The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll just leave this here without comment.

Update: Attorney General Barr Intends to Stay as Long as President Trump Needs Him

Except to say, that's what people get when they rely on one more NYT anonymous source.

Michael

 

[william.scherk]

 

On 12/5/2020 at 4:37 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 12/5/2020 at 2:56 PM, william.scherk said:

On 12/5/2020 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Doesn't it look like Lin and Sidney are right over the target?

If L Lin Wood and Sidney Powell's efforts can be judged by their successes so far in court, I'd say no. The last couple of days have had a number of legal setbacks. 

So why are the Biden people's heads exploding about them and why are there so many attempts at censorship?

Hmmmmm?...

I mean, they're losing, right?

They're nowhere near the target, right?

Well, "over the target" is sometimes a thought-stopping cliche.

Quote

Why do the establishment cronies pay attention to them at all?

Is this an argument? If so, it needs terms explicated.  What is the dichotomy here -- If unnamed people 'pay attention' to them, then they are ultimately going to bomb the target hard?

Sometimes metaphors occlude reasonable inferences.

Quote

I think it might be that court cases are won and lost in the end, not in the middle. But, hey, that's just me...

It's not just you hoping for (or expecting) Krakenwhoopee to prevail in the end and overturn certification in enough states to install Trump for a second term.  

I understand an "It Ain't Over Yet" hopefulness.  At some point it will be over, and we can have a picnic.

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by william.scherk
Grammar picnic a/n

[Mark]

That “ready, simple explanation” was a reference to Occam’s razor.

Again, Sessions was beholden to Trump.  And therefore he was required to recuse himself.  

That is the ready and simple explanation.  The evidence is in front of you.  Then there is this from MSK: “I think Sessions recused himself because he had swamp markers he had to pay off.”  (And when I ask why he thinks that, he accuses me of engaging in “peer pressure.”)

Which explanation does Occam favor?

I am 100% behind Trump’s battle to have his 2020 victory legally acknowledged.  Probably no one in Objectivist circles – a rather small pond to be sure – has written more essays supporting Trump, polished, well structured, with lots of facts and references.  But even in 2016 I had written “I am prepared to be disappointed in Trump” because of his flaky character and intelligence (not IQ but “intellectuality” for lack of a better word).

As an example of the personal pettiness of the man witness this tweet lashing out at Ann Coulter, @’ing her Twitter account so she would see it, after she had criticized him for boasting about his new wall, which at the time was non-existent.

This ugly tweet came after Coulter had helped him win the presidency, even writing an entire book supporting him: In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! (August 2016).

And then there was Trump’s behavior at the recent Trump rally.  He merely drove by on his way to play golf.  A half hour out of the 24 wouldn’t have hurt him, and the people who took a great deal of trouble to show up would have loved it.  (However, there may have been security concerns so I won't press this point.)

Speaking of Coulter, her latest editorial is worth reading:
Yes, Democrats Cheat. We Have to Win Georgia Anyway
 

 

[Mark]

Quote

On whether he has confidence in Barr, Trump replied, “Ask me that in a number of weeks from now.”

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.

Update: Attorney General Barr Intends to Stay as Long as President Trump Needs Him

A number of weeks?  it looks like Trump has written off the DOJ and its FBI.

[Brant Gaede]

On 12/5/2020 at 6:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is just for morale.

Michael

The Insurrection Act and the Militia Act?

--Brant

[PDS]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:07 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Might it have been that Napolitano wanted the appointment that Kavanaugh got?

Ellen

Ellen:  I’m not a mind reader, but I highly doubt a 69-70 year old man—who last served as state court judge 20+ years prior to the Gorsuch or Kavanaugh appointments, realistically expected a Supreme Court appointment.    The “bench” for potential all-star Supreme Court judges—both then and now, in conservative legal circles—is quite deep, something he undoubtedly knew.    I can’t even remember when an active state court trial judge, let alone a retired one, was appointed to the Supreme Court.  

There is always the possibility that Napolitano is simply voicing his honest opinion, i.e., no secondary motives.   That would be my default position, mainly because I don’t view reality as one big Soprano’s episode.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Is this an argument?

William,

Actually it isn't. It's an identification of hypocrisy.

You can't have it both ways. Something is not important and doesn't even need to be considered, yet the same people who say that go all out in their efforts to fight the insignificant thing.

Is it insignificant or is it a grave threat?

Here's an idea. Why not both? I mean, these are only words, right.

 

Words people (meaning people who use words as reality) change words so quickly, I don't even think they are aware of what this looks like in action.

At root, they live at the expense of others who provide for them. You can't eat words. You have to produce food. 

But words as reality are good for one thing. They're good for taking food while offering nothing of value in return except words from those who produce food. And the great thing about words for words as reality people, they can change their words anytime they feel like it. They have an endless supply.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Mark said:

Again, Sessions was beholden to Trump.  And therefore he was required to recuse himself.  

Mark,

There you go leaving out the essential part again.

To have any semblance of integrity, Sessions was required to not take the gig under false pretenses. But he did. He got in under false pretenses. 

If the top law enforcement officer gets his gig by deceit, that may be integrity for you. It isn't for me.

Deceit does not equal integrity. A man who uses deceit to get his job is what? Honoring his job? Or being deceitful? Occam's razor and all.

And it's a piss-poor start in a role that is supposed to symbolize of law, order, honor and so forth.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about this. Our positions are clear. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Mark said:

This ugly tweet came after Coulter had helped him win the presidency, even writing an entire book supporting him: In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! (August 2016).

Mark,

And what did you just leave out?

Hmmmm?...

I would have to dig, but I recall Coulter waging a campaign against him, calling him a retard and so forth.

Poor Coulter that Trump just didn't take it, huh?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The Insurrection Act and the Militia Act?

Brant,

I don't know. Probably.

I've heard the military-leaning people say the Office of Military Commissions (military tribunals) has cleared its calendar for December. Go here (and if later than this post, you can use that link, but type in 12/7/2020 in the field above the calendar to get the exact screenshot below.

Here is a screenshot of the calendar right now.

Yup. the only things scheduled from Dec. 7-16 were canceled and there is nothing on the other days.

I assume this involves Gitmo among other things.

As to militias, I don't know. Maybe.

In the thread to the two tweets I quoted, Praying Medic also said this:

Quote

Some think the only solution is the courts. 
Some think Trump's only hope are the state legislatures.
Some think our only hope is the military.
There are many possibilities.
With Trump, there are possibilities no one has considered.

Michael

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark,

And what did you just leave out?

Hmmmm?...

...

What MSK leaves out are the dates.  Trump’s “Wacky Nut Job” Ann Coulter was made March 9, 2019.  Coulter’s  “Retard” Trump was made May 24, 2020.

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...

To have any semblance of integrity, Sessions was required to not take the gig under false pretenses. But he did. He got in under false pretenses. 

...

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about this. Our positions are clear.

...

I've tired of this discussion as well but I must say I don't see how Sessions took the job of AG under false pretenses.  "Defend the President" is not part of the AG job description.  The AG is not the President's personal lawyer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, Mark said:

What MSK leaves out are the dates.  Trump’s “Wacky Nut Job” Ann Coulter was made March 9, 2019.  Coulter’s  “Retard” Trump was made May 24, 2020.

Mark,

Do you always evade talking directly to a person?

I didn't leave it out on purpose. I made it clear that I was going on memory.

But what about Coulter's viscous campaign against President Trump BEFORE March 9, 2019. It's there and it's in abundance. I'm not going to go back and present the tweets just to win an argument with an Internet Warrior of trivia. I lived it going back and forth each day back then, wondering what on earth was wrong with Coulter. 

But you are leaving ALL of that out as you focus on the ONE tweet I mentioned to do a gotcha as if that were the whole thing.

This is a propaganda tactic, not reasoned discussion.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Mark said:

... I don't see how Sessions took the job of AG under false pretenses.

Mark,

Heh...

That's obvious...

5 minutes ago, Mark said:

The AG is not the President's personal lawyer.

This is another propaganda technique. Nobody ever claimed the AG is the President's personal lawyer. But you offer this denial is if it is relevant to take the attention off the real issue.

It is not relevant. We're not talking about lawyers or even lawyer stuff.

And I'm only saying the following for the reader, not for you since you don't see it by your own admission, even when someone says it to you directly.

The real issue is that Sessions knew the bad guys--knew them well since he had been a Senator for ages--and knew what they were going to do against Trump and knew he was going to recuse himself. I would need to go back and look, but I remember reading things saying it is proven that he knew all about this stuff before he was sworn in and I recall reading something where he admitted it (at least indirectly).

I even think an argument can be made that he knew the upcoming Russian investigation was a hoax. He certainly knew the FBI under Comey liked to set people up like they did General Flynn.

And he got to be the guy who was in charge of it all with the only responsibility or watching the show. Talk about a massive CYA bureaucrat and betrayer to boot. No wonder he and Rod Rosenstein got along so well. That's all that guy knows how to do, too.

Michael

[Mark]

Now MSK accuses me of using a “propaganda technique” LOL.  Another one no less.

Stopped reading at that point.  I may be wrong but I’m not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

The following article is worth reading and – I might be wrong – part of it articulately expresses some of MSK’s concerns:

Sessions Is Not So Great

The trouble is, Trump replaced him with someone even worse.  Much worse.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, Mark said:

Now MSK accuses me of using a "propaganda technique"

Mark,

You keep getting it wrong. I am not accusing you of anything (other than distorting my words a while back.)

I am merely identifying two propaganda techniques you actually use in the place of correct reasoning during a discussion. 

Why do you use these techniques? That's between you and you. I only have the words you write to go on.

I can say the propaganda techniques you use are widely used in the mainstream fake news media and this kind rely more on cognitive biases of the reader than inducing fear or something like that. If the phrase "propaganda techniques" rubs you the wrong way, we can say spin. I would qualify with hamhanded spin, but spin is OK.

I find your uses of propaganda techniques good for showing OL readers examples of what I talk about elsewhere in the Persuasion Thread. Your use of the blank-out is a biggie for OL, especially since Rand talked about it so much.

Keep pumping them out and I will keep using them as examples of propaganda (or spin) and showing how they work.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

The following article is worth reading and – I might be wrong – part of it articulately expresses some of MSK’s concerns:

Sessions Is Not So Great

Mark,

It does express some of my concerns and, since there were a couple of items in it that I didn't know, reinforced my opinion.

This quote from the article sums up my final opinion of Sessions, one that I came to on my own, but one that grew over time with a lot of pain.

Quote

Far from controlling the DOJ, Sessions basically turned the DOJ over to Obama holdovers.

If Sessions had not supported Trump so strongly in the beginning, it would have taken me much less time to see it. But in the end, it all boils down to the first commandment of independent thinkers.

All you have to do is look.

Thanks for posting the link to the article.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a very interesting case that just came up.

Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme CourtOn Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.
 

Quote

Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”  One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion.  But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

. . .

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

. . .

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. 

. . .

If Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors.  They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide their Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path. But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.

As I said earlier, this is death by a thousand cuts.

Michael

[PDS]

MSK:  

This one could be a Big Cut.  

I read their motion.  I’m pretty sure the Supremes will have to decide their motion to stay sometime this week.  

Be on the lookout today or tomorrow for the subject states—and other Red states—to join in this lawsuit.   If that happens (not sure about the procedural hurdles to that In MIchigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Georgia—especially if a state’s governor does not consent) then most of the key issues look like they will be teed up for an overarching Supreme Court ruling.   Unlike other Kraken-type lawsuits, this one is brought by the Texas Attorney General.   That’s huge in my opinion.    There’s no crackpot component to this lawsuit, in other words.  

I suspect you will be disappointed in the ultimate Supreme Court ruling.   I suspect it will be very lawyerly and narrowly decided against Trump.   Probably 5-4 with a very unexpected crossover vote, plus Roberts trying to be a hero.   Just my intuition.  

I wonder why this wasn’t filed a month ago.   I’m afraid that might bite them.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

This one could be a Big Cut.  

Great to see you again.

As to the case, Rudy's pleased.

We do disagree on one point. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't find presenting proof in court of massive election fraud a crackpot enterprise. I read Licensed to Lie and, if I remember correctly, every time Sidney Powell took on a new case against the Clinton machine attack dogs, the Weissmann's of the world called her a crackpot, that is until she got their judgments overturned, sometimes by the Supreme Court.

In Weissmann's case in particular, I believe he better watch out for the "crackpot." I think she would love to see him--and his gang--disbarred, disgraced and thrown in jail. I wonder what will happen once President Trump is sworn in for a second term...

Imagine the "crackpot" as the new AG. 

Think something like that can't happen?

I remember people saying that Trump would never be elected as President. They were absolutely certain, too.

 

Michael

[PDS]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Great to see you again.

As to the case, Rudy's pleased.

We do disagree on one point. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't find presenting proof in court of massive election fraud a crackpot enterprise. I read Licensed to Lie and, if I remember correctly, every time Sidney Powell took on a new case against the Clinton machine attack dogs, the Weissmann's of the world called her a crackpot, that is until she got their judgments overturned, sometimes by the Supreme Court.

In Weissmann's case in particular, I believe he better watch out for the "crackpot." I think she would love to see him--and his gang--disbarred, disgraced and thrown in jail. I wonder what will happen once President Trump is sworn in for a second term...

Imagine the "crackpot" as the new AG. 

Think something like that can't happen?

I remember people saying that Trump would never be elected as President. They were absolutely certain, too.

 

Michael

Powell’s work on behalf of General Flynn was some of the best I have ever seen.   In fact, that work convinced me to contribute to Flynn’s legal defense fund.  

On the other hand, she hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as of yet in any of her Trump cases.   Election law is pretty nuanced, and it is a basic fact that every lawyer wants to win at the trial court level because that has a crucial effect upon the standard for appeal.  Losing is not a strategy to get to the Supreme Court, in other words.   As with chess, a  beginning loss can have a decisive effect upon the middle and end proceedings.   

There is an old cliche about the two most important rules for winning an appeal:  (1) first win below, and (2) don’t forget to wear your tie to the oral argument.  

Does this mean she can’t win in front of the Supremes?  Obviously not.   Maybe her Biblical Kraken bravado was well-planned 3 level chess, and not simple hubris—something, by the way, great lawyers are highly, highly vulnerable to developing.  

We shall see very soon.  

[ThatGuy]

17 hours ago, PDS said:

There is always the possibility that Napolitano is simply voicing his honest opinion, i.e., no secondary motives.   That would be my default position, mainly because I don’t view reality as one big Soprano’s episode.  

Fun fact: THE SOPRANOS was based on I, CLAUDIUS, the story of the archetypal "deep state." (For example, Tony's mother, Livia, is based on Claudius' grandmother/Augustus' wife of the same name.  And CLAUDIUS actress Siobhan Phillips would make a mean Hillary Clinton, I bet.) A tale full of political machinations, blackmail, backstabbing, poisonings, and even the  "crimes against humanity" of Caligula. if there ever was one. And there were people then thought Rome was on the up-and-ap, as well, just like some people think that  Tony Soprano was simply in "waste management"...there's even a "drain the swamp" analog to be found in it:

 

Quote

 

The frog pool wanted a king. Jove sent them Old King Log. I have been as deaf and blind and wooden as a log. My chief fault: I have been too benevolent. I repaired the ruin my predecessors spread. I reconciled Rome and the world to monarchy again. By dulling the blade of tyranny, I fell into great error. By sharpening that blade, I might redeem that error. Violent disorders call for violent remedies. Yet I am, I must remember, Old King Log. I shall float inertly in the stagnant pool. 

Then, Claudius speaks a mantra that will shape his plan of succession:

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. 

 

https://conradbrunstrom.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/the-sopranos-and-i-claudius/

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Losing is not a strategy to get to the Supreme Court, in other words.

David,

It doesn't have to be a strategy to be a path.

And even in some cases, it can be an excellent strategy. Suppose most of the state's courts, appeals courts and Supreme Court are polluted with excessive ideology on a specific issue like election law and constantly abuse their authority. (Pennsylvania comes to mind.  )

Since that is the gauntlet everyone has to go through to get to the Supreme Court, doesn't it make sense to strategically format the cases to look a certain way for each unavoidable loss?

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Does this mean [Sidney Powell] can’t win in front of the Supremes?  Obviously not.   Maybe her Biblical Kraken bravado was well-planned 3 level chess, and not simple hubris—something, by the way, great lawyers are highly, highly vulnerable to developing.  

Aaron Keller at Law and Crime offers an article that takes on the proffered expertise in the Georgia "Kraken" proceedings:

Here’s How Lawyers Destroyed Sidney Powell’s ‘Wildly Unqualified’ Election Malfeasance ‘Experts’ in Georgia

-- a couple screen-shots of the article:

Quote

[...]

How Lawyers Destroyed Sidney Powell's 'Kraken' Experts in Georgia | Law & Crime (lawandcrime.com)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, PDS said:

This one could be a Big Cut.  

It's game on.

Michael