hotair--2020-12-03--Gulp: GA runoff poll shows Ossoff up 50/48, Warnock 52/45?

Either SurveyUSA ’ s sampling is way off , or Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are having a big impact on the runoff .
We ’ ll get to the sampling issues — and there are some — in a moment , but the toplines of their poll with Atlanta ’ s 11Alive show both Democrats out in front of the Republican incumbents in Georgia ’ s two Senate runoffs .
One of the two Democrats has a lead outside the margin of error ( arguably ) , and it ’ s not the one you ’ d think : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little more than a month away , a SurveyUSA Poll commissioned exclusively by 11Alive shows that the candidates are in tight , competitive races .
The poll indicates that in the runoff between Perdue and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff , the candidates run effectively even .
The poll shows Ossoff at 50 percent , nominally 2 points ahead of Perdue , at 48 percent .
The slight lead , however , shouldn ’ t be viewed as anything more than validation that every vote will be critical when Georgia starts counting ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the run-up to the Nov. 3 general election , before Perdue secured about 86,000 more votes .
There are some issues with SurveyUSA ’ s sampling , as I mentioned .
We can see that from the published margin of error , which comes in at a rather high 5.2 % .
That essentially renders the Purdue/Ossoff result a dead heat , and arguably does the same with the Warnock/Loeffler race too , depending on how one applies MoE .
We haven ’ t seen many polls for the runoff , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
The sample assumes that Democrats will outperform Republicans in turnout , too .
The sample is comprised of 44 % Democrats , 41 % Republicans , and 11 % independents .
Not only does that contradict turnout in the just-completed election ( 34 % Dems , 38 % GOP , 28 % indies ) , it also flies in the face of Georgia history for runoff elections .
That problem should have been obvious in the control questions of the poll , where both Biden and Ossoff overperform against their actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem to Kyle Kondik this morning : So perhaps this poll isn ’ t giving us a very clear predictive model for the eventual turnout on January 5 .
On the other hand , perhaps it might .
In this poll , 24 % of the people who say they won ’ t vote say that decision is based on the system being rigged or because they ’ re boycotting .
The 5 % who are boycotting are spread evenly in the party demos , but those saying “ rigged ” are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican refuseniks , while only 7 % of Democrats and 10 % of independents who won ’ t vote .
Similarly , 80 % of Democrats have either full or some confidence their votes will count , while only 54 % of Republicans feel that way .
On full confidence , the difference is starker — 52 % of Democrats but only 16 % of Republicans .
That ’ s pretty amazing for a state in which Republicans control the voting process , and GOP policies for voter-ID have been in place for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are talking themselves out of a win in Georgia .
And that might be in more ways than one .
Another poll from Political IQ shows that Georgians prefer Republican control of the Senate — but only barely , at 46/42 , basically itself a dead heat .
One has to wonder whether the meltdown over the 2020 election might be doing a lot more damage to the GOP brand in this red state than people are willing to admit .
This poll shows a slight turnout advantage for Republicans in the runoffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has it at 88 % of Republicans but 92 % among Democrats .
Republicans had better hope Political IQ has the predictive edge , but they might want to shut down Sidney Powell and Lin Wood ASAP to make sure that they can keep whatever advantage they do have now .

Either SurveyUSA’s sampling is way off, or Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are having a big impact on the runoff. We’ll get to the sampling issues — and there are some — in a moment, but the toplines of their poll with Atlanta’s 11Alive show both Democrats out in front of the Republican incumbents in Georgia’s two Senate runoffs. One of the two Democrats has a lead outside the margin of error (arguably), and it’s not the one you’d think:
With the Jan. 5 runoff races just a little more than a month away, a SurveyUSA Poll commissioned exclusively by 11Alive shows that the candidates are in tight, competitive races. The poll indicates that in the runoff between Perdue and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff, the candidates run effectively even. The poll shows Ossoff at 50 percent, nominally 2 points ahead of Perdue, at 48 percent. The slight lead, however, shouldn’t be viewed as anything more than validation that every vote will be critical when Georgia starts counting ballots. Ossoff also led some polls in the run-up to the Nov. 3 general election, before Perdue secured about 86,000 more votes.
There are some issues with SurveyUSA’s sampling, as I mentioned. We can see that from the published margin of error, which comes in at a rather high 5.2%. That essentially renders the Purdue/Ossoff result a dead heat, and arguably does the same with the Warnock/Loeffler race too, depending on how one applies MoE. We haven’t seen many polls for the runoff, but the others had MoEs of less than 4%.
The sample assumes that Democrats will outperform Republicans in turnout, too. The sample is comprised of 44% Democrats, 41% Republicans, and 11% independents. Not only does that contradict turnout in the just-completed election (34% Dems, 38% GOP, 28% indies), it also flies in the face of Georgia history for runoff elections. That problem should have been obvious in the control questions of the poll, where both Biden and Ossoff overperform against their actual results:
Henry Olsen pointed out the problem to Kyle Kondik this morning:
not impossible that the runoff electorate is bluer than the general election electorate — of course the history in Georgia (including the 2018 sec/state runoff) argues the opposite — Kyle Kondik (@kkondik) December 3, 2020
So perhaps this poll isn’t giving us a very clear predictive model for the eventual turnout on January 5. On the other hand, perhaps it might. In this poll, 24% of the people who say they won’t vote say that decision is based on the system being rigged or because they’re boycotting. The 5% who are boycotting are spread evenly in the party demos, but those saying “rigged” are not: they are 20% of the Republican refuseniks, while only 7% of Democrats and 10% of independents who won’t vote. Similarly, 80% of Democrats have either full or some confidence their votes will count, while only 54% of Republicans feel that way. On full confidence, the difference is starker — 52% of Democrats but only 16% of Republicans.
That’s pretty amazing for a state in which Republicans control the voting process, and GOP policies for voter-ID have been in place for a while. It looks like Republicans are talking themselves out of a win in Georgia.
And that might be in more ways than one. Another poll from Political IQ shows that Georgians prefer Republican control of the Senate — but only barely, at 46/42, basically itself a dead heat. One has to wonder whether the meltdown over the 2020 election might be doing a lot more damage to the GOP brand in this red state than people are willing to admit. This poll shows a slight turnout advantage for Republicans in the runoffs, at least for now:
The results suggest that GOP Senate candidates have a slight edge in turnout, at least now. Voters who said they’ll definitely vote split toward the GOP: Forty-nine percent said they want the GOP to control the Senate, while 41 said they want the Democratic Party to take over. Meanwhile, 84 percent of Republicans say they’d definitely vote, compared with 80 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of independents.
SUSA has it at 88% of Republicans but 92% among Democrats. Republicans had better hope Political IQ has the predictive edge, but they might want to shut down Sidney Powell and Lin Wood ASAP to make sure that they can keep whatever advantage they do have now.


hotair--2020-12-03--L.A. Mayor Garcetti issues emergency safer-at-home order for the city, "Cancel everything"

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered the city ’ s four million residents to stay at home on Wednesday night .
Earlier in the day , Garcetti delivered a COVID-19 response update during a press conference .
At that time he told residents “ it ’ s time to hunker down ” and to “ cancel everything ” .
It was his first address to city residents in a week .
Cases of COVID-19 are spiking in the City of Los Angeles , as well as in Los Angeles County .
Garcetti ’ s orders mirror that of L.A.County ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , and it is , but there are plenty of exceptions taken into consideration .
The exceptions include healthcare facilities , grocery stores , and restaurants providing takeout or delivery service .
Beaches , parks , trails , tennis courts , and golf courses will also remain open .
Residents are ordered to stay in their homes , non-essential businesses that require in-person attendance by workers must close , and gatherings of people outside of the resident ’ s household are prohibited .
At the time of his press conference Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alarming spike in cases – daily COVID-19 infections have tripled .
He warned that there were only there 86 ICU beds available in Los Angeles County .
He sounds particularly concerned about the availability of hospital beds .
“ Our hospitalizations have more than tripled and are at a new peak .
And , our deaths have nearly doubled , and they continue to rise , ” Garcetti said .
“ These numbers don ’ t reflect last week ’ s record breaking numbers , they don ’ t reflect yet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with families , when many people were gathering and traveling in defiance of public health warnings.
” He also noted that California has one of the fewest hospital beds per capita in comparison to other states , meaning that if cases continue to rise , hospital space will soon run out .
“ If cases continue on this pathway… the county expects that we will run out of hospital beds here in Los Angeles by Christmastime , ” Garcetti said , adding that the condition of L.A. is “ as dire as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this pandemic.
” We know that the State of California is reporting record numbers of cases at this time .
The governor is considering more drastic measures of a statewide lockdown .
The fear is that the spike will continue and worsen as the “ effect of Thanksgiving ” presents itself .
New cases of the virus in people traveling and gathering with family and friends despite the warnings of public officials against it will likely lead to prolonging the current spike in cases .
So , Garcetti issued an emergency stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applauding a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling issued Wednesday that states L.A. County ’ s health department must present whatever evidence it used to ban outdoor dining .
During the press conference , Garcetti announced that out-of-work restaurant employees would be able to get a one-time $ 800 payment from the Mayor ’ s Fund .
That ’ s not much comfort for those workers who are struggling just to get by as their places of employment continue to close on the whims of elected officials .
How far can a one-time payment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials pick winners and losers , we know that , and often the decisions being made are questionable .
For instance , when orders are issued for late-night shutdowns between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. who exactly does that hit hardest ?
Late shift workers , right ?
But , even then , there are exceptions .
The entertainment industry is being favored with exceptions to abiding by the rules that everyone else is expected to follow .
One particularly bad decision has come back to bite Mayor Garcetti .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down a COVID-19 testing location in order for a film shoot to be accommodated .
What a bone-headed move from the city .
Rules are for the little people , not for the privileged class in the entertainment industry , it would appear .
Even worse , it ’ s being reported that the mayor only intervened to correct the situation because of pressure from people on social media .
If no one bothered to comment on the closing of the testing site for a film shoot , I guess it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervened after a backlash on social media to reports that COVID-19 testing at Union Station had been canceled to accommodate filming for the upcoming remake of “ She ’ s All That.
” On Monday , people who had scheduled a COVID-19 test appointment for Tuesday , Dec. 1 at Union Station were notified via email that the appointments had been canceled due to an “ event.
” The email didn ’ t reveal the nature of the event , but Deadline reported it was “ He ’ s All That , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. film “ She ’ s All That.
” Reps for FilmLA , Miramax , which produces the film , or the office of the Mayor of Los Angeles did not immediately respond to requests for comment from TheWrap .
But according to the Los Angeles Times , both Garcetti ’ s office and FilmLA said they were unaware that the filming would lead to the testing site being temporarily shut down .
On a side note , the film company says they didn ’ t know the testing site would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malarkey .
Filming locations are scouted in advance .
Someone knew what went on in that location .
The mayor deserves all the blowback he received .

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered the city’s four million residents to stay at home on Wednesday night. Earlier in the day, Garcetti delivered a COVID-19 response update during a press conference. At that time he told residents “it’s time to hunker down” and to “cancel everything”. It was his first address to city residents in a week.
Cases of COVID-19 are spiking in the City of Los Angeles, as well as in Los Angeles County. Garcetti’s orders mirror that of L.A.County’s. It sounds like a drastic order, and it is, but there are plenty of exceptions taken into consideration. The exceptions include healthcare facilities, grocery stores, and restaurants providing takeout or delivery service. Beaches, parks, trails, tennis courts, and golf courses will also remain open. Residents are ordered to stay in their homes, non-essential businesses that require in-person attendance by workers must close, and gatherings of people outside of the resident’s household are prohibited.
At the time of his press conference Wednesday, Garcetti said that Los Angeles is experiencing an alarming spike in cases – daily COVID-19 infections have tripled. He warned that there were only there 86 ICU beds available in Los Angeles County. He sounds particularly concerned about the availability of hospital beds.
“Our hospitalizations have more than tripled and are at a new peak. And, our deaths have nearly doubled, and they continue to rise,” Garcetti said. “These numbers don’t reflect last week’s record breaking numbers, they don’t reflect yet the ‘Thanksgiving effect’ of time spent with families, when many people were gathering and traveling in defiance of public health warnings.” He also noted that California has one of the fewest hospital beds per capita in comparison to other states, meaning that if cases continue to rise, hospital space will soon run out. “If cases continue on this pathway… the county expects that we will run out of hospital beds here in Los Angeles by Christmastime,” Garcetti said, adding that the condition of L.A. is “as dire as it was in March in the earliest days of this pandemic.”
We know that the State of California is reporting record numbers of cases at this time. The governor is considering more drastic measures of a statewide lockdown. The fear is that the spike will continue and worsen as the “effect of Thanksgiving” presents itself. New cases of the virus in people traveling and gathering with family and friends despite the warnings of public officials against it will likely lead to prolonging the current spike in cases. So, Garcetti issued an emergency stay-at-home order Wednesday night.
“My message couldn’t be simpler: It’s time to hunker down. It’s time to cancel everything, and if it isn’t essential, don’t do it,” Garcetti said. “Don’t meet up with others outside your household, don’t host a gathering, don’t attend a gathering. And following our targeted safer-at-home order, if you’re able to stay home, stay home.”
Restaurant owners are applauding a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling issued Wednesday that states L.A. County’s health department must present whatever evidence it used to ban outdoor dining. During the press conference, Garcetti announced that out-of-work restaurant employees would be able to get a one-time $800 payment from the Mayor’s Fund. That’s not much comfort for those workers who are struggling just to get by as their places of employment continue to close on the whims of elected officials. How far can a one-time payment of $800 be stretched?
Public officials pick winners and losers, we know that, and often the decisions being made are questionable. For instance, when orders are issued for late-night shutdowns between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. who exactly does that hit hardest? Late shift workers, right? But, even then, there are exceptions. The entertainment industry is being favored with exceptions to abiding by the rules that everyone else is expected to follow. One particularly bad decision has come back to bite Mayor Garcetti. He had to reverse the decision to shut down a COVID-19 testing location in order for a film shoot to be accommodated. What a bone-headed move from the city.
Early Tuesday morning, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti reversed a decision to cancel all COVID-19 testing at Union Station on Tuesday to make room for a film shoot, and said that all 504 scheduled appointments have been restored. “Working with @LAFD, @Curative & @MetroLosAngeles, my team has worked to reopen testing at Union Station on Tuesday. The 504 Angelenos who were scheduled for a test there can visit the kiosk as originally planned or any of the other 14 City sites, where we offer 38K tests daily,” Garcetti said in a statement posted to Twitter.
Since March 20, the City has administered more than 2.5 million free tests. City sites offer free tests to anyone with or without symptoms and results are provided within 24-48 hours. More appointments are available for Angelenos needing a test: https://t.co/rHWABmXUEl. — MayorOfLA (@MayorOfLA) December 1, 2020
Rules are for the little people, not for the privileged class in the entertainment industry, it would appear. Even worse, it’s being reported that the mayor only intervened to correct the situation because of pressure from people on social media. If no one bothered to comment on the closing of the testing site for a film shoot, I guess it would have been allowed to continue.
Garcetti intervened after a backlash on social media to reports that COVID-19 testing at Union Station had been canceled to accommodate filming for the upcoming remake of “She’s All That.” On Monday, people who had scheduled a COVID-19 test appointment for Tuesday, Dec. 1 at Union Station were notified via email that the appointments had been canceled due to an “event.” The email didn’t reveal the nature of the event, but Deadline reported it was“He’s All That,” a remake of the 1999 Freddie Prince Jr. film “She’s All That.” Reps for FilmLA, Miramax, which produces the film, or the office of the Mayor of Los Angeles did not immediately respond to requests for comment from TheWrap. But according to the Los Angeles Times, both Garcetti’s office and FilmLA said they were unaware that the filming would lead to the testing site being temporarily shut down.
On a side note, the film company says they didn’t know the testing site would have to close during filming. That’s malarkey. Filming locations are scouted in advance. Someone knew what went on in that location. The mayor deserves all the blowback he received.


hotair--2020-12-03--Raffensperger: We're investigating voter fraud from GOTV groups -- including Abrams'

How did Brad Raffensperger happen to come across evidence of voter fraud taking place at Stacey Abrams ’ New Georgia Project ?
Simple , the secretary of state announced late yesterday — he opened his mailbox .
Raffensperger told the media that Abrams ’ group tried to register his son in three separate applications — even though he ’ s been dead for two years .
Now Raffensperger wants to find out how many dead people Abrams ’ group has succeeded in registering , and whether other organizations are conducting fraudulent voter registrations as well : The organization was founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran for governor against Brian Kemp .
Raffensperger claims the organization tried to register his son who died in 2018 .
“ Here ’ s something that came to my house yesterday , we got three of them , all from the same organization and it ’ s to my son Brenton J. Raffensperger who passed away two years ago , ” said Raffensperger as he held up mailers sent to his deceased son .
Raffensperger says the postcards encouraging a dead person to vote is proof that third-party voter registration organizations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result he has launched investigations into several nonprofits .
“ We ’ ve had additional information coming in regarding the tactics from these groups including The New Georgia Project sending five voter registrations to the same dead person , and sending applications to [ in ] eligible voters , ” added Raffensperger .
As Fox News reported overnight , Raffensperger ’ s probe goes beyond the New Georgia Project : Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has launched investigations into several groups , including one founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” register “ ineligible , out-of-state , or deceased voters ” before the state ’ s Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections .
… “ I have issued clear warnings several times to groups and individuals working to undermine the integrity of elections in Georgia through false and fraudulent registrations , ” Raffensperger said in a statement Wednesday .
“ The security of Georgia ’ s elections is of the utmost importance.
” Raffensperger said Wednesday that his office has “ received specific evidence that these groups have solicited voter registrations from ineligible individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state.
” “ I will investigate these claims thoroughly and take action against anyone attempting to undermine our elections , ” he vowed .
As seen in the video above , the current CEO of the New Georgia Project accused Raffensperger of attempting to appease Republicans by ordering these investigations .
“ Sending out postcards reminding people to vote , reminding people that there is an election is not nefarious , ” said Nse Ufot , and that is true — as long as all they ’ re doing is reminding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those people register falsely , that then becomes a legal problem if NGP facilitates that kind of fraud .
They could ask ACORN about that , but they had to disband after overdoing their fraud to the point where it got noticed .
One does have to wonder why they are “ reminding ” dead people to vote , too , especially three times .
( One also has to wonder why no one thought to check if sending postcards to anyone named “ Raffensperger ” might become a problem in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” can there be in Georgia , anyway ? )
It opens up some potential for voter fraud — if not on the part of the organization , then on the part of whomever gets those postcards .
And again , if the group ’ s registering people without checking on those issues , then that gets us back to the potential for “ nefarious ” activity .
Ufot is correct , though , that this might help boost Raffensperger ’ s standing among Republican voters in Georgia after getting beaten up constantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly sufficient for the hard-line QAnoners , but at least it ’ s a start — and Raffensperger might benefit from gathering revulsion among MAGA leaders over the meltdown in Georgia around the runoff .
Newt Gingrich even finally threw Sidney Powell and Lin Wood under the bus this morning .
Things might be looking up after all .

How did Brad Raffensperger happen to come across evidence of voter fraud taking place at Stacey Abrams’ New Georgia Project? Simple, the secretary of state announced late yesterday — he opened his mailbox. Raffensperger told the media that Abrams’ group tried to register his son in three separate applications — even though he’s been dead for two years.
Now Raffensperger wants to find out how many dead people Abrams’ group has succeeded in registering, and whether other organizations are conducting fraudulent voter registrations as well:
The organization was founded by Stacey Abrams in 2014 after she ran for governor against Brian Kemp. Raffensperger claims the organization tried to register his son who died in 2018. “Here’s something that came to my house yesterday, we got three of them, all from the same organization and it’s to my son Brenton J. Raffensperger who passed away two years ago,” said Raffensperger as he held up mailers sent to his deceased son. Raffensperger says the postcards encouraging a dead person to vote is proof that third-party voter registration organizations are promoting illegal voting. And, as a result he has launched investigations into several nonprofits. “We’ve had additional information coming in regarding the tactics from these groups including The New Georgia Project sending five voter registrations to the same dead person, and sending applications to [in]eligible voters,” added Raffensperger.
As Fox News reported overnight, Raffensperger’s probe goes beyond the New Georgia Project:
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has launched investigations into several groups, including one founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, for seeking to “aggressively” register “ineligible, out-of-state, or deceased voters” before the state’s Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections. … “I have issued clear warnings several times to groups and individuals working to undermine the integrity of elections in Georgia through false and fraudulent registrations,” Raffensperger said in a statement Wednesday. “The security of Georgia’s elections is of the utmost importance.” Raffensperger said Wednesday that his office has “received specific evidence that these groups have solicited voter registrations from ineligible individuals who have passed away or live out of state.” “I will investigate these claims thoroughly and take action against anyone attempting to undermine our elections,” he vowed.
As seen in the video above, the current CEO of the New Georgia Project accused Raffensperger of attempting to appease Republicans by ordering these investigations. “Sending out postcards reminding people to vote, reminding people that there is an election is not nefarious,” said Nse Ufot, and that is true — as long as all they’re doing is reminding. If they are encouraging people to register and those people register falsely, that then becomes a legal problem if NGP facilitates that kind of fraud. They could ask ACORN about that, but they had to disband after overdoing their fraud to the point where it got noticed.
One does have to wonder why they are “reminding” dead people to vote, too, especially three times. (One also has to wonder why no one thought to check if sending postcards to anyone named “Raffensperger” might become a problem in the first place. How many “Raffenspergers” can there be in Georgia, anyway?) It opens up some potential for voter fraud — if not on the part of the organization, then on the part of whomever gets those postcards. And again, if the group’s registering people without checking on those issues, then that gets us back to the potential for “nefarious” activity.
Ufot is correct, though, that this might help boost Raffensperger’s standing among Republican voters in Georgia after getting beaten up constantly by Donald Trump. It’s hardly sufficient for the hard-line QAnoners, but at least it’s a start — and Raffensperger might benefit from gathering revulsion among MAGA leaders over the meltdown in Georgia around the runoff. Newt Gingrich even finally threw Sidney Powell and Lin Wood under the bus this morning. Things might be looking up after all.


hotair--2020-12-04--Alito responds to PA appeal -- but there's just one catch

The good news for Rep. Mike Kelly , Sean Parnell , et al : Justice Samuel Alito has decided to review their appeal of the Pennsylvania state supreme court decision .
That ruling tossed out their attempt to challenge Act 77 ’ s mass mail-in balloting as in direct contradiction to the state constitution .
Relying on the doctrine of laches , the court arguably set up an impossible catch-22 in attempting to deal with an arguably unconstitutional law ( via The Right Scoop ) : Fresh off another rejection in Pennsylvania ’ s courts , Republicans on Thursday again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory in the battleground state , while the state ’ s lawyers say fatal flaws in the original case mean justices are highly unlikely to grant it .
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the high court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the Nov. 3 election , and undo any certifications already made , such as Biden ’ s victory , while its lawsuit is considered .
Why six days out ?
Why not just demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date ?
Via Right Scoop again , Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie points out that this is an eternity in such a case coming before SCOTUS : That ’ s not entirely true .
The challenge won ’ t be moot at all , at least not on the core issue of Act 77 .
It ’ s the remedies that would be mooted by pushing this past the Safe Harbor date .
Kelly , Parnell et al want to invalidate half or all of the votes in the election and have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College .
That ’ s already functionally moot anyway , as the Republican legislature leaders have announced they are adjourned and won ’ t come back before January .
Plus — as the state supreme court explained in its dismissal — the Federal Elections Act doesn ’ t allow for legislatures to act in that manner after an election .
So why hear the case at all ?
Alito didn ’ t explain himself in the case , but it appears that he believes — as I did — that laches arguably applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to the issue of unconstitutionality .
Remember that two of the seven justices on the state supreme court dissented on this point and wanted the complaint sent back to the commonwealth ( appellate ) court for consideration with the remedies precluded , on which the justices were unanimous .
Ted Cruz ’ Twitter amicus brief seemed calculated the same way — addressing the core issue while ignoring the call to throw out the election .
Not everyone sees this as a pressing question , of course : If you separate the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the case does raise an important question .
How can courts refuse to address the constitutionality of a law based on ( a ) a curious ‘ challenge period ’ set up by the legislature and ( b ) a definition of standing that creates a catch-22 by not recognizing it before the exercise of a law but then applying laches after it ?
There has to be a way to allow for challenging unconstitutional laws in the courts .
Jonathan Adler said yesterday that this may not be as compelling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe that ’ s what Alito will find , too .
He might also decide that this isn ’ t a federal issue and tell the plaintiffs to have the legislature deal with Act 77 .
Even if he could find a federal-constitutional issue in this case that would justify a referral to the full court , it won ’ t impact this election if he does , at least not on this rather relaxed schedule .
This is where we get to see whether this is a principled stand or just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s behalf .
If the plaintiffs are interested in curing the conflict between Act 77 and the state constitution , they have an opportunity to see this all the way through .
If all they care about is throwing out this particular election ’ s results , we ’ ll know that soon enough if they drop the case .
Personally , I ’ d hope they see it through , as their core complaint is a worthy question … while their proposed remedies left a great deal to be desired .

The good news for Rep. Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, et al: Justice Samuel Alito has decided to review their appeal of the Pennsylvania state supreme court decision. That ruling tossed out their attempt to challenge Act 77’s mass mail-in balloting as in direct contradiction to the state constitution. Relying on the doctrine of laches, the court arguably set up an impossible catch-22 in attempting to deal with an arguably unconstitutional law (via The Right Scoop):
Fresh off another rejection in Pennsylvania’s courts, Republicans on Thursday again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state, while the state’s lawyers say fatal flaws in the original case mean justices are highly unlikely to grant it. Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the high court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the Nov. 3 election, and undo any certifications already made, such as Biden’s victory, while its lawsuit is considered.
There’s, er, just one catch:
However, in a sign that the case is likely too late to affect the election, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the state’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 9, a day after what is known as the safe harbor deadline. That means that Congress cannot challenge any electors named by this date in accordance with state law.
Why six days out? Why not just demand the state respond before the Safe Harbor date? Via Right Scoop again, Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie points out that this is an eternity in such a case coming before SCOTUS:
Six days from now is an eternity on the electoral clock: Safe-harbor deadline (by which states must confirm results to make them “conclusive”) is Dec. 8, electoral college votes on Dec. 14. By the time Kelly files final brief on Dec. 10 or so, the challenge will be moot. — Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) December 4, 2020
That’s not entirely true. The challenge won’t be moot at all, at least not on the core issue of Act 77. It’s the remedies that would be mooted by pushing this past the Safe Harbor date. Kelly, Parnell et al want to invalidate half or all of the votes in the election and have the legislature appoint electors directly to the Electoral College. That’s already functionally moot anyway, as the Republican legislature leaders have announced they are adjourned and won’t come back before January. Plus — as the state supreme court explained in its dismissal — the Federal Elections Act doesn’t allow for legislatures to act in that manner after an election.
So why hear the case at all? Alito didn’t explain himself in the case, but it appears that he believes — as I did — that laches arguably applies only to the remedies demanded, but not to the issue of unconstitutionality. Remember that two of the seven justices on the state supreme court dissented on this point and wanted the complaint sent back to the commonwealth (appellate) court for consideration with the remedies precluded, on which the justices were unanimous. Ted Cruz’ Twitter amicus brief seemed calculated the same way — addressing the core issue while ignoring the call to throw out the election.
Not everyone sees this as a pressing question, of course:
Election experts have called the lawsuit, which seeks to throw out all mail-in ballots in the state in the 2020 election, ridiculous. They panned the chances that the Supreme Court would agree to hear it. Election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote about it with this title: “Perhaps the Dumbest Argument Ever Made in Emergency Petition to the Supreme Court Appears in Pennsylvania Election Case.”
If you separate the issue presented from the remedies demanded, though, the case does raise an important question. How can courts refuse to address the constitutionality of a law based on (a) a curious ‘challenge period’ set up by the legislature and (b) a definition of standing that creates a catch-22 by not recognizing it before the exercise of a law but then applying laches after it? There has to be a way to allow for challenging unconstitutional laws in the courts.
Jonathan Adler said yesterday that this may not be as compelling a question as one would think:
Sounds rather ridiculous to me. (We actually see parallel kssue in admin law all the time, and the solution is to file the early suit, lose, and then fact of prior suit overcomes laches/waiver claim). — Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) December 2, 2020
And maybe that’s what Alito will find, too. He might also decide that this isn’t a federal issue and tell the plaintiffs to have the legislature deal with Act 77. Even if he could find a federal-constitutional issue in this case that would justify a referral to the full court, it won’t impact this election if he does, at least not on this rather relaxed schedule.
This is where we get to see whether this is a principled stand or just a desperate Hail Mary on Donald Trump’s behalf. If the plaintiffs are interested in curing the conflict between Act 77 and the state constitution, they have an opportunity to see this all the way through. If all they care about is throwing out this particular election’s results, we’ll know that soon enough if they drop the case. Personally, I’d hope they see it through, as their core complaint is a worthy question … while their proposed remedies left a great deal to be desired.
Update: More from Adler this morning:
Kelly suit says legislature cant depart from state constitutional constraints. Yesterday, Prof Eastman told GA legislators the opposite in urging new slate of electors. 2/2 — Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) December 4, 2020
Lawyers being inconsistent in different courts is not exactly a new phenomenon. They’re playing to win in court, not on TV … well, most of them, anyway. It’s a good point, though, especially given the desperation of the case in Georgia at the moment.


hotair--2020-12-04--Lopez Obrador welcomes "our migrant countrymen" home for holidays despite U.S. - Mexico travel ban

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ( AMLO ) wants Mexican nationals living in the United States and Canada to know that they will be welcomed back into Mexico for the holidays , despite a travel ban in effect at the U.S.- Mexican border .
Mexico ’ s Programa Paisano is up and running .
It is expected that 500,000 Mexican nationals will return home during the holidays .
The U.S.- Mexican border is closed to all but essential traffic on both sides of the border until at least December 21 to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement between the United States and Mexico .
Programa Paisano is a year-round program with the mission of facilitating the travel of Mexican nationals permanently living in the U.S. and Canada while they visit Mexico .
The program has special campaigns in the summer and the winter , the two busiest times of the year for Mexican nationals to travel home .
One government official says that since it ’ s going to be impossible to deny Mexican nationals entry into the country , the Mexican government will just have to do what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices at the border .
But officials with the National Immigration Institute ( INM ) say it would be impossible to stop Mexicans coming home to see family during the holidays .
“ You can ’ t prohibit a Mexican from exercising his right to return to his home country , ” said commissioner Francisco Garduño , adding that the institute will be taking all necessary health safety measures at the border .
Last month , Mexico surpassed 1 million Covid-19 cases .
Virtually every state in the country is at least at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ map .
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs , though , disagrees with freely allowing the visitors during the holiday travel season .
He says travel across the border should be restricted during the pandemic .
But , he , too , sounds resolute that there is little that can be done to stop the flow of visitors back into Mexico .
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently called for “ prudence ” and encouraged Mexicans to avoid border crossings between Mexico and the U.S. for reasons of recreation , tourism , or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these months , ” but the tone seemed far from authoritative .
“ We know that despite the recommendation , they are going to cross the border , so we have to be ready to attend to the needs of migrants who may come to visit their families , ” said Luis Gutiérrez , head of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad , a federal agency .
The travel across the border into the United States is more closely monitored than travel across the border into Mexico .
In recent months , both citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for stricter monitoring of the border , to enforce the travel ban .
The implementation of Programa Paisano indicates that nothing will change .
When the launch of the winter program happened this week in Tijuana , AMLO was featured in an upbeat video where he highlighted the contributions from Mexican nationals – he calls them migrants – and you probably won ’ t be surprised to learn that all of this warm welcome home is about money .
As of October 31 , Mexican nationals had sent $ 30B U.S. back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mostly in the United States have sent home billions of dollars during the pandemic and this has helped the Mexican economy .
AMLO intends to reward them as heroes .
“ We are going to protect you and care for you because you are Mexicans , you are coming to your country , because you help us ; and in these times , more than ever , you are supporting us .
You deserve the best of treatment , to be received like heroes — our migrant countrymen , ” said López @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials hold migrant countrymen in the highest regard .
Their sacrifices made in order to send money home warrants ignoring travel ban agreements with the United States , apparently .
Gian María Milesi-Ferretti , a deputy director at the International Monetary Fund , described the record remittances as a “ ray of sunshine ” amid the pandemic gloom .
He said that it showed that migrants always do their best to send money back to their loved ones no matter the circumstances they face .
“ Migrants always make a significant effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going through difficult episodes .
… People sacrifice a lot to keep sending money , ” Milesi-Ferretti said .
No word yet on how the Mexican nationals will get back to their homes in the United States after their holiday visits in Mexico .
Going the other way at the border – crossing back into the United States – requires more mitigation measures than those in place by the Mexican government , as we now know .
They will likely have to prove they have tested negative for the coronavirus and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before being allowed entrance into the United States .

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) wants Mexican nationals living in the United States and Canada to know that they will be welcomed back into Mexico for the holidays, despite a travel ban in effect at the U.S.- Mexican border. Mexico’s Programa Paisano is up and running. It is expected that 500,000 Mexican nationals will return home during the holidays.
The U.S.- Mexican border is closed to all but essential traffic on both sides of the border until at least December 21 to slow the spread of the coronavirus. At least that is supposed to be the agreement between the United States and Mexico. Programa Paisano is a year-round program with the mission of facilitating the travel of Mexican nationals permanently living in the U.S. and Canada while they visit Mexico. The program has special campaigns in the summer and the winter, the two busiest times of the year for Mexican nationals to travel home. One government official says that since it’s going to be impossible to deny Mexican nationals entry into the country, the Mexican government will just have to do what it can in terms of health safety practices at the border.
But officials with the National Immigration Institute (INM) say it would be impossible to stop Mexicans coming home to see family during the holidays. “You can’t prohibit a Mexican from exercising his right to return to his home country,” said commissioner Francisco Garduño, adding that the institute will be taking all necessary health safety measures at the border. Last month, Mexico surpassed 1 million Covid-19 cases. Virtually every state in the country is at least at yellow status on the national coronavirus stoplight map.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, though, disagrees with freely allowing the visitors during the holiday travel season. He says travel across the border should be restricted during the pandemic. But, he, too, sounds resolute that there is little that can be done to stop the flow of visitors back into Mexico.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently called for “prudence” and encouraged Mexicans to avoid border crossings between Mexico and the U.S. for reasons of recreation, tourism, or “the celebrations that traditionally take place in these months,” but the tone seemed far from authoritative. “We know that despite the recommendation, they are going to cross the border, so we have to be ready to attend to the needs of migrants who may come to visit their families,” said Luis Gutiérrez, head of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, a federal agency.
The travel across the border into the United States is more closely monitored than travel across the border into Mexico. In recent months, both citizens and lawmakers in border states have called for stricter monitoring of the border, to enforce the travel ban. The implementation of Programa Paisano indicates that nothing will change. When the launch of the winter program happened this week in Tijuana, AMLO was featured in an upbeat video where he highlighted the contributions from Mexican nationals – he calls them migrants – and you probably won’t be surprised to learn that all of this warm welcome home is about money. As of October 31, Mexican nationals had sent $30B U.S. back to Mexico. Mexicans living outside the country, mostly in the United States have sent home billions of dollars during the pandemic and this has helped the Mexican economy. AMLO intends to reward them as heroes.
“We are going to protect you and care for you because you are Mexicans, you are coming to your country, because you help us; and in these times, more than ever, you are supporting us. You deserve the best of treatment, to be received like heroes — our migrant countrymen,” said López Obrador in the video.
Mexican government officials hold migrant countrymen in the highest regard. Their sacrifices made in order to send money home warrants ignoring travel ban agreements with the United States, apparently.
Gian María Milesi-Ferretti, a deputy director at the International Monetary Fund, described the record remittances as a “ray of sunshine” amid the pandemic gloom. He said that it showed that migrants always do their best to send money back to their loved ones no matter the circumstances they face. “Migrants always make a significant effort to help their countries of origin when they are going through difficult episodes. … People sacrifice a lot to keep sending money,” Milesi-Ferretti said.
No word yet on how the Mexican nationals will get back to their homes in the United States after their holiday visits in Mexico. Going the other way at the border – crossing back into the United States – requires more mitigation measures than those in place by the Mexican government, as we now know. They will likely have to prove they have tested negative for the coronavirus and may have to quarantine for about 14 days before being allowed entrance into the United States.


hotair--2020-12-04--Joe Biden pulled his dog's tail and that's when he broke his foot

Joe and Jill Biden adopted a dog named Major , a German Shepherd , from a Delaware dog shelter .
Major is a rescue dog who will become the first rescue dog to live in the White House .
It ’ s another of Team Biden ’ s historic firsts to boast about as though it is quite an accomplishment .
That ’ s a nice story .
Biden campaigned on bringing dogs back to the White House during his administration , you know .
Apparently , this is a top priority for Joe .
There was a whole Dogs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential campaign .
I don ’ t blame him , I like dogs .
That ’ s the point – bringing back dogs to the White House appeals to Americans .
We love our pets and treat them like our children .
I do have a bone to pick with Biden , though .
Why is he now throwing Major under the bus and blaming him for breaking his foot ?
Joe Biden is a frail 78-year-old man .
German Shepherds are big dogs .
This was bound to happen .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fractures in his foot was first reported , the story was that Biden was playing with his dog and sprained his ankle .
For whatever reason , the president-elect didn ’ t go to have his ankle looked at by a doctor for about 24 hours .
When Biden did seek medical attention , tests were run and it was determined that he fractured some bones in his foot .
CNN was busy swooning over the quickness and transparency of the story coming from the president-elect , comparing it to when Trump visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago without explaining the trip to the press .
Biden , too , went to Walter Reed to have an orthopedist check out his ankle .
On Sunday , three days after Thanksgiving this year , President-elect Joe Biden slipped and hurt his foot while playing with his dog , Major .
We were quickly told — via the traveling press pool — that Biden was going to see his orthopedist out of an abundance of caution .
Within two hours , there was a statement from Dr. Kevin O ’ Connor noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ X-rayed and it appeared as though he had a sprain .
A CT scan was going to be conducted just to confirm the diagnosis , however .
Then , 90 minutes after that , came this , again from O ’ Connor : “ Initial x-rays did not show any obvious fracture , but his clinical exam warranted more detailed imaging .
Follow-up CT scan confirmed hairline ( small ) fractures of President-elect Biden ’ s lateral and intermediate cuneiform bones , which are in the mid-foot .
It is anticipated that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several weeks.
” That ’ s a nice story but it is a revised chain of events .
Biden hurt himself but didn ’ t seek immediate medical attention .
I would assume he , like most of us , delays having a twisted ankle checked out unless it gets worse afterward .
I also assume the pain of the injury and probably swelling of the ankle indicated he needed to go have it checked .
So he went to the hospital .
At the time it was reported that only a limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along and record the event .
When Biden re-emerged from the hospital , photographers were scrambling to get a shot of him limping out and into his awaiting vehicle .
He ’ ll be wearing a boot for several weeks .
CNN ’ s editor-at-large took a shot at Trump while reporting on Biden ’ s injury , too .
It ’ s CNN – they can ’ t help themselves .
What CNN didn ’ t report is that though reporters asked to see Biden enter the doctor ’ s office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably wanted to see what kind of shape the old guy was in .
There was no criticism from the White House press that Team Biden denied them access .
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall says the media should settle down when it comes to praising Biden for transparency in a case like this .
It ’ s a foot injury .
And , a dog is involved .
“ The traditional media should not be giving the Biden camp so much praise for transparency regarding an injured foot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with a foot injury while also mentioning a family pet .
Plenty of good optics here , ” McCall told Fox News .
“ More than sitting back to take detailed medical reports from the Biden team about hairline fractures in a foot , perhaps the press should explore more about why the Biden campaign put a lid on so many days during the campaign , or even inquire more about the circumstances under which the former vice president was in a position to get hurt by his dog , ” McCall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media will look for every opportunity to compare transparency of the Biden camp to the Trump administration , but doing so on the basis of a foot injury and a walking boot is quite the waste of time.
” Or , how transparent will Team Biden be if Joe sufferers another brain aneurism or more mini-strokes as his medical history indicates ?
It will be a lot different than the foot story .
Still , even the foot story has shifted from its first telling .
I invite you to read this latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden himself to CNN ’ s Jake Tapper .
“ What happened was I got out of the shower .
I got a dog and anybody who ’ s been around my house knows — dropped , little pup dropped a ball in front of me .
And for me to grab the ball , ” Biden told CNN journalist Jake Tapper in his first post-election joint interview with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris .
“ And I ’ m walking through this little alleyway to get to the bedroom .
And I grabbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I ’ m joking , running after him and grab his tail .
And what happened was that he slid on a throw rug .
And I tripped on the rug he slid on .
That ’ s what happened .
Oh man , not a very exciting story.
” First of all , dear Lord , this man can ’ t even string together complete sentences .
Second , he calls Major “ a pup ” .
Third , he went from being in the shower to running down a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Does he mean to say a hallway ?
And , last , why is a 78-year-old man grabbing a rambunctious German Shepherd ’ s tail ?
Holy mackerel .
This is a picture of Major , Champ , and Jill Biden .
Major is the black dog .
Does Major look like a “ pup ” to you ?
It sure looks like he ’ s a full-grown German Shepherd .
Maybe it ’ s just slang that Sleepy Joe uses when describing dogs .
Biden went from just slipping while playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and running through the house scene .
No one needs that image .
I ’ m glad that Major has a home and Champ has a companion but let ’ s hope Biden learns to stop pulling Major ’ s tail and remember his bones are fragile .
Jill ’ s going to have to put him back in the basement .

Joe and Jill Biden adopted a dog named Major, a German Shepherd, from a Delaware dog shelter. Major is a rescue dog who will become the first rescue dog to live in the White House. It’s another of Team Biden’s historic firsts to boast about as though it is quite an accomplishment.
That’s a nice story. Biden campaigned on bringing dogs back to the White House during his administration, you know. Apparently, this is a top priority for Joe. There was a whole Dogs for Biden campaign happening on Instagram during the presidential campaign. I don’t blame him, I like dogs. That’s the point – bringing back dogs to the White House appeals to Americans. We love our pets and treat them like our children. I do have a bone to pick with Biden, though. Why is he now throwing Major under the bus and blaming him for breaking his foot?
Let’s put dogs back in the White House. pic.twitter.com/7pBihksfXT — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 1, 2020
Joe Biden is a frail 78-year-old man. German Shepherds are big dogs. This was bound to happen. When the story of Biden’s bone fractures in his foot was first reported, the story was that Biden was playing with his dog and sprained his ankle. For whatever reason, the president-elect didn’t go to have his ankle looked at by a doctor for about 24 hours. When Biden did seek medical attention, tests were run and it was determined that he fractured some bones in his foot. CNN was busy swooning over the quickness and transparency of the story coming from the president-elect, comparing it to when Trump visited Walter Reed Medical Center a few months ago without explaining the trip to the press. Biden, too, went to Walter Reed to have an orthopedist check out his ankle.
On Sunday, three days after Thanksgiving this year, President-elect Joe Biden slipped and hurt his foot while playing with his dog, Major. We were quickly told — via the traveling press pool — that Biden was going to see his orthopedist out of an abundance of caution. Within two hours, there was a statement from Dr. Kevin O’Connor noting that Biden’s foot had been X-rayed and it appeared as though he had a sprain. A CT scan was going to be conducted just to confirm the diagnosis, however. Then, 90 minutes after that, came this, again from O’Connor: “Initial x-rays did not show any obvious fracture, but his clinical exam warranted more detailed imaging. Follow-up CT scan confirmed hairline (small) fractures of President-elect Biden’s lateral and intermediate cuneiform bones, which are in the mid-foot. It is anticipated that he will likely require a walking boot for several weeks.”
That’s a nice story but it is a revised chain of events. Biden hurt himself but didn’t seek immediate medical attention. I would assume he, like most of us, delays having a twisted ankle checked out unless it gets worse afterward. I also assume the pain of the injury and probably swelling of the ankle indicated he needed to go have it checked. So he went to the hospital. At the time it was reported that only a limited amount of reporters were allowed to tag along and record the event. When Biden re-emerged from the hospital, photographers were scrambling to get a shot of him limping out and into his awaiting vehicle. He’ll be wearing a boot for several weeks.
CNN’s editor-at-large took a shot at Trump while reporting on Biden’s injury, too. It’s CNN – they can’t help themselves.
“The transparency coming from Biden’s transition team about hairline fractures in the President-elect’s foot suggests that the effort by the Trump White House to actively obfuscate when asked basic questions about the President’s health is over,” CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza wrote.
What CNN didn’t report is that though reporters asked to see Biden enter the doctor’s office, they were denied that request. They probably wanted to see what kind of shape the old guy was in. There was no criticism from the White House press that Team Biden denied them access. DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall says the media should settle down when it comes to praising Biden for transparency in a case like this. It’s a foot injury. And, a dog is involved.
“The traditional media should not be giving the Biden camp so much praise for transparency regarding an injured foot. It is easy to manage transparency when dealing with a foot injury while also mentioning a family pet. Plenty of good optics here,” McCall told Fox News. “More than sitting back to take detailed medical reports from the Biden team about hairline fractures in a foot, perhaps the press should explore more about why the Biden campaign put a lid on so many days during the campaign, or even inquire more about the circumstances under which the former vice president was in a position to get hurt by his dog,” McCall added. “Of course, the media will look for every opportunity to compare transparency of the Biden camp to the Trump administration, but doing so on the basis of a foot injury and a walking boot is quite the waste of time.”
Or, how transparent will Team Biden be if Joe sufferers another brain aneurism or more mini-strokes as his medical history indicates? It will be a lot different than the foot story. Still, even the foot story has shifted from its first telling. I invite you to read this latest account of the accident, told by Biden himself to CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“What happened was I got out of the shower. I got a dog and anybody who’s been around my house knows — dropped, little pup dropped a ball in front of me. And for me to grab the ball,” Biden told CNN journalist Jake Tapper in his first post-election joint interview with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “And I’m walking through this little alleyway to get to the bedroom. And I grabbed the ball like this and he ran. And I’m joking, running after him and grab his tail. And what happened was that he slid on a throw rug. And I tripped on the rug he slid on. That’s what happened. Oh man, not a very exciting story.”
First of all, dear Lord, this man can’t even string together complete sentences. Second, he calls Major “a pup”. Third, he went from being in the shower to running down a “little alleyway” to his bedroom. Does he mean to say a hallway? And, last, why is a 78-year-old man grabbing a rambunctious German Shepherd’s tail? Holy mackerel.
This is a picture of Major, Champ, and Jill Biden. Major is the black dog. Does Major look like a “pup” to you? It sure looks like he’s a full-grown German Shepherd. Maybe it’s just slang that Sleepy Joe uses when describing dogs.
Room Rater furry room. Major and Champ have a lovely room but they need to pack. 10/10 @DrBiden pic.twitter.com/NKUjAGE4ev — Room Rater (@ratemyskyperoom) November 6, 2020
This is Major and Champ. They are the dogs of @JoeBiden and @DrBiden. Champ has already been to the White House, but Major hasn’t yet. Champ can’t wait to show him around. Both 14/10 would be an honor to pet pic.twitter.com/Zwqmx7X6FB — WeRateDogs® (@dog_rates) November 7, 2020
Biden went from just slipping while playing with the dog to a whole shower and running through the house scene. No one needs that image. I’m glad that Major has a home and Champ has a companion but let’s hope Biden learns to stop pulling Major’s tail and remember his bones are fragile. Jill’s going to have to put him back in the basement.


hotair--2020-12-04--Benjamin Wittes: Barr's appointment of Durham was 'devilishly clever'

As you ’ re probably aware Benjamin Wittes has been one of the louder anti-Trump voices in the country over the past few years .
He spent a lot of time ( with his toy cannon ) promoting the Russia collusion story .
In 2018 he advocated “ mindlessly and mechanically ” voting against GOP nominees in order to save the GOP from itself .
Today , Lawfare published a piece in which Wittes examines AG Barr ’ s appointment of John Durham as special counsel .
Titled “ How do you solve a problem like John Durham ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s appointment and what the Biden administration might to do to undo it .
In the process of examining the appointment , Wittes concedes that Barr ’ s move was done in such a way that it will be very difficult for the incoming AG to do anything about it .
Before moving on to why , Wittes notes that he actually doesn ’ t fault Barr for appointing Durham in secret , since the obvious alternative would have been to make the appointment public just before the election .
He thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nevertheless , he sees the appointment as a way to prevent the incoming Biden administration from sweeping Durham aside : Barr ’ s appointment also gave Durham wide latitude in what he can investigate : Essentially anything connected to the Russian investigation .
And he required that at the end of his investigation Durham produce a report : In theory , Biden ’ s AG could choose not to release this report but of course that would only raise questions about why .
So by mandating the writing of a report Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome will become public .
Clever .
Additionally , Barr ’ s appointment of Durham closely mirrors the appointment of Mueller .
Here Wittes relies on a piece by Josh Blackman : Barr and Rosenstein , respectively , appointed Durham and Mueller pursuant to the same three statutes : 28 U.S.C § 509 , § 510 , and § 515 .
The first statute vests broad supervisory powers in the attorney general , while the second statute authorizes the attorney general to delegate his powers to subordinates .
The third statute is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 515 empowers the attorney general to authorize a “ special assistant ” —though not a “ special counsel ” —to conduct “ any kind of legal proceeding , civil or criminal , including grand jury proceedings.
” Both the Durham and Mueller appointments contain the same , critical sentence : “ If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate , the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
” This provision will allow Durham to bring federal prosecutions during the Biden presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail is that it will be very difficult for a future AG to undo the appointment : This careful tracking of the Mueller appointment seems designed to make it awkward for a Democratic attorney general to come in and remove Durham or curtail his investigation .
After all , Democrats , and many Republicans too , drew a firm line in insisting that Mueller not be fired and be allowed to complete his work .
They also took a hard line in insisting that the special counsel regulations on the independence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this up as a direct legal parallel to the Mueller investigation , Barr puts those suspicious of the Durham investigation and wanting to curtail it in the position of having to argue , all of a sudden , that it ’ s actually okay to fire a special prosecutor or to figure out ways around the special counsel rules .
In other words , Barr has created a landmine for Biden who would be in danger of triggering “ Saturday Night Massacre ” headlines if he tried to have Durham removed .
Plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left who might argue in favor of Durham ’ s removal will have been on the record against removing Mueller .
Wittes asks us to imagine where this leaves an AG under Biden : Curtail the Durham investigation and Republican senators will cry foul and claim the attorney general has betrayed a commitment made at his or her confirmation in order to shut down an investigation of FBI misconduct against Republicans .
Perhaps more important , such a move would also set a precedent that firing special prosecutors is okay .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exploited and abused in the future .
Conversely , just let Durham do his thing , and the new attorney general runs a different risk : of letting a wide-ranging investigation of the Russia investigation run riot over the new administration for as long as Durham wants and with a mandate to issue a public report—including , potentially , on the non-criminal matters that were the subject of the original Durham review—at a time of the special counsel ’ s choosing .
Wittes is assuming for the sake of argument that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard as Republicans , but of course that ’ s not how things really work in Washington .
We saw that when all of the women ’ s groups who came out against Judge Kavanaugh suddenly explained that “ Believe women !
” didn ’ t mean believing all women .
But he ’ s right that if Democrats were held to the same standards this would present a real problem .
Wittes goes on to argue that the next AG can simply rescind AG Barr ’ s order and thereby do away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Josh Blackman says this might be possible but warns that many people might not see this as significantly different from simply firing Durham : There will be public pressure to allow Durham to finish his work but again that doesn ’ t mean the media will give it any space or consideration .
A big part of how this works is the media deciding whose voices count as “ reasonable ” and whose should be deplatformed for the collective good .
I ’ m sure the left will try to reverse course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fired ) and I ’ m sure the media will mostly let them get away with it .
But it would still be a scandal .
Biden and his future AG are trapped but not by anything AG Barr did .
They are trapped in a box Democrats built over two years of investigations of Russian collusion and endless harping about the importance of observing norms .
They can suddenly abandon all of that now that it ’ s no longer convenient but doing so would not only reveal their deep hypocrisy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future .

As you’re probably aware Benjamin Wittes has been one of the louder anti-Trump voices in the country over the past few years. He spent a lot of time (with his toy cannon) promoting the Russia collusion story. In 2018 he advocated “mindlessly and mechanically” voting against GOP nominees in order to save the GOP from itself.
Today, Lawfare published a piece in which Wittes examines AG Barr’s appointment of John Durham as special counsel. Titled “How do you solve a problem like John Durham?” the piece examines the details of Barr’s appointment and what the Biden administration might to do to undo it. In the process of examining the appointment, Wittes concedes that Barr’s move was done in such a way that it will be very difficult for the incoming AG to do anything about it.
The more I study what Attorney General Bill Barr did in his secret October order naming the Connecticut U.S. attorney as a special counsel, the more devilishly clever it seems—and the bigger the pickle it creates for Barr’s successor. This, presumably, is Barr’s intention. Untangling this knot is going to take no small amount of diplomacy, lawyering and finesse. And a false move in any of several directions could create a real mess.
Before moving on to why, Wittes notes that he actually doesn’t fault Barr for appointing Durham in secret, since the obvious alternative would have been to make the appointment public just before the election. He thinks Barr deserves a pass on this point. Nevertheless, he sees the appointment as a way to prevent the incoming Biden administration from sweeping Durham aside:
The move has the effect of saddling Biden with a special counsel investigation. Because while as a U.S. attorney, Durham can—and likely will—be dismissed in the normal course of the change of administration, as a special counsel he is protected from removal by regulations that require he can be fired only for “good cause” or for some gross impropriety. He is also guaranteed a certain amount of day-to-day independence.
Barr’s appointment also gave Durham wide latitude in what he can investigate: Essentially anything connected to the Russian investigation. And he required that at the end of his investigation Durham produce a report:
The regulations themselves do not do this. They require only a confidential report from the special counsel to the attorney general explaining the special counsel’s prosecution and non-prosecution decisions. But Barr’s order goes a step further, requiring that: “In addition to the confidential report required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), the Special Counsel, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the law and the policies and practices of the Department of Justice, shall submit to the Attorney General a final report, and such interim reports as he deems appropriate, in a form that will permit public dissemination” (emphasis added).
In theory, Biden’s AG could choose not to release this report but of course that would only raise questions about why. So by mandating the writing of a report Barr has more or less guaranteed that the outcome will become public. Clever.
Additionally, Barr’s appointment of Durham closely mirrors the appointment of Mueller. Here Wittes relies on a piece by Josh Blackman:
Barr and Rosenstein, respectively, appointed Durham and Mueller pursuant to the same three statutes: 28 U.S.C § 509, § 510, and § 515. The first statute vests broad supervisory powers in the attorney general, while the second statute authorizes the attorney general to delegate his powers to subordinates. The third statute is the most important for present purposes. Section 515 empowers the attorney general to authorize a “special assistant”—though not a “special counsel”—to conduct “any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings.” Both the Durham and Mueller appointments contain the same, critical sentence: “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.” This provision will allow Durham to bring federal prosecutions during the Biden presidency.
Wittes says the political impact of this detail is that it will be very difficult for a future AG to undo the appointment:
This careful tracking of the Mueller appointment seems designed to make it awkward for a Democratic attorney general to come in and remove Durham or curtail his investigation. After all, Democrats, and many Republicans too, drew a firm line in insisting that Mueller not be fired and be allowed to complete his work. They also took a hard line in insisting that the special counsel regulations on the independence of the special counsel be respected. By setting this up as a direct legal parallel to the Mueller investigation, Barr puts those suspicious of the Durham investigation and wanting to curtail it in the position of having to argue, all of a sudden, that it’s actually okay to fire a special prosecutor or to figure out ways around the special counsel rules.
In other words, Barr has created a landmine for Biden who would be in danger of triggering “Saturday Night Massacre” headlines if he tried to have Durham removed. Plus, all of the people on the left who might argue in favor of Durham’s removal will have been on the record against removing Mueller. Wittes asks us to imagine where this leaves an AG under Biden:
Curtail the Durham investigation and Republican senators will cry foul and claim the attorney general has betrayed a commitment made at his or her confirmation in order to shut down an investigation of FBI misconduct against Republicans. Perhaps more important, such a move would also set a precedent that firing special prosecutors is okay. This is precedent that is sure to be cited, exploited and abused in the future. Conversely, just let Durham do his thing, and the new attorney general runs a different risk: of letting a wide-ranging investigation of the Russia investigation run riot over the new administration for as long as Durham wants and with a mandate to issue a public report—including, potentially, on the non-criminal matters that were the subject of the original Durham review—at a time of the special counsel’s choosing.
Wittes is assuming for the sake of argument that the media would hold Democrats to the same standard as Republicans, but of course that’s not how things really work in Washington. We saw that when all of the women’s groups who came out against Judge Kavanaugh suddenly explained that “Believe women!” didn’t mean believing all women. But he’s right that if Democrats were held to the same standards this would present a real problem.
Wittes goes on to argue that the next AG can simply rescind AG Barr’s order and thereby do away with Durham’s Special Counsel status. Josh Blackman says this might be possible but warns that many people might not see this as significantly different from simply firing Durham:
The attorney general might hesitate to take this step because of external and internal pressures. To the general public, after all, the rescission of Barr’s order would be indistinguishable from firing the special counsel. Most people will not grasp the subtle nuance of this move. And given the fact that Barr never removed Mueller from his position as special counsel, there will likely be public pressure to allow Durham to complete his task.
There will be public pressure to allow Durham to finish his work but again that doesn’t mean the media will give it any space or consideration. A big part of how this works is the media deciding whose voices count as “reasonable” and whose should be deplatformed for the collective good. I’m sure the left will try to reverse course on Durham (and argue he should be fired) and I’m sure the media will mostly let them get away with it. But it would still be a scandal.
Biden and his future AG are trapped but not by anything AG Barr did. They are trapped in a box Democrats built over two years of investigations of Russian collusion and endless harping about the importance of observing norms. They can suddenly abandon all of that now that it’s no longer convenient but doing so would not only reveal their deep hypocrisy it would set a powerful precedent for the future.


hotair--2020-12-04--GOP state legislators ask Congress to reject PA's electoral votes while Trump campaign sues to inval

GOP state legislators ask Congress to reject PA's electoral votes while Trump campaign sues to invalidate GA results

I can ’ t even imagine what would have to happen in an election to get a court to order a do-over .
But whatever it is , it didn ’ t happen on November 3 .
The safe harbor deadline for the electoral college is four days away .
It ’ s Hail Mary time for the Trump campaign as they attempt to score the electoral equivalent of about five touchdowns in the final five minutes of play .
If they think they ’ ve identified votes that were illegally cast , prove it to a court and maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , this is just another excuse to continue the fantastically lucrative grift the Trump campaign is running by pursuing “ legal challenges ” and to make the country more embittered , paranoid , and contemptuous of its institutions .
Which I ’ m sure Trump believes we deserve , as punishment for not having handed him a second term .
He or people aligned with him also lost court cases today in Minnesota , Michigan , and Nevada .
A choice bit from the Nevada opinion : The Michigan ruling had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad lawyering on the president ’ s behalf .
If you want relief from a court , you can ’ t wait around for weeks to submit your filing while events play out : We ’ re still waiting on SCOTUS to decide what to do about the campaign ’ s lawsuit in Pennsylvania , which the Third Circuit dismissed with barely concealed contempt .
Pennsylvania ’ s Republican state legislators knows what the outcome in the Supreme Court is all but certain to be , which is why they ’ re moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not count their state ’ s electoral votes on January 6 when they meet to formally record the vote of the electoral college .
Note how slippery some of the language there is , complaining that the governor “ sought ” a waiver of the deadline for mail-in ballots .
You may remember that that issue , whether a ballot that arrives after polls close on Election Day should count , is already being litigated .
Those votes were segregated early by election officials from the rest of the ballots cast in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s final margin .
Even so , these people are asking Congress to effectively nullify the results of their state ’ s presidential election , disenfranchising seven million people .
Imagine if Pennsylvania ’ s congressional delegation agreed and persuaded Congress to do it .
Logically , all 18 members of the House delegation should then have their own election victories tossed out since they were each elected via the same ballots on which voters made their choice for president .
If the result of the presidential race is so questionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignoring the results , the results of the House races are necessarily questionable too and should be similarly ignored .
Bear in mind too that Pennsylvania is worth 20 electoral votes , not nearly enough to actually deny Biden the presidency .
How likely is it , do you suppose , that the state ’ s own congressional representatives will infuriate their constituents by seeking to have their electoral votes excluded from the final presidential tally *knowing* that that won ’ t even stop Biden from being declared the winner ?
How often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own voters for no productive reason whatsoever ?
All this repulsive letter amounts to is another loyalty oath to Trump .
He ’ s desperate to see some last-minute effort to try to stop Biden from taking office , which means his fans are desperate , which means the Republican state legislators who answer to those same fans have a strong reason to pander .
And it ’ s a freebie for them to do so inasmuch as Biden voters aren ’ t taking any of this particularly seriously .
Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state officials keep certifying results , the formal presidential transition process has even begun at the White House .
It ’ s all noise .
And because it is , Democrats won ’ t make much of a fuss over a letter like this being written , fully expecting that Pennsylvania ’ s congressional delegation will throw it in the trash .
That ’ s what makes it a freebie .
The Republican lawmakers who signed it also know that it ’ ll be thrown in the trash .
If you can earn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his fans by signing a letter pleading with Congress to please nullify our state ’ s electoral votes !
, knowing that it won ’ t actually happen , why wouldn ’ t you ?
The only reason not to do so is if you have a civic conscience and think it ’ s bad for the country to mainstream ideas like Congress meddling with the election , but the trash that populates our governing class cares nothing for that .
As I was writing this post , a new legal challenge by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin has been tossed by the state supreme court .
This legal effort is good theater for rank-and-file Republicans , keeping hope alive , but at the White House everyone knows the writing ’ s on the wall : One source familiar with the situation said Trump ’ s refusal to accept defeat has unnerved some staffers who worry the President is tarnishing his own legacy and , more critically , eroding voters ’ faith in US elections .
Others have said they understood the odds were high that they ’ d need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they prepared to make career moves regardless of how the President reacted to defeat .
A separate senior administration official described a “ toxic ” work environment among the dwindling number of West Wing staffers .
While the Trump White House was never the model of a functional workplace , the lack of direction and sense of defeat during Trump ’ s lame duck period has sharpened divides among staffers facing the prospect of potential unemployment… “ I think people are moving on because they have families or livelihoods to support , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the place is becoming more toxic by the day … people turning on each other , trying to settle scores while they can , ” the official added .
In lieu of an exit question , read this statement issued today by the Republican speaker of the state house in Arizona in response to Rudy Giuliani ’ s and Jenna Ellis ’ s allegations of fraud .
“ [ T ] he Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories , not proof , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate [ my ] oath , the basic principles of republican government , and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people ’ s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud.
” Hope he ’ s ready for the death threats .

I can’t even imagine what would have to happen in an election to get a court to order a do-over.
But whatever it is, it didn’t happen on November 3.
The safe harbor deadline for the electoral college is four days away. It’s Hail Mary time for the Trump campaign as they attempt to score the electoral equivalent of about five touchdowns in the final five minutes of play.
#BREAKING Trump Campaign says it has filed a lawsuit to throw out the Georgia election and "order a new election to be conducted in the presidential race." pic.twitter.com/IuxAd4DLv3 — Brendan Keefe (@BrendanKeefe) December 4, 2020
If they think they’ve identified votes that were illegally cast, prove it to a court and maybe they’ll be excluded. Failing that, this is just another excuse to continue the fantastically lucrative grift the Trump campaign is running by pursuing “legal challenges” and to make the country more embittered, paranoid, and contemptuous of its institutions. Which I’m sure Trump believes we deserve, as punishment for not having handed him a second term.
He or people aligned with him also lost court cases today in Minnesota, Michigan, and Nevada. A choice bit from the Nevada opinion:
One line in decision that stands out –“Based on this testimony, the Court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” pic.twitter.com/lo4LBOeatf — Riley Snyder (@RileySnyder) December 4, 2020
The Michigan ruling had a choice bit too noting another instance of bad lawyering on the president’s behalf. If you want relief from a court, you can’t wait around for weeks to submit your filing while events play out:
We’re still waiting on SCOTUS to decide what to do about the campaign’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which the Third Circuit dismissed with barely concealed contempt. Pennsylvania’s Republican state legislators knows what the outcome in the Supreme Court is all but certain to be, which is why they’re moving beyond lawsuits and asking Congress to … not count their state’s electoral votes on January 6 when they meet to formally record the vote of the electoral college.
Note how slippery some of the language there is, complaining that the governor “sought” a waiver of the deadline for mail-in ballots. You may remember that that issue, whether a ballot that arrives after polls close on Election Day should count, is already being litigated. Those votes were segregated early by election officials from the rest of the ballots cast in the state and ended up being immaterial to Biden’s final margin. Even so, these people are asking Congress to effectively nullify the results of their state’s presidential election, disenfranchising seven million people.
Imagine if Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation agreed and persuaded Congress to do it. Logically, all 18 members of the House delegation should then have their own election victories tossed out since they were each elected via the same ballots on which voters made their choice for president. If the result of the presidential race is so questionable due to procedural departures that it requires ignoring the results, the results of the House races are necessarily questionable too and should be similarly ignored.
Bear in mind too that Pennsylvania is worth 20 electoral votes, not nearly enough to actually deny Biden the presidency. How likely is it, do you suppose, that the state’s own congressional representatives will infuriate their constituents by seeking to have their electoral votes excluded from the final presidential tally *knowing* that that won’t even stop Biden from being declared the winner? How often do politicians give the finger to their own voters for no productive reason whatsoever?
All this repulsive letter amounts to is another loyalty oath to Trump. He’s desperate to see some last-minute effort to try to stop Biden from taking office, which means his fans are desperate, which means the Republican state legislators who answer to those same fans have a strong reason to pander. And it’s a freebie for them to do so inasmuch as Biden voters aren’t taking any of this particularly seriously. Trump’s legal team keeps losing in court, state officials keep certifying results, the formal presidential transition process has even begun at the White House. It’s all noise. And because it is, Democrats won’t make much of a fuss over a letter like this being written, fully expecting that Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation will throw it in the trash.
That’s what makes it a freebie. The Republican lawmakers who signed it also know that it’ll be thrown in the trash. If you can earn some cheap goodwill with the president and his fans by signing a letter pleading with Congress to please nullify our state’s electoral votes!, knowing that it won’t actually happen, why wouldn’t you?
The only reason not to do so is if you have a civic conscience and think it’s bad for the country to mainstream ideas like Congress meddling with the election, but the trash that populates our governing class cares nothing for that.
As I was writing this post, a new legal challenge by Trump allies to invalidate the results in Wisconsin has been tossed by the state supreme court. This legal effort is good theater for rank-and-file Republicans, keeping hope alive, but at the White House everyone knows the writing’s on the wall:
One source familiar with the situation said Trump’s refusal to accept defeat has unnerved some staffers who worry the President is tarnishing his own legacy and, more critically, eroding voters’ faith in US elections. Others have said they understood the odds were high that they’d need to find new jobs soon, and they prepared to make career moves regardless of how the President reacted to defeat. A separate senior administration official described a “toxic” work environment among the dwindling number of West Wing staffers. While the Trump White House was never the model of a functional workplace, the lack of direction and sense of defeat during Trump’s lame duck period has sharpened divides among staffers facing the prospect of potential unemployment… “I think people are moving on because they have families or livelihoods to support,” the official said. “That, and the place is becoming more toxic by the day … people turning on each other, trying to settle scores while they can,” the official added.
In lieu of an exit question, read this statement issued today by the Republican speaker of the state house in Arizona in response to Rudy Giuliani’s and Jenna Ellis’s allegations of fraud. “[T]he Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories, not proof,” noted Rusty Bowers. “It would violate [my] oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud.” Hope he’s ready for the death threats.


hotair--2020-12-04--Breaking: Nevada, Minnesota dismiss election challenges

Two different cases , but two similar outcomes for supporters of Donald Trump .
In both Nevada and Minnesota , election challenges met stern dismissals late in the afternoon .
The Nevada case will be by far the most problematic for Team Trump , as this case didn ’ t get dismissed on technical issues .
They got a full hearing of their claims of fraud — and the judge ruled that they didn ’ t provide evidence for any of it : A Nevada judge has denied a lawsuit spearheaded by President Donald Trump ’ s re-election campaign seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidential vote .
District Judge James T. Russell denied the contest with prejudice , meaning it can not be brought back before the court .
“ The contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in [ state law ] to contest the November 3 , 2020 general election , ” the order states .
The complaint had sought to either move Nevada ’ s presidential electors to Trump or to find the results of the presidential election void @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Team Trump thus far have been on technical grounds — standing , laches , and so on .
That gives the attorneys paths for appeal and demands to hear out the factual bases for their claims of fraud .
In today ’ s hearing , however , the Trump electors who filed the lawsuit had their full day in court .
They presented their affidavits , their witnesses , and their evidence .
In his ruling , Russell repeatedly ruled that their evidence was insufficient or unconvincing .
And as for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump elector plaintiffs never proved a single element of their case , and at least one of their experts — Gessler — admitted he ’ d seen no fraud in the election .
The plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence at all for most of their claims , except for conjecture and hearsay , as Russell repeatedly notes in his ruling .
All they did , it seems , was to collect affidavits and present them without any investigation or corroboration , Russell found .
He then stuck the plaintiffs with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case with prejudice .
The Trump team has said that they expect to lose cases in the beginning and want to force appeals to the Supreme Court .
This , however , presents a big problem for that strategy .
It ’ s one thing to lose on interpretations of the law , but it ’ s another to have a district court gut your factual claims .
Appellate courts exist to deal with the former but not the latter .
They will defer in almost all cases to the initial fact-finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Russell just made appeals basically moot by finding no factual basis at all for the challenge in the first place .
That raises questions about similar claims made by similar “ experts ” in other states being challenged by Team Trump .
Nevada was one of their focus states for overturning the election results .
If the factual basis was that bad in Nevada , and proved thin in Pennsylvania , it ’ s probably not much better in Georgia or Wisconsin either .
In Minnesota , the state supreme court shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law rather than on factual findings .
But the court also found errors in the filing which apparently made their attempt moot : In a five-page order rejecting the case , Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea cited the late filing of the petition — just hours before the state canvassing board met to certify the election ’ s results on Nov. 24 — and errors in the manner in which the case was brought .
… In dismissing the petition , Gildea pointed out that while one allegation focused on how county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to serve any such officials with a copy of their petition as required .
The GOP petition pointed to vote count anomalies and suggestions that voting machines could have been tampered with , but did not provide evidence of tampering .
The petitioners argued that “ our voting system has crashed in many areas of the state.
” Perhaps it will be possible to push this into federal court , but it ’ s tough to see how .
If they didn ’ t have evidence of tampering , it seems unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in a Minnesota election that wasn ’ t at all close in the first place .

Two different cases, but two similar outcomes for supporters of Donald Trump. In both Nevada and Minnesota, election challenges met stern dismissals late in the afternoon. The Nevada case will be by far the most problematic for Team Trump, as this case didn’t get dismissed on technical issues. They got a full hearing of their claims of fraud — and the judge ruled that they didn’t provide evidence for any of it:
A Nevada judge has denied a lawsuit spearheaded by President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign seeking to toss the results of the state’s presidential vote. District Judge James T. Russell denied the contest with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back before the court. “The contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in [state law] to contest the November 3, 2020 general election,” the order states. The complaint had sought to either move Nevada’s presidential electors to Trump or to find the results of the presidential election void.
Some of the courtroom losses suffered by Team Trump thus far have been on technical grounds — standing, laches, and so on. That gives the attorneys paths for appeal and demands to hear out the factual bases for their claims of fraud. In today’s hearing, however, the Trump electors who filed the lawsuit had their full day in court. They presented their affidavits, their witnesses, and their evidence.
In his ruling, Russell repeatedly ruled that their evidence was insufficient or unconvincing. And as for their experts … well …
Russell ruled that the Trump elector plaintiffs never proved a single element of their case, and at least one of their experts — Gessler — admitted he’d seen no fraud in the election. The plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence at all for most of their claims, except for conjecture and hearsay, as Russell repeatedly notes in his ruling. All they did, it seems, was to collect affidavits and present them without any investigation or corroboration, Russell found. He then stuck the plaintiffs with the court costs for the lawsuit and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Trump team has said that they expect to lose cases in the beginning and want to force appeals to the Supreme Court. This, however, presents a big problem for that strategy. It’s one thing to lose on interpretations of the law, but it’s another to have a district court gut your factual claims. Appellate courts exist to deal with the former but not the latter. They will defer in almost all cases to the initial fact-finding court. Team Trump can appeal, but Russell just made appeals basically moot by finding no factual basis at all for the challenge in the first place.
That raises questions about similar claims made by similar “experts” in other states being challenged by Team Trump. Nevada was one of their focus states for overturning the election results. If the factual basis was that bad in Nevada, and proved thin in Pennsylvania, it’s probably not much better in Georgia or Wisconsin either.
In Minnesota, the state supreme court shot down a recount demand on the basis of law rather than on factual findings. But the court also found errors in the filing which apparently made their attempt moot:
In a five-page order rejecting the case, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea cited the late filing of the petition — just hours before the state canvassing board met to certify the election’s results on Nov. 24 — and errors in the manner in which the case was brought. … In dismissing the petition, Gildea pointed out that while one allegation focused on how county officials conducted postelection audits, the petitioners failed to serve any such officials with a copy of their petition as required. The GOP petition pointed to vote count anomalies and suggestions that voting machines could have been tampered with, but did not provide evidence of tampering. The petitioners argued that “our voting system has crashed in many areas of the state.”
Perhaps it will be possible to push this into federal court, but it’s tough to see how. If they didn’t have evidence of tampering, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take an interest in a Minnesota election that wasn’t at all close in the first place.