com/8afvtv0v8l — The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) December 11, 2020
McConnell teared up during a farewell speech to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), but hasn’t appeared to be concerned about the aftermath of the first wave of COVID nor the second that is surging today. In fact, he’s held up a stimulus package meant to rescue Americans facing homelessness and abject poverty because of shuttered businesses and fear of the virus in homes with elderly or ill members. His biggest stonewall in the debate over a second stimulus bill has been a provision barring Americans from suing their employers if they do not follow CDC guidelines to protect their workers from getting the virus. Mitch, of course, supports this provision.
When Georgians vote in the special election in January – Republican Kelly Loeffler vs. Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock and Republican David Perdue vs. Democrat Jon Ossoff – they are not just voting for those candidates. They’re also voting whether or not to keep Mitch McConnell in his position as senate majority leader and self-proclaimed “grim reaper” of policies that help anyone other than the wealthy.
Twitter was in full support of the new ad by The Lincoln Project, a group of former Republican political strategists. Read some of their comments below:


bipartisanreport--2020-12-12--Texas GOP Responds To SCOTUS Defeat Like Deranged Psychopaths

On Friday , Donald Trump was still ignoring the nearly 300,000 American lives lost and the citizens left in the wake of the deadliest days in American history and chose instead to advise the Supreme Court on how to rule on his case to overturn the 2020 election and install him as dictator .
He advised them to show wisdom and courage in order to make our electoral process respected again , and for once , he was absolutely right .
The Supreme Court did rule with wisdom and courage , and Donald Trump lost the election yet again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of Texas , brought by the secretary of state there who is currently under investigation by the federal government for taking bribes while in office , saying they had not proven harm to their state caused by swing states whose elections went to Democrat Joe Biden .
To say that Trump ’ s allies and supporters are taking the news badly is the understatement of the year .
As a measure of how deadly serious they are about reinstalling Trump in the White House , the Texas GOP issued a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for democracy .
Trump supporters on Twitter displayed all the stages of grief after news of Trump ’ s SCOTUS loss in the case he insisted was “ the big one ” that would surely overturn Biden ’ s win and overturn the will of more than 80 million Americans .
Some of them were in the anger stage , suddenly deciding that a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority , with three justices appointed by Trump himself , are political operatives working with Democrats to illegally steal the election away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rationalization stage , trying to dismiss the court loss by rationalizing that a group of nine Supreme Court justices doesn ’ t know enough about the U.S. Constitution to make an informed decision on this case .
Of course , there remains a large number of Trump supporters in the denial stage of grief , insisting that there are still ways to overturn the election and keep Trump in the White House .
There isn ’ t .
All 50 states have certified their election results and no other cases are pending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s appeals , it doesn ’ t appear likely that they ’ ll take anymore that come before them seriously , either .
The most frightening Trump supporters , however , are taking the anger stage way too far , promising violence , sedition , and insurrection to reinstall Trump in the White House .
Serious threats to the lives of Supreme Court justices were included , and the worst is likely still to come .
The truth , after all of the controversy , is that Joe Biden won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to protest as long as his witless supporters keep sending him money .
Either way , Biden will be inaugurated on January 20 , 2021 , and Donald Trump ’ s presidency will be the most embarrassing footnote in American history .

On Friday, Donald Trump was still ignoring the nearly 300,000 American lives lost and the citizens left in the wake of the deadliest days in American history and chose instead to advise the Supreme Court on how to rule on his case to overturn the 2020 election and install him as dictator. He advised them to show wisdom and courage in order to make our electoral process respected again, and for once, he was absolutely right. The Supreme Court did rule with wisdom and courage, and Donald Trump lost the election yet again.
The Supreme Court rejected a big by the state of Texas, brought by the secretary of state there who is currently under investigation by the federal government for taking bribes while in office, saying they had not proven harm to their state caused by swing states whose elections went to Democrat Joe Biden.
According to NPR:
‘The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president. The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied “for lack of standing.”‘
To say that Trump’s allies and supporters are taking the news badly is the understatement of the year. As a measure of how deadly serious they are about reinstalling Trump in the White House, the Texas GOP issued a statement suggesting that secession is the best remedy for democracy.
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” pic.twitter.com/4bB3gk88t4 — Adam Kelsey (@adamkelsey) December 12, 2020
Trump supporters on Twitter displayed all the stages of grief after news of Trump’s SCOTUS loss in the case he insisted was “the big one” that would surely overturn Biden’s win and overturn the will of more than 80 million Americans. Some of them were in the anger stage, suddenly deciding that a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump himself, are political operatives working with Democrats to illegally steal the election away from the Republican president.
Others were in the rationalization stage, trying to dismiss the court loss by rationalizing that a group of nine Supreme Court justices doesn’t know enough about the U.S. Constitution to make an informed decision on this case.
Of course, there remains a large number of Trump supporters in the denial stage of grief, insisting that there are still ways to overturn the election and keep Trump in the White House. There isn’t. All 50 states have certified their election results and no other cases are pending in the SCOTUS. After rejecting two of Trump’s appeals, it doesn’t appear likely that they’ll take anymore that come before them seriously, either.
The most frightening Trump supporters, however, are taking the anger stage way too far, promising violence, sedition, and insurrection to reinstall Trump in the White House. Serious threats to the lives of Supreme Court justices were included, and the worst is likely still to come.
The truth, after all of the controversy, is that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump will continue to protest as long as his witless supporters keep sending him money. Either way, Biden will be inaugurated on January 20, 2021, and Donald Trump’s presidency will be the most embarrassing footnote in American history.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Michigan Supreme Court Issues Friday Rejection Of Trump Appeal

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Trump campaign in a case that the president ’ s team brought against the electoral process in the state .
Incredibly , in their original appeal , the campaign asked the court to “ order that designated challengers must be granted meaningful access to observe and review the tabulation and processing of absent voter ballots.
” The Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified the results of the presidential election in the state on November 23 — and the Trump campaign didn ’ t file their appeal with the Michigan Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks later .
Although their appeal covered broader issues as well , why on earth would they include a demand for increased access for observers of the ballot counting process ?
Ballot counting is over !
In an earlier ruling in this same case , a Michigan state court of appeals concluded that the certification of the presidential election results in the state “ clearly rendered plaintiff ’ s claims for relief moot , ” referring to the Trump campaign ’ s demands for action .
That same court observed that current circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its fraud allegations by way of a recount of the ballots cast in Wayne County , ” rather than via the belated court action that the Trump campaign pursued and courts have rejected .
The Michigan state Supreme Court didn ’ t issue as long of an explanation in its own rejection of the case .
That court simply stated that they were “ not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
” The Trump campaign and its allies have fought against the election results elsewhere — and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere .
On Friday , Wisconsin Judge Stephen Simanek rejected a case that the Trump campaign brought against the results in the state , concluding that there is simply “ no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud ” in the election .
“ [ The ] court is satisfied the rules and guidelines applied in each of the disputed areas are reasonable , and a correct interpretation of the underlying early absentee voting laws , ” Simanek added , writing that “ the certification of the results of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milwaukee County recounts , is affirmed.
” The Trump campaign — which promptly rushed to appeal its loss to the Wisconsin Supreme Court — paid for those countywide recounts , which confirmed Biden ’ s win in the state .
The electoral college is slated to meet on Monday , at which time Biden ’ s victory will again get confirmed .
Neither Trump nor his allies have come anywhere close to altering the election outcome .

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Trump campaign in a case that the president’s team brought against the electoral process in the state. Incredibly, in their original appeal, the campaign asked the court to “order that designated challengers must be granted meaningful access to observe and review the tabulation and processing of absent voter ballots.” The Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified the results of the presidential election in the state on November 23 — and the Trump campaign didn’t file their appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court until December 7, about two weeks later. Although their appeal covered broader issues as well, why on earth would they include a demand for increased access for observers of the ballot counting process? Ballot counting is over!
🚨BREAKING: Michigan Supreme Court DENIES Trump Campaign appeal to stop the counting of absentee ballots in Michigan. Trump remains 1-56 in post-election litigation.https://t.co/vnn73iKSxz — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 11, 2020
In an earlier ruling in this same case, a Michigan state court of appeals concluded that the certification of the presidential election results in the state “clearly rendered plaintiff’s claims for relief moot,” referring to the Trump campaign’s demands for action. That same court observed that current circumstances “[required] plaintiff to pursue its fraud allegations by way of a recount of the ballots cast in Wayne County,” rather than via the belated court action that the Trump campaign pursued and courts have rejected. The Michigan state Supreme Court didn’t issue as long of an explanation in its own rejection of the case. That court simply stated that they were “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
The Trump campaign and its allies have fought against the election results elsewhere — and they’ve also faced significant court set-backs elsewhere. On Friday, Wisconsin Judge Stephen Simanek rejected a case that the Trump campaign brought against the results in the state, concluding that there is simply “no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud” in the election. “[The] court is satisfied the rules and guidelines applied in each of the disputed areas are reasonable, and a correct interpretation of the underlying early absentee voting laws,” Simanek added, writing that “the certification of the results of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election, after the Dane County and Milwaukee County recounts, is affirmed.” The Trump campaign — which promptly rushed to appeal its loss to the Wisconsin Supreme Court — paid for those countywide recounts, which confirmed Biden’s win in the state.
The electoral college is slated to meet on Monday, at which time Biden’s victory will again get confirmed. Neither Trump nor his allies have come anywhere close to altering the election outcome.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Trump Tweet Directly To SCOTUS During Friday Afternoon Tantrum

Donald Trump is clearly no longer interested in actually running the country for the next 40 days .
As the death toll from COVID-19 approaches 300,000 dead Americans , Trump is entirely focused , but on all the wrong things .
The number 25 , which Trump says he last heard that the Democrats are planning to expand the Supreme Court to , was 26 earlier in the day .
Somehow , Democrats decided to drop one potential SCOTUS seat on Friday , but no one mentioned it .
In fact , no one has mentioned having 25 justices on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but truth has never stopped Donald Trump from fear-mongering .
The president has also clearly painted himself into a corner .
Many of his supporters in Georgia say they will not vote in the special election in January where Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are running to keep the Senate under GOP control .
They ’ re refusing to vote because Trump has convinced them that their voting system is rigged and that their Republican governor is in on the scam .
So while he endorses Republican candidates , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they may lose because of it .
That , however , is no surprise .
Donald Trump hasn ’ t contested the votes in a single state that he won , nor has he contested any Republican win in the states he insists are rigged .
The election is rigged , he says , except when he wins .
Twitter had a lot to say to the president who ’ s doing our enemies ’ work for them in convincing Americans that democracy is dead .
Read some of their comments below @

Donald Trump is clearly no longer interested in actually running the country for the next 40 days. As the death toll from COVID-19 approaches 300,000 dead Americans, Trump is entirely focused, but on all the wrong things.
The number 25, which Trump says he last heard that the Democrats are planning to expand the Supreme Court to, was 26 earlier in the day. Somehow, Democrats decided to drop one potential SCOTUS seat on Friday, but no one mentioned it. In fact, no one has mentioned having 25 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, either, but truth has never stopped Donald Trump from fear-mongering.
The president has also clearly painted himself into a corner. Many of his supporters in Georgia say they will not vote in the special election in January where Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are running to keep the Senate under GOP control. They’re refusing to vote because Trump has convinced them that their voting system is rigged and that their Republican governor is in on the scam. So while he endorses Republican candidates, he’s undermining faith in democracy so much that they may lose because of it.
That, however, is no surprise. Donald Trump hasn’t contested the votes in a single state that he won, nor has he contested any Republican win in the states he insists are rigged. The election is rigged, he says, except when he wins.
Twitter had a lot to say to the president who’s doing our enemies’ work for them in convincing Americans that democracy is dead. Read some of their comments below:


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--14th Amendment Invoked To Attempt Block Of Seating 120 GOP Traitors

Rep. Bill Pascrell , a New Jersey Democrat , has issued a new public statement in which he calls on House leaders to block the seating of any members of the incoming House delegation who presently support Donald Trump ’ s anti-democratic fight against the election results .
Over 120 House Republicans and counting have signed onto a court filing expressing support for a lawsuit from Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton ( R ) , who is seeking the invalidation of the election outcome in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Georgia , all of which Biden won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate — Republicans have not suddenly come up with legitimate evidence for their case against the election results after dozens of decisive post-election court losses around the country .
‘ Stated simply , men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart can not serve as Members of the Congress .
These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and spirit of the Constitution , which each member swears to support and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these Constitutional violations this Congress and , if possible , refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.
’ Check out Rep. Pascrell ’ s statement in full below : The public announcement of Pascrell ’ s call to block Representatives-elect who presently back Trump ’ s fight against the election results notes that the 14th Amendment blocks individuals from serving in Congress who ’ ve engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amendment ’ s original historical context , the provision originally kept Confederate sympathies out of the federal government in the aftermath of the Civil War , but Pascrell now characterizes the fight against the election outcome as a direct affront against the security of the United States on par with that historical travesty .
“ Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of ” apparent “ rebellion against the United States , ” Pascrell noted .
The Texas lawsuit in question targets election-related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent presidential election .
Texas and its allies allege that these changes are invalid because they went through officials other than members of formal state legislative bodies , but opponents in the lawsuit , including the Attorney Generals of 22 states and territories , insist that the Constitutional demand for legislatures to handle certain election-related policy matters doesn ’ t confine these matters to formal legislative bodies .
Instead , the point is for whoever happens to set formal policy in respective states to handle the issues , they say .

Rep. Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey Democrat, has issued a new public statement in which he calls on House leaders to block the seating of any members of the incoming House delegation who presently support Donald Trump’s anti-democratic fight against the election results. Over 120 House Republicans and counting have signed onto a court filing expressing support for a lawsuit from Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who is seeking the invalidation of the election outcome in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, all of which Biden won. Paxton’s case is not legitimate — Republicans have not suddenly come up with legitimate evidence for their case against the election results after dozens of decisive post-election court losses around the country.
Pascrell commented as follows, addressing House leaders directly:
‘Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress. These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend. Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these Constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.’
Check out Rep. Pascrell’s statement in full below:
Today I’m calling on House leaders to refuse to seat any Members trying to overturn the election and make donald trump an unelected dictator. pic.twitter.com/icTmGKCpuR — Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) December 11, 2020
The public announcement of Pascrell’s call to block Representatives-elect who presently back Trump’s fight against the election results notes that the 14th Amendment blocks individuals from serving in Congress who’ve engaged in insurrection against the United States. Considering the amendment’s original historical context, the provision originally kept Confederate sympathies out of the federal government in the aftermath of the Civil War, but Pascrell now characterizes the fight against the election outcome as a direct affront against the security of the United States on par with that historical travesty. “Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of” apparent “rebellion against the United States,” Pascrell noted.
The text of the 14th Amendment expressly forbids Members of Congress from engaging in rebellion against the United States. Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that. pic.twitter.com/VMnDfd0sFx — Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) December 11, 2020
The Texas lawsuit in question targets election-related policy changes that took effect for the recent presidential election. Texas and its allies allege that these changes are invalid because they went through officials other than members of formal state legislative bodies, but opponents in the lawsuit, including the Attorney Generals of 22 states and territories, insist that the Constitutional demand for legislatures to handle certain election-related policy matters doesn’t confine these matters to formal legislative bodies. Instead, the point is for whoever happens to set formal policy in respective states to handle the issues, they say.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--SCOTUS Challenge To Overturn Election Filed By ‘New Nevada’ & ‘New California’

An attorney claiming to represent the so-called states of “ New Nevada ” and “ New California ” — which , just to be clear , do not actually exist — has filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to join Texas ’ s new lawsuit against the election results .
This attorney , Robert E. Thomas III , speaks in his new filing as though the existence of “ New Nevada ” and “ New California ” are previously established facts — but they ’ re not .
These states do not exist .
Thomas filed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R ) , who is seeking to invalidate the presidential election outcome in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Georgia , all of which Biden won .
Besides the obvious pro-Trump slant of trying to overturn the election outcome in states where Biden won , the “ New Nevada State Movement ” — whose address matches an address on the new court filing in question — has promoted Trump events through its web presence .
In one Facebook post from August , the organization wrote that “ Most New Nevada supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In the actual filing , Thomas insistently misspells the name of California Governor Gavin Newsom ( D ) , who the lawyer refers to as “ Gavin Newsome.
” More broadly , Thomas tries to inject some local concerns into the proceedings , claiming , for instance , that “ Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome ( California ) and Sisolak ( Nevada ) , ” as if this far-right conservative fever dream has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Supreme Court , which has exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between ( actual ) states .
In the original filing from Texas , Paxton insists that the targeted states unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting because the changes went through officials other than members of formal state legislative bodies .
Thomas suggests that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Republican position in the case could force the resolution of a court fight in California , where Newsom has faced challenges over his usage of executive authority in responding to the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s voting system to the pandemic .
Attorney Generals for 22 states and territories and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia have insisted in a response filing that the original Constitutional demand for legislatures to handle certain election-related policy-making doesn ’ t confine this policy development to the formal legislative bodies in respective states .
The point , these Texas opponents say , is to delegate election-related policy-making to whoever happens to set official policy in respective states , whether inside or outside of formal legislative bodies .
The Texas opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its allies would effectively overturn foundational principles of federalism , under which responsibilities are spread out across layers of government .
Texas wants Supreme Court intervention in respective states ’ interpretations of their own laws , and they also want state courts seemingly pushed to the side in the electoral policy-making process , leaving a large amount of power to legislative bodies .
President Donald Trump ’ s own team has also filed to join the Texas lawsuit in favor of Paxton ’ s position .
If you ’ re on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New California and New Nevada are real states , then maybe it ’ s time to rethink your life choices .

An attorney claiming to represent the so-called states of “New Nevada” and “New California” — which, just to be clear, do not actually exist — has filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to join Texas’s new lawsuit against the election results. This attorney, Robert E. Thomas III, speaks in his new filing as though the existence of “New Nevada” and “New California” are previously established facts — but they’re not. These states do not exist. Thomas filed in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who is seeking to invalidate the presidential election outcome in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, all of which Biden won.
Welp, we now have states that don't even *exist* filing amicus briefs in #SCOTUS in Texas's overturn-the-election suit:https://t.co/qWA6TKGtEM I think we've officially jumped the Kraken. pic.twitter.com/L3Ui8xHk9w — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 11, 2020
Besides the obvious pro-Trump slant of trying to overturn the election outcome in states where Biden won, the “New Nevada State Movement” — whose address matches an address on the new court filing in question — has promoted Trump events through its web presence. In one Facebook post from August, the organization wrote that “Most New Nevada supporters also support President Trump’s re-election.”
Two states that don't exist are trying to throw out the votes of people in four states that do. Whatever. https://t.co/B4fFlsAaMs — Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 11, 2020
In the actual filing, Thomas insistently misspells the name of California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who the lawyer refers to as “Gavin Newsome.” More broadly, Thomas tries to inject some local concerns into the proceedings, claiming, for instance, that “Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome (California) and Sisolak (Nevada),” as if this far-right conservative fever dream has any legitimate relevance whatsoever to the case before the Supreme Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between (actual) states.
Next act in the circus, the amicus brief from "New California and New Nevada states," which neither explains who/what the hell they are, but also persistently misspells the name of CA's governor. I expect SCOTUS will end this menagerie today.https://t.co/Vo31AiyxXM — David Becker (@beckerdavidj) December 11, 2020
In the original filing from Texas, Paxton insists that the targeted states unconstitutionally expanded mail-in voting because the changes went through officials other than members of formal state legislative bodies. Thomas suggests that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Republican position in the case could force the resolution of a court fight in California, where Newsom has faced challenges over his usage of executive authority in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and in adapting the state’s voting system to the pandemic.
Attorney Generals for 22 states and territories and the Attorney General for the District of Columbia have insisted in a response filing that the original Constitutional demand for legislatures to handle certain election-related policy-making doesn’t confine this policy development to the formal legislative bodies in respective states. The point, these Texas opponents say, is to delegate election-related policy-making to whoever happens to set official policy in respective states, whether inside or outside of formal legislative bodies. The Texas opponents also observe that the position of Texas and its allies would effectively overturn foundational principles of federalism, under which responsibilities are spread out across layers of government. Texas wants Supreme Court intervention in respective states’ interpretations of their own laws, and they also want state courts seemingly pushed to the side in the electoral policy-making process, leaving a large amount of power to legislative bodies.
President Donald Trump’s own team has also filed to join the Texas lawsuit in favor of Paxton’s position. If you’re on the same side as someone who acts like New California and New Nevada are real states, then maybe it’s time to rethink your life choices.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Newspaper Un-Endorses Republican For Joining Trump’s Clown Coup

Are the 109 Representatives who signed onto the Texas lawsuit afraid of Donald Trump , or do they actually agree with the president ?
Let us get this straight .
The lawsuit calls for overturning the elections in four swing states aka a daylight coup .
Then , 17 Republican state attorney generals piled on , too , as Donald Trump stood at the line with his naughty ( to him ) and nice ( to him ) list .
Over half of the House Republicans called for overthrowing our Democracy .
Without voter freedom , American is no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people , and for the people.
” What are Republicans across the countryside who do believe in our democracy to do ?
There are three possibilities : • Do nothing and fall under a dictatorship like the people of North Korea , Russia , and Turkey .
• Vote these so-called representatives out of office , and/or • Get active in civics and demand that their representatives stay true to the party .
The Orlando Sentinel endorsed one of those 109 representatives , Tim Waltz .
He had the right stuff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ served .
Yet , he willingly signed on to the lawsuit undermining our government .
His choice was simple .
Stay true to his oaths of office and defend our Democracy or be part of overthrowing it .
He chose wrong .
The representatives should have recognized the flaws in the Texas lawsuit : There were those who disagreed with the lawsuit , Trump ’ s Attorney General William Barr said there was nothing to see here folks .
Senators Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) called it a “ PR stunt , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal theory behind the suit .
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush ( R ) tweeted “ This is crazy : ” When the Sentinel interviewed Waltz about the endorsement , it did not think to ask , according to The Forbes magazine : It takes a lot of courage to admit a mistake .
Thank you , Orlando Sentinel for saying : The Mueller Report Adventures : In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page .
These quick , two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people .
Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Interestingly enough , Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order .

Are the 109 Representatives who signed onto the Texas lawsuit afraid of Donald Trump, or do they actually agree with the president? Let us get this straight. The lawsuit calls for overturning the elections in four swing states aka a daylight coup. Then, 17 Republican state attorney generals piled on, too, as Donald Trump stood at the line with his naughty (to him) and nice (to him) list. Over half of the House Republicans called for overthrowing our Democracy.
Without voter freedom, American is no longer a “government of the people by the people, and for the people.” What are Republicans across the countryside who do believe in our democracy to do? There are three possibilities:
Do nothing and fall under a dictatorship like the people of North Korea, Russia, and Turkey.
Vote these so-called representatives out of office, and/or
Get active in civics and demand that their representatives stay true to the party.
The Orlando Sentinel endorsed one of those 109 representatives, Tim Waltz. He had the right stuff. He was an Army Green Beret who served. Yet, he willingly signed on to the lawsuit undermining our government. His choice was simple. Stay true to his oaths of office and defend our Democracy or be part of overthrowing it. He chose wrong.
The Orlando Sentinel editorial board wrote:
‘Every American should be appalled at the attempted usurpation taking place, and at the elected officials taking part in this terrifying fiasco and violating their oath to protect the country from enemies, foreign and domestic.’
The representatives should have recognized the flaws in the Texas lawsuit:
‘[It] is based on allegations of fraud and unconstitutional behavior that have been alleged in dozens of lawsuits since the Nov. 3 election, and dismissed in federal and state courts of law. By one count the Trump legal challenges have one win and 55 losses in court.’
There were those who disagreed with the lawsuit, Trump’s Attorney General William Barr said there was nothing to see here folks. Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) called it a “PR stunt,” and John Cornyn (R-TX) questioned the legal theory behind the suit. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) tweeted “This is crazy:”
‘This is crazy. it will be killed on arrival. Why are smart people advancing this notion? Let it go. The election is over.’
When the Sentinel interviewed Waltz about the endorsement, it did not think to ask, according to The Forbes magazine:
‘Would you support an effort to throw out the votes of tens of millions of Americans in four states in order to overturn a presidential election and hand it to the person who lost, Donald Trump?’
It takes a lot of courage to admit a mistake. Thank you, Orlando Sentinel for saying:
‘We had no idea, had no way of knowing at the time, that Waltz was not committed to democracy. ‘Our bad.’
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.


bipartisanreport--2020-12-11--Wisconsin Court Hands Trump Allies 56th Loss With Friday Dismissal

Wisconsin Judge Stephen Simanek , who the state Supreme Court appointed to handle a challenge from the Trump team , has newly rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit in which the president ’ s team was seeking to overturn the presidential election results in Wisconsin , where Biden won .
Simanek wrote that “ the court is satisfied the rules and guidelines applied in each of the disputed areas are reasonable , and a correct interpretation of the underlying early absentee voting laws , ” and thus , “ the certification of the results of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recounts , is affirmed.
” The Trump campaign itself paid for those Dane and Milwaukee County recounts , which cost about $ 3 million and confirmed Biden ’ s win .
Simanek also concluded that there is “ no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud , ” which , besides reflecting the conclusions of officials as high-ranking as Attorney General Bill Barr , throws cold water on one of the Trump team ’ s fundamental arguments .
The president and his allies have consistently claimed that the presidential election was plagued by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden ’ s victory — but the legitimate evidence for this claim simply isn ’ t there .
Simanek ’ s ruling against Trump emerged shortly after the Wisconsin state Supreme Court rejected a similar Trump campaign challenge to the election results .
A majority of the Justices concluded that the campaign should have started with the circuit court system .
Following that Wisconsin Supreme Court rejection , the Trump legal team filed its challenge with the circuit court system in the state , which culminated in this new failure .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marc Elias , the failure of Trump ’ s circuit court challenge to the Wisconsin election results is the at least 56th post-election court loss for Trump and his allies .
Elias counts a meager one victory — and these numbers don ’ t exactly indicate a well-supported case against the election results , to say the least .
Wisconsin is the subject of another separate court challenge that the state Attorney General of Texas filed with the U.S. Supreme Court , which has exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between states .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slew of Republican-led states have joined that case in support of Texas ’ s position , while 22 state and territory Attorney Generals and the Attorney General for Washington , D.C. , have joined the case in opposition , besides the opposition from the targeted states themselves .
Texas ’ s side of the case alleges that the targeted states unconstitutionally changed their respective election laws because changes went through state courts and officials other than members of formal legislative bodies , but Texas ’ s opponents tore apart this argument in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve explained that there ’ s no legitimate basis for confining substantive election-related policy-making to formal legislative bodies — what substantive role would state courts even have in election-related decision-making , under Texas ’ s theory ?
Courts are supposed to check the other branches of government .

Wisconsin Judge Stephen Simanek, who the state Supreme Court appointed to handle a challenge from the Trump team, has newly rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit in which the president’s team was seeking to overturn the presidential election results in Wisconsin, where Biden won. Simanek wrote that “the court is satisfied the rules and guidelines applied in each of the disputed areas are reasonable, and a correct interpretation of the underlying early absentee voting laws,” and thus, “the certification of the results of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election, after the Dane County and Milwaukee County recounts, is affirmed.” The Trump campaign itself paid for those Dane and Milwaukee County recounts, which cost about $3 million and confirmed Biden’s win.
🚨🚨BREAKING: Wisconsin Court REJECTS Trump appeal of that state's recount. Trump and his allies are now 1-56.https://t.co/YXiMPxxb6w — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 11, 2020
Simanek also concluded that there is “no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud,” which, besides reflecting the conclusions of officials as high-ranking as Attorney General Bill Barr, throws cold water on one of the Trump team’s fundamental arguments. The president and his allies have consistently claimed that the presidential election was plagued by nationwide fraud, which is supposedly responsible for Biden’s victory — but the legitimate evidence for this claim simply isn’t there.
Simanek’s ruling against Trump emerged shortly after the Wisconsin state Supreme Court rejected a similar Trump campaign challenge to the election results. A majority of the Justices concluded that the campaign should have started with the circuit court system. Following that Wisconsin Supreme Court rejection, the Trump legal team filed its challenge with the circuit court system in the state, which culminated in this new failure. According to the tally of voting rights lawyer Marc Elias, the failure of Trump’s circuit court challenge to the Wisconsin election results is the at least 56th post-election court loss for Trump and his allies. Elias counts a meager one victory — and these numbers don’t exactly indicate a well-supported case against the election results, to say the least.
Wisconsin is the subject of another separate court challenge that the state Attorney General of Texas filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over court fights between states. Trump’s own legal team and a slew of Republican-led states have joined that case in support of Texas’s position, while 22 state and territory Attorney Generals and the Attorney General for Washington, D.C., have joined the case in opposition, besides the opposition from the targeted states themselves.
Texas’s side of the case alleges that the targeted states unconstitutionally changed their respective election laws because changes went through state courts and officials other than members of formal legislative bodies, but Texas’s opponents tore apart this argument in a recently filed response. In short, they’ve explained that there’s no legitimate basis for confining substantive election-related policy-making to formal legislative bodies — what substantive role would state courts even have in election-related decision-making, under Texas’s theory? Courts are supposed to check the other branches of government.