The Homa Files

Rather than ruling on the merits of the Texas election complaint, the esteemed Justices ran for the hills … and may have diminished the future political independence and relevance of the court itself.
=============

Yesterday, it was reported that Pelosi’s Congress has started drafting a law to pack the Supreme Court with 4 new (liberal) justices.

How did we get to this point … and what are the implications?

Flashback to a couple of weeks after the 2020 presidential election.

The Supreme Court “docketed” a complaint filed by the State of Texas (and a long-list of other complainants) that claimed voting irregularities in a handful of of states (details below).

I assumed that “docketed” meant that they would hear the evidence and rule on the case’s merits.

Silly me.

Recognizing that they would be caught between a rock and a hard place, the SCOTUS channeled Sgt. Shultz claim (“I hear nothing, I see nothing”) to stay out of the election dispute.

For the record, here’s the first part of the official SCOTUS statement:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE (155, ORIG.) TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

The key point: This isn’t a ruling on the merits of the case, i.e. whether there was election irregularities, fraud and rigging … or not.

The Court just decided to rule on procedural technicalities and leave the merits of the case open for all of us to decide.

That leaves about half the country thinking that the election was clean as a whistle … and, half suspicious of the election’s processes and results.

The obvious result: high tension and animosity.

Given its importance, let’s parse the court’s statement….

(more…)

Here is 3 pieces of “must read, must view” background material.
============

OK, let’s agree that breaching the Capitol was illegal and that the associated deaths were both tragic &  inexcusable (including the female AF vet who was shot dead).

============

Now, Pelosi-led Dems are intent on impeaching Trump.

Since there’s only a week to go in his presidency, her motivation must be either (a) dance on his grave, or (3) preclude his running in 2024, or both.

Emotions are still running high, so I encourage everybody to step back, take a deep breath and do 3 things …

1) Watch the video of Trump’s speech or, better yet, read the transcript.

My take: While spending 90% of the time recounting his election grievances, Trump did imply that there was hope for Congress to reverse the election and did encourage people to peacefully march to the Capitol.

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country.

At no point in the speech did Trump come even remotely close to suggesting any sort of violence … or of breaching the Capitol building.

Note: More relevant snippets from the speech are at the end of this post.

=============

2) Watch this short video that shows the Capitol Police opening the doors to the Capitol building and allowing the protesters to enter.

This doesn’t diminish that some protesters did illegally enter through a broken window and cause criminal havoc … but, it does raise questions about the police reaction and whether the bulk of the protesters were in the building illegally or reeking seriously disruptive havoc.

=============

3) Read Jonathan Turley’s analysis: How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance

Turley’s Summary:

Like many, I condemned Trump’s speech as it was still being given, calling it reckless and wrong.

However, Trump’s speech does not meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code.

Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot.

Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress.

He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Indeed, it would be considered protected speech by the Supreme Court.

The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment.

There are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option.

There could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue.

Such evidence would need to be found  through a traditional impeachment inquiry.

Turley’s recommendation:

“There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.”

I side with Prof. Turley on this one.

=============
Here are relevant snippets from the transcript of Trump’s speech … with timestamped references back to the full transcript.

(more…)

In a post last week — in my post-election analysis — I cited the investment advice of Little Orphan Annie:

The sun will come out tomorrow.

Bet your bottom dollar, that tomorrow there’ll be sun!

But , it was overcast “tomorrow” (i.e. the day after the election) and I was nervous because JP Morgan had been forecasting a 25% market drop if there’s a Blue Wave.

So, I asked, who to believe Annie or JP Morgan?

Well, so far, it looks like Annie nailed it.

After a momentary dip, the S&P has been up over 3% … and all major indices have been at or near historic eyes.

I hope Annie’s advice holds in long-run.
==============

So, why is the market going up?

(more…)

I hate to say that I beat him to the punch, but…
=============

Earlier this week, I posted:

To quell tensions & suspicions, President-elect Biden should promise that he’ll convene a bipartisan Commission on Election Integrity … or better yet,  name another Special Counsel to investigate election “irregularities”.

Well, that view is now being shared by law prof Jonathan Turley.

In a USA Today opinion piece, Turley sets the context:

I hate federal commissions. I have always hated federal commissions.

Federal commissions are Washington’s way of managing scandals.

They work like placebos for political fevers, convincing voters that answers and change are on the way.

That is why it is so difficult for me to utter these words:

We need a real federal election commission.

Here’s the essence of Turley’s reasoning…

(more…)

To quell tensions & suspicions, President-elect Biden should promise that he’ll convene another bipartisan Commission on Election Integrity… or better yet,  name another Special Counsel to investigate election “irregularities”.
=============

Anybody remember Bush versus Gore?

There was understandable concern when Florida vote-counting labored on for more than a month after the election and Bush ended up winning by a couple of hundred votes when the SCOTUS ruled “no mas”.

Eventually, in 2005, a Commission on Election Reform was convened, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former GOP Secretary of State James Baker.

The Carter-Baker Commission Report  covered many of the election issues that have arisen in the 2020 election…

(more…)

In today’s WSJ, Karl Rove opined that in the Presidential election:

Hostility proved as powerful as enthusiasm in motivating voters

Trump supporters said their vote was more for Mr. Trump than against Mr. Biden while Mr. Biden’s supporters said their vote was more against the incumbent than for the challenger.

We said that weeks ago , citing our “principle” that:

Hate is a much stronger emotion than love … and that Trump-haters would overwhelm Trump-lovers (and Trump-tolerators).

==============

Rove also pointed out that:

Mr. Biden won decisively (in the Electoral College), but enough battleground states were close that it could easily have gone the other way.

The combined margin in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin was 42,918 votes.

The election would have been a 269-269 tie if those states were in Mr. Trump’s column.

Imagine the circus if that has occurred.

Yesterday, we posted a summary of the polls & odds re: Georgia’s Senate runoff elections.

In a nutshell: Polls have Perdue & Loeffler up by a couple of points; betting markets have GOP odds of avoiding a Dem sweep at 75-25; stock market has been “melting up”

A couple of loyal readers have asked me — given the data — how do I think the election will turn out?

Keeping in mind that I’m nothing more than a curious, analytical guy with no particular political expertise or inside info …

My answer: I’m scoring the odds at 60-40 that the Dems sweep both seats.

Here’s my logic…

(more…)

“There are numerous (election) problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them.”
===============

Save for the headline “Wisconsin Supreme Court puts final nail in Trump’s election coffin” … this story isn’t getting much coverage.

That’s too bad because, in the details, the ruling and its dissents hit more nails than the headlined one on the head.

Here’s the essence of the case, the ruling and the dissents ….

(more…)

Rather than ruling on the merits of the case, Justices run for the hills.
=============

OK, the WSJ had it right … and we had it wrong.

Recognizing that they would be caught between a rock and a hard place, the SCOTUS channeled Sgt. Shultz claim (“I hear nothing, I see nothing”) to stay out of the election dispute.

For the record, here’s the first part of the official SCOTUS statement:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE (155, ORIG.) TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

The key point: This isn’t a ruling on the merits of the case, i.e. whether there was election fraud and rigging … or not.

The Court just decided to rule on procedural technicalities and leave the merits of the case open for all of us to decide.

Let’s parse the courts statement….

(more…)

To be fair & balanced …

Yesterday, we argued that SCOTUS is caught between a rock and a hard place… and would create a legal nightmare if they didn’t rule the actions of the 4 “defendant states” to be unconstitutional.

Today, the WSJ editorializes that the SCOTUS shouldn’t even take the Texas law suit.

Here’s an excerpt from the editorial:

Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, launched an implausible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn state presidential election results.

It would be a legal and political earthquake if the Court took the case.

The first issue is whether Texas has the legal standing to sue.

To have standing, a plaintiff must point to a specific injury and there must be some possibility of a remedy.

In this case, what is the injury?

Mr. Paxton argues that the four states have harmed his state and violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution by holding elections with major procedural irregularities. He’s saying Texas can be harmed by the way another state manages its elections.

But if Texas can sue on these grounds, then some unhappy state will sue another state after every close election whose outcome it doesn’t like.

Then there’s the problem of remedy. Mr. Paxton wants the Court to intervene and order the four state legislatures to deny Mr. Biden their electoral votes. He claims, with some justification, that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors.

But that is what they have done already in certifying their votes.

In other words, Mr. Paxton’s claim is essentially moot as the states have certified their results and chosen electors.

There’s no doubt that Democrats used the pandemic as an excuse to expand mail-in voting that created more opportunities for fraud.

But the GOP should have fought those changes more competently before the election.

To take Mr. Paxton’s case the Court would have to set a new standard for standing to sue in election cases and essentially overturn the election results in four states and disenfranchise millions of voters.

The Justices would be opening an historic constitutional thicket if they take it.

What do you think?

Having put the Texas case on its docket, SCOTUS faces very hard decisions
==============

First, some essential background…

The complaint goes directly at the the Court’s constitutional fortitude and sovereignty.

Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.

The fundamental decision that the Court must make is whether or not the “defendant states” (PA, GA, MI, WI) — specifically, their election officials and state courts — acted unconstitutionally when they — not their respective legislatures — changed election laws in the run-up to the 2020 election.

This case presents a question of law:

Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking— or allowing — non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

The crux of the argument:

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states … usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.

The defendant states accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.

These same government officials flooded the defendant states with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote — signature verification and witness requirements.

The complaint goes into detail (with numerous precedent cases cited) to establish the venue (why SCOTUS must decide), their standing (in effect, their states constitutional votes were nullified) and the constitutional rationale.

OK so let’s cut to the chase…

(more…)

Unless your TV only gets CNN, you’ve probably seen the election night CCTV video from Fulton County Georgia’s the central counting room at Sate Farm Arena.

The video shows (or as the Washington Post says “appears to show”) media & observers leaving the room en masse around 10:30 … then ballot-laden suitcases being rolled out from under some tables by the handful of remaining counters who spend the next couple of hours scanning the suitcases’ contents.

The video was presented to GOP-run State Senate Committee by Trump operatives and looped on right-leaning stations and sites.

Immediately, there was pushback by liberal media and fact-checkers … and by Georgia State election officials.

OK, with that as background, let’s unpack the story…

(more…)

Perhaps President Trump should convene still another Commission on Election Integrity… or better yet, nudge Barr to name another Special Counsel to investigate election “irregularities”.
=============

Anybody remember Bush versus Gore?

There was understandable concern when Florida vote-counting labored on for more than a month after the election and Bush ended up winning by a couple of hundred votes when the SCOTUS ruled “no mas”.

Eventually, in 2005, a Commission on Election Reform was convened, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former GOP Secretary of State James Baker.

The Carter-Baker Commission Report  covered many of the election issues that have arisen in the 2020 election…

(more…)

That’s a question that liberal pundits (and some of my left-leaning friends) are posing to “prove” that there was no widespread fraud … and there’s a simple answer
===============

The first time I was asked the question, I was stumped, so I did some quick fact-finding.

The answer should have been obvious (to me) from the get-go:

The seats that the GOP flipped weren’t in the notorious metro cheat-spots that tanked Trump, i.e. Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, Vegas.

Specifically, RCP is currently reporting that the GOP flipped 11 seats; 2 each in FL & CA; 1 each in UT, SC, IA, OK, NM, MI, NY.

With the exception of Michigan, there are no allegations of game-changing cheating in any of the flipped-states … most were red states undoing 2018 blue-flips or landslide Biden states that didn’t need cheating to win (NY, CA).

In Michigan, the flipped congressional district (CD 3) covers Grand Rapids and Battle Creek … far away from the reach of the Detroit machine.

Note: GOP Senate Candidate — John James — lost narrowly.  He was leading until the Detroit votes were counted.

According to RCP, the Dems only flipped 1 congressional seat –  Georgia’s 7th CD — just north of Atlanta in Gwinnett County.

Need I say more on that one?

============

Bottom line: GOP flips are hardly evidence that the election was fraud-free in the suspected cheat-spots.

Yesterday morning, we asked: Are Comey, Brennan and friends now off-the-hook?

And, we offered President Trump some specific advice: Coax Barr to name a Special Prosecutor.

Well, I don’t want to claim all of the motivating credit, but here’s what just got announced:

Boom!

According to the WSJ:

Attorney General William Barr has named Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham a special counsel, giving him extra protection to continue during the Biden administration his investigation of the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe.

Mr. Barr appointed Mr. Durham special counsel under the same regulation used to name Robert Mueller to take over the Russia investigation.

I guess Comey & Brennan aren’t off the hook after all.

Ball’s in your court, Joe.

Specifically, high-volume signature verification is a farce.
=============

Yesterday, we walked thru my linked experiences: getting a Maryland driver’s license, registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot and casting an absentee ballot.

The key takeaways:

• As part of the D/L process, the state captured an electronic facsimile of my signature (that I etch-a-sketched on an electronic keypad)
• Also as part of the D/L process, I registered to vote … and, my electronic facsimile signature was posted to my voting registration.
• Later, I requested an absentee ballot online.  When I did, I provided basic ID info but no signature — just a checked box indicating that I agreed to an electronic non-signing
• When I sent in my absentee ballot, I manually signed the over-wrapping secrecy envelope — not the ballot.

Now, the million dollar question: Given the above takeaways, how did my ballot get verified?

(more…)

Specifically, high-volume signature verification is a pipe dream.
============

Let’s start with some basics, illustrated with my personal experience…

Last year, when I retired, I officially moved from Virginia to scenic Annapolis, Maryland.

Dutifully, I marched into the DMV to get a Maryland driver’s license.

As part of the process, I had to “write” my signature on an electronic pad to create a  digital recording of it.

Note: For physical and behavioral reasons — how we write and how careful we are –these electronic signatures are known to be problematic … this is, they are oftern poor representations of a person’s “real” manual signature.  Anybody who has used one of these devices knows what I’m talking about.

And, as part of the Maryland licensing process, I was offered the chance to simultaneously register to vote.  I did.

Note: My voter registration’s “signature” was, of course, the same electronic facsimile that got posted to my driver’s license. This is important later in my story

So far, so good.

=============

Now, let’s got through my recent encounter with the absentee voting process…

(more…)

… and, mail-in ballot verification is a sham.
===============

In a prior post, we argued that assertions that there is “no widespread fraud” is meaningless since relatively small scale fraud that is localized can tilt elections … and that “no systematic fraud has been found” is misleading if the system itself provides ample opportunity to cheat and nobody is trying to find the cheating.

As the old adage says: The absence of evidence of wrong-doing is not evidence that there is no wrong-doing.

The latter — ample opportunity to cheat — is a manifestation of voter registration lists that are a mess and ballot verification procedures that are a sham.

Today, let’s look at voter registration lists, starting with a comprehensive study done by the Pew Trust.

click to view report

Based on their analysis, Pew concluded:

About 24 million — 1 in every 8 — voter registration records are invalid or “significantly inaccurate”.

Of the 24 million:

• More than 1.8 million dead individuals are listed as active registrants.
  n Approximately 2.8 million people are registered to vote in more than one state
• Wrong addresses account for most of the 24 million “significant  inaccuracies”

These issues are non-fatal nuisances when voting is done in-person with a required photo ID: dead people don’t show up in person, its tough for multi-state registrants to show up in both (or all) states (save for crossing the Nevada-California border), and wrong addresses get scrutinized closely when segregated as provisional ballots.

But, when a state opens the mail-in floodgates, these registrations inaccuracies can tilt an election.

Let’s get specific…

=============

When states carpet-bomb ballots to everybody on their voter registration lists, 1 in 8 (12.5%) ballots get mailed to somebody who is dead, registered in another state or has moved to another address.

The “dead ballots” can be cast by somebody else  … maybe somewhat innocently  (e.g. Grandma would want this since she always voted Democratic) … or maliciously (e.g. bad actors “harvesting” the “dead ballots”).

Either way, it’s voting fraud!

=============

Similarly, multi-state registrants may be intentionally playing the system to vote more than once (a mortal sin) … or, may be thinking that it’s OK to do since the state “legitimized” their vote by sending them a ballot.

Note: Last year,  I moved and changed my voter registration.  This year, I was deluged with letters and phone calls urging me to vote in my old state.

Either way, it’s voting fraud!

=============

What about the millions of wrong addresses on file?

Think about it: Millions of ballots go to the wrong address!

Note: Pew says that 1 in 8 people move every 2 years — between election cycles … and 1 in 4 young people move in that time.

What’s the problem?

First, people who legitimately should get a ballot don’t because their address hasn’t been updated.

Note: we have first-hand experience of this happening to our immediate family members.

Second, persons who currently reside at the address on file have the opportunity to vote the ballot … no muss, no fuss.

But, don’t these cases get caught and rectified?

Dream on.

In concept, the ballot verification process should snag these errant votes but — as we’ll detail  in another post — the verification processes  (think: signature verification) is porous to sham status.

And, consider what happens when a person who hasn’t received a ballot shows up to vote in person.

If a bad actor has sent in their mail-in ballot, the legit person is flagged for voting twice and given a provisional ballot to be researched and either tossed or validated (with the mail-in ballot voided).

I’m betting the under on that process ever happening!

================

Cumulatively, these loopholes provide ample opportunity for bad actors to cheat … maybe enough to tilt an election …– especially when ballots are carpet-bombed to everybody on voter registration lists.

Absentee ballot processes used by many states mitigate the problems somewhat but don’t eliminate them.

They just shift the focus to ballot verification processes … which we’ll cover in another post.

Now, it’s “no widespread voter fraud” or “no systematic fraud”
=============

Like roughly 73 million other Americans, I thought it was surreal this summer when the MSM and left-leaning pundits, coined the phrase “mostly peaceful protests” … and then oft-repeated it to establish the faux-truth among a gullible constituency.

Literally billions of dollars of destruction, businesses burned to the ground, stores looted and people intimidated when walking the streets or dining at restaurants.

IMHO, that’s hardly “peaceful”.

Practically speaking, “peaceful” is a binary variable, not a matter of degree. Especially for those innocent people who lost their businesses, had their neighborhoods burned to a crisp or got roughed up.

My view: “mostly peaceful” is a frightening measure of civil conduct.

Right up there with “the end justifies the means”.

==============

Now, we’ve got a new low bar for civil behavior: “no widespread voter fraud” … or its close cousin: “no systematic voting fraud”.

(more…)

Two classic pieces of advice on the question.
============

Following last weeks’ post “Some people just shouldn’t vote! “ … a couple of loyal readers reminded me of some classic points-of-view on the subject.

First, is former President Obama’s “Cousin Pookie” advice:

You’ve got to grab your friends. You’ve got to grab your co-workers.

You know, don’t just get the folks you know are going to vote.

You’ve got to find Cousin Pookie, he’s sitting on the couch right now watching football.

He hasn’t voted in the last 5 elections.

You’ve got to grab him and tell him to go vote.

I didn’t say it … Obama did:

click to view video clip

===============

Back in 1984, Andy Rooney — a culture observer & humorist — presented a  contrary point-of-view on 60 Minutes.

(more…)

This is very disappointing news…
==============

Last week, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger broke news that he was ordering a hand recount and audit of the state’s election results.

That sounded like very good news … setting a reasonable expectation that illegitimate mail-in ballots would be tossed … and, that Dominion computer counts would be cross-checked.

But, hopes of a rigorous vote-check have all but vanished.

(more…)

Did he gift the GOP a “defund the police” sound bite?
=============

By now, everybody should be aware that the two  Georgia run-offs in January will determine control of the Senate … and, whether or not the radical left will be throttled by a divided government.

Last weekend, a camera-prone, emotionally-charged Schumer did an imitation of the Howard Dean Scream … letting rip a campaign battle cry:

“Now we take Georgia … then change America … and change the world!”

IMHO, Schumer’s exclamation was a big favor to the GOP.

Here’s why…

===============

First, I think pundits were misreading a common poll result that was oft-headlined during the presidential campaign:

“A majority of Americans think the country is moving in the wrong direction”.

The usual interpretation: Everything that Trump is doing is bad and wrong … and needs to be changed.

True, many people probably felt that way.

My guess: About half of the Dems, some of the Independents and a handful of Republicans.

My bet: Many  people thought rioting, looting, canceling, etc., were the wrong direction, not Trump’s policies

That’s why they were comfortable voting for Trump.

Schumer may be falling for the pollsters’ trap … thinking that a majority of Americans (or a majority of his party) wants to radically change America.

I doubt that’s the case.

So, his war chant may be off-target … and for sure, provides the GOP candidates in Georgia a sound bite that will be showcased in commercials … probably, pretty effectively.

Thanks, Chuckie.

A bonafide red wave!
===============

The Congressional elections are, perhaps, a better indication of American political sentiment than the Presidential election — which was certainty influenced by Trump-hating.

Going into the election, pundits and politicos were forecasting a Dem pick-up of 10 to 15 seats.

Not to be.

Already in the books is a 5-seat GOP pick-up…

And, there 10 congressional contests that haven’t been called.

Based on current counts, the GOP stands to pick up an additional 8 seats … for a total pick-up of 13 seats.

Now, that’s a red wave !

P.S. Another fine job by the prognosticators.

Disclaimer: I’m neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar… just a curious guy trying to understand an interesting issue.

OK, there’s a constitutional question in Pennsylvania, whistleblower affidavits of episodic malfeasance in multiple states and a widespread (albeit partisan) sense that fraudulent ballots were submitted without adequate verification and counted.

Trump’s lawyers are petitioning the SCOTUS to review the charges and order remedies.

So, the question is: Will the SCOTUS intervene in the election?

Let’s drill down on that question…

(more…)

The Philly mayor said yesterday that Trump should “just put on his big boy pants” and concede.

Hmm.

That reminded me of the advice that Clinton offered to Biden in August.

According to left-leaning Politico:

Hillary Clinton is predicting Donald Trump’s reelection effort will be a messy affair, and the former Democratic candidate has some advice for Joe Biden: If the race is close, don’t concede.

She emphasized that even a small margin of votes can have major consequences, harking back to her experience winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still losing in the Electoral College.

Democrats, she said, should be ready to fight if the results come back too close to call.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,”

Biden said in July that Trump would try to “indirectly steal” the election by attacking mail-in ballots.

The GOP response: Democrats “believe they can sue their way to victory, and there’s no telling what other shenanigans Democrats will pull once polling locations are open,”

“Don’t concede a close election under any circumstances.”

I wonder if she’d offer the same advice to Trump?

An interesting development last night.

Justice Alito — who is the SCOTUS point man for the Pennsylvania region — issued the following order:

All county boards of election are hereby ordered, pending further order of the Court, to comply with the following guidance provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth on October 28 and November 1, namely,

(1) that all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated and kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots,” and

(2) that all such ballots, if counted, be counted separately.

=============

So what?

IMHO, the GOP case is pretty strong.  The Constitution says that state legislatures set the rules for elections, not other government officials or state courts.

The PA legislature’s law says that ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on election day.

It can be debated whether that’s a good rule … but, it’s the law!

The Dem election officials changed the rules to accept mail-in ballots for the whole week.  Their decision was upheld by the PA Supreme Court.

So, the the question is a Constitutional one, not vague charges of vote fraud.

Big deal or little deal?

That’s unclear.

(1) In yesterday’s press conference, the state’s chief election official was unable (or unwilling?) to report how many ballots fell into the late-arriving category.

So, could be a lot … or, could be few.  That’s a big unknown.

(2) Though PA election officials previously issued rules comparable to Justice Alito’s, there are reports that some (many?) PA counties didn’t follow the rules — either out of ignorance or defiance.

This could be a very big deal !

First, it’s conceivable (but unlikely, IMHO) that here are enough late arriving votes to swing the election results.

Second, what if the SCOTUS rules that the late-arriving votes are, in fact, unconstitutional … and PA “finds” that counties haven’t been segregating the votes and that there’s no way to separate them after-the-fact.

What does the SCOTUS do to remediate that situation?

I see only 2 options: (1) let all the votes count and tell PA to not to do it again, or (2) disallow all mail in votes because the pool of votes was irreparably contaminated.

This could get very interesting…

Half of the country will consider the winner to be illegitimate
=============

What a mess…

If Biden wins, Trump supporters will point to fraudulent mail voting and counting shenanigans happening behind closed doors in Democratic “machine” cities & states … Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee and Nevada.

If Trump prevails, it will undoubtedly be because of favorable court rulings on fraudulent mail votes, obstructed poll watchers and violation of state election laws (in Pennsylvania).  

Dems will claim unjustified intervention by the courts … and judicial bias.

===========

Odds are that Biden will ultimately prevail.

If so, the good news is that it’ll be less likely that cities will get burned and looted.

The bad news (for Biden) is that half of the country will think that it got cheated …

… I got my Eagles jacket on.
=============

That’s what Screamin’ Joe said to burnish his “native son” cred.

Sorry, Joe … that’s a Univ. of Delaware Blue Hen on your jacket, not a Philadelphia Eagle.

Oops.

What a totally peaceful protest looks like.
=============

We got a surprise on Sunday afternoon.

We were on the inner-loop of the Washington Beltway yesterday. heading northeast to Annapolis.

On the other side of the road, we noticed a couple of cars & trucks with Trump flags and banners.

We couldn’t help but notice that it wasn’t really just a couple of cars & trucks.

The caravan was miles long.

For those familiar with the DC Beltway, the caravan ran almost the entire distance from I-270 to Route 50 (the expressway to Annapolis).

The Caravan was unlike anything I’d ever witnessed — save for the Macy’s T-Day Parade.

Yes, pick-ups made up the majority of the caravan … but, there were plenty of high-end SUVs, too.

And, for the record, the caravan appeared to be moving at the speed limit and traffic on that side was flowing nicely by Beltway standards.

We didn’t see any firearms being brandished … and nobody was chucking projectiles at innocent people, places or things.

Just driving and waving out of their windows and sky-roofs.

For Trump supporters, it was reassuring to see “shy” Trump supporters come out-of-the closet in the solid-blue DC-Maryland area.

For Biden supporters, there must be solace that none of the caravan’s votes will matter since DC, MD and VA are a lock for Biden.

BTW: On our side of the road, we only spotted one Biden-Harris bumper sticker.

It was on a car parked on the side of the road with its hood up.

An omen?

This one may even sway some suburban women.
==============

Most pundits agree that Biden’s Freudian slip that his goal-certain is to kill the oil & gas industry … the only open-switch is the time frame.

My view: there was at least one other potential vote-swaying debate moment.

About 9 minutes into the debate, on the subject of COVID. Trump said:

I say we’re learning to live with it. We have no choice.

We can’t lock ourselves up in a basement like Joe does. He has the ability to lock himself up. I don’t know, he’s obviously made a lot of money, someplace, but he has this thing about living in a basement.

People can’t do that.

I said, you know, this is dangerous. And you can catch it.

I caught it. I learned a lot. I learned a lot, great doctors, great hospitals. And now, I recovered … 99.9% of young people recover. 99% of people recover.

We have to recover.

We can’t close up our nation, we have to open our schools, and we can’t close up our nation, or you’re not going to have a nation.

A couple of minutes later, Trump followed up:

We can’t keep this country closed.

It is a massive country with a massive economy.

People are losing their jobs, they’re committing suicide. There’s depression, alcohol, drugs at a level that nobody’s ever seen before. There’s abuse, tremendous abuse.

We have to open our country.

You know I’ve said it often — the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself, and that’s what’s happening.

He (Biden) wants to close down.

He’ll close down the country if one person in our, in our massive bureaucracy says we should close it down.

Here’s my take…

(more…)

Most telling image from the Trump-Biden debate.
=============

Remember when Bush-the-Father got skewed for looking at his watch during one of his debates?

click to view video clip

So, who do you want going up against Putin, Xi and the world’s other crazy leaders?

Re: fracking … even CNN says Biden was lying.

=============

During the debate, Trump pressed Biden on fracking.

Biden claimed: “I never said that I was opposed to fracking.”

Trump countered: “Joe, you said it on tape.”

Biden: Show the tape – put it on your web site.on his website.

Here it is, Joe …

click to view 1-minute video collage

… but it may swing the election.
==============

Here’s my take:

1. Biden made an unforced campaign error by  trading on his son Beau’s memory when he tried to tag Trump with being insulting to the military.  That move opened the door to dragging son Hunter into the conversation. Family members became fair game.

2. For sure, Biden is guilty of allowing his VP influence to be compromised (by Hunter) … and probably profited from the deals personally.

3. Most (all?) voters assume that most (all?) elected officials trade on their positions and influence for personal gain.

4. So, few (no?) Biden voters will jump off his campaign train just because he’s revealed to be a typical political sleaze … especially since most voters think the transgressions — even those with China — are no harm, no foul … and, because Biden was “just trying to help his wayward son.”.

But…

Huntergate has got to be weighing heavily on Joe’s already diminishing state of mind.

(more…)

President Trump is trailing badly in all of the polls, right?

On one measure that makes sense since.

According to a Gallup survey, registered voters say that Biden has the personality and leadership qualities that a president should have — 49% to 44%. (Upper bars)   

But, that gap is smaller than might be expected and neither candidate gets a majority of voters thinking they have the right stuff.

And, Trump has the upper hand on “agree with him on the issues” — 49% to 46%. (Lower bars above)

Hmmm.

So, how do people feel on the crux question:

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

(more…)

Trump’s ace in the hole … or, just wishful thinking?
=============

Holy Smokes.

A couple of weeks ago,, hard-left Politico ran an article sub-titled “What Obama really thinks about  Biden”.

I expected it to be typical Biden puff piece.

Suffice it to say that I was surprised.

In Obama-speak, the former President “took Joe to the hoop”…

(more…)

Yesterday, I was browsing the web to debrief on the debate … and learn more about ANTIFA.

An article suggested that readers go to the web site antifa.com

So, I did:

The results were eye-popping…

(more…)

That’s my summary of last night’s bleep-show.
=============

The debate was a discouraging spectacle.

Geez, a New York bully against a malleable has-been politico.

Trump interrupted … Biden name-called and brayed like a jackass.

Out of 330 million, can’t we do better than this?

==============

Here’s my morning after mind-dump on what I saw last night…

(more…)

… under the Obama-Biden tax structure. that is.
=============

It’s deja vu all over…

Flashback to 2012: Sen. Harry Reid took to the well to shock the nation with the revelation that “the word is out” that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years.

click to view 1-minute video

PolitiFact rated Reid’s allegation “Pants on Fire.”

Reid’s rejoinder:

“Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” Source

Well, if it worked once, why not try it again?

Cue the NY Times:

Shocker, right?

Trump used the Obama-Biden tax code to his advantage.

The word is out…