They left with eight hard drives, three computers and a bag of USB sticks. The resident of the property, a 56-year-old IT expert named Elliot Kerwin, was served the warrant. He is not yet facing charges and was unreachable for comment at the time of publication. There is no indication that anything other than voters’ information, which can be acquired for a few hundred dollars in Arizona counties, was taken from the affected office.
So, no one is being charged for stealing data that is available to anyone for a small fee. Yes, I read several articles and none really say much other than that the FBI took his stuff.
Biden government will likely keep Aussies and allies from wild actions
The current cartoon spat between Australia and China is taking a new turn. After Australian government reacted strongly to the tweet of a computer-generated image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to the throat of an Afghan boy, its friends, including the UK, France and New Zealand, came out to express support to Australia.
The incoming Joe Biden team, however, has taken a different approach. Jake Sullivan, appointed national security adviser for the Biden team, posted an even handed if veiled tweet on Thursday. It recognized that Australians, "have made great sacrifices to protect freedom and democracy around the world," and that the US will, "stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Australia and rally fellow democracies to advance our shared security, prosperity, and values." Apart from him, no other senior official from the Biden camp has made any response to this case. However, we can never exclude the possibility that the Biden camp might show more support to Canberra, a long-term and steadfast ally of Washington, in the near future. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1209144.shtml
It appears that SCOTUS has declined to get involved in the election fracas.
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. Coming any moment:
The fix is in and the US Supreme Court has joined the vast left wing/deep state conspiracy to deny Trump of his rightful landslide victory..
Don't forget Texas has filed suit directly with SCOTUS charging 4 other states with election fraud.
Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
…
This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.
I've 'kinda' kept up with that 'Texas sues' to SCOTUS' thing, but Bill Paxton is apt to sue anyone at any given time for anything. We'll have to see how it goes.
I've 'kinda' kept up with that 'Texas sues' to SCOTUS' thing, but Bill Paxton is apt to sue anyone at any given time for anything. We'll have to see how it goes.
I got my eye there, too. You might not believe it by looking at my text, but Texas is mecca to a idealistic "country-boy" like myself!
It appears that SCOTUS has declined to get involved in the election fracas.
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. Coming any moment:
The fix is in and the US Supreme Court has joined the vast left wing/deep state conspiracy to deny Trump of his rightful landslide victory..
It appears that SCOTUS has declined to get involved in the election fracas.
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. Coming any moment:
The fix is in and the US Supreme Court has joined the vast left wing/deep state conspiracy to deny Trump of his rightful landslide victory..
The Supreme Court ONLY denied the emergency injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiff as part of the case filed.
They did not to my knowledge dismiss the case itself as it is certed and docketed by the court.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-10-2020).]
It appears that SCOTUS has declined to get involved in the election fracas.
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. Coming any moment:
The fix is in and the US Supreme Court has joined the vast left wing/deep state conspiracy to deny Trump of his rightful landslide victory..
No, this was Mike Kelly challenging the rules changes. They said he waited too long.
Team Trump "Hail Mary" VS Arizona Cardinals "Hail Murray"
Let's start with Team Trump. This was published within the last hour.
"Donald Trump demands to join Texas’ Hail Mary bid to overturn his election"
quote
President Donald Trump has filed a motion to join lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Texas seeking to overturn the election in four states that he lost – and his new lawyer produced a filing claiming there is something ‘deeply amiss’ in the results.
The lawyer, John Eastman, who penned an op-ed this summer doubting whether Vice President-elect Kamal Harris was eligible for office despite her being born in California.
The new legal brief with Trump’s name on it, a motion for Trump, identified as the president, ‘to intervene in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election,’ includes many of the same arguments Trump has put forward on his Twitter account – including Wednesday, when Trump tweeted no candidate has ever lost the White House while carrying Florida and Ohio.
The Arizona Cardinals "Hail Murray" was "filed" during NFL Week 10, back on Sunday, November 15, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, AZ.
It's easier to see it on YouTube (just 23 seconds) than it would be to read about it. So here: https://youtu.be/lkQOJmmCS-0
According to "NextGenStats," ... Is that where the comma that creates a pause in cadence belongs? My inclination would be to have the comma after that closing quotation mark. But Todd or '82" has called me out on that. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.
Let's try that again. I will go against my inclination.
According to "NextGenStats," there was only a 16.9 percent completion probability when Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kyler Murray connected on that 43-yard pass play with Cardinals wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins. I have it on good authority (Ian Rapoport) that this was the third most improbable completion on a pass play of Kyler Murray's entire NFL career.
quote
"Kyler Murray had a ridiculously low chance of completing incredible Hail Mary to DeAndre Hopkins" The best play of the 2020 NFL season shouldn’t have happened.
Kyler Murray’s unbelievable Hail Mary completion to DeAndre Hopkins in Week 10 had such a low chance of success that it was statistically one of the most improbable completions of Murray’s young career.
Kyler Murray has filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a trademark for the phrase "Hail Murray." Josh Weinfuss, ESPN Staff Writer; November 20, 2020. https://www.espn.com/nfl/st...rademark-hail-murray
But let's get back to Team Trump. Does anyone know where to find a "NextGenStats" or anything similar for Team Trump's "Hail Mary" filing to join Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit, with the aim of reversing the presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia from Biden to Trump? Is it higher than the 16.9 percent success probability for the "Hail Murray"..? Lower?
I don't see it, myself. I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side. So my "NextGenStats" analysis is very low. Lower even than the 16.9 percent odds that were all the "Hail Murray" had going for it, before the football was snapped on that remarkable play from scrimmage.
"What's yours?"
So long for now.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-09-2020).]
Well then I suppose if Constitutional law worked according to the "numerical superiority" of either the defendants or the plaintiffs as rinselberg weirdly presumes then the 17 plaintiffs in this matter should prevail over the 4 defendants.
Obviously it doesn't work that way but Leftist "logic'' is frequently entertaining if not downright laughable.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-09-2020).]
To reiterate: I don't see it, myself. I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side.
I was unaware at the time that 17 other states have joined the Texas AG's lawsuit.
But it doesn't fundamentally change my thinking about it.
I still think that the Supreme Court, as a body, is not going to be receptive to the idea of wading into this legal territory of State Vs State when it comes to the voting and the election. I am aware that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction when one or more states has a dispute with one or more other states, but I still think the Supreme Court will not want to get involved in this elections-related case. I think that Federalism will be upmost in the minds of the justices, and so they will be respectful of the primacy of every state over the voting that is conducted within its state boundaries.
But hey--I'm just speculating. No one needs to take this with anything more than a small grain of salt. Or maybe with a one-ton block of salt. Depending on how that metaphor or figure of speech has been historically interpreted. I think it would be a "large" grain of salt. If a grain of salt could be "large."
If they send it to the House it is a good thing as it is not done by who has majority in the house but it is 1 vote from each state so it is 27 o 23 republican so that would put Trump back in
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
They're going to throw the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you wondering how that's gonna work out?
Originally posted by engine man: If they send it to the House it is a good thing as it is not done by who has majority in the house but it is 1 vote from each state so it is 27 o 23 republican so that would put Trump back in.
I was just reading about that the other day. What sticks in my mind is that there is another part of that process that involves the House voting in its regular way, where all 435 members of the House of Representatives vote.
I don't think I can find my way back to that article that I read.
I still think the Supreme Court will not want to get involved in this elections-related case. I think that Federalism will be upmost in the minds of the justices, and so they will be respectful of the primacy of every state over the voting that is conducted within its state boundaries
HAGO.
Leftist "logic" as well as ignorance of both history and Constitutional law has caused you, as usual, to be DEAD WRONG AGAIN .
In 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in the presidential race, with Republican Rutherford B. Hayes also trailing in the initial electoral vote. Republicans protested, and to resolve the dispute, Congress created a bipartisan commission that included five Supreme Court justices. It was Justice Joseph Bradley who proved the swing vote, siding with Hayes and giving the Republican a 185-184 electoral vote win.
Moreover, what exact kind of federalism are you blathering about? Dual, cooperative, creative, fiscal, new or some other bizarre form of "federalism" that you just made up in your mind?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
No one needs to take this with anything more than a small grain of salt. Or maybe with a one-ton block of salt.
That's for DAMN SURE
You seriously don't know what you're babbling about with regard to this issue.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-09-2020).]
Another post from forum member randye that I am pleased not to read.
Obviously, I'm aware of it. I've seen what it's about and have read some of the words. Few of the words. Enough of the words.
That looks to me like the kind of message that could get forum member randye in trouble again, in this New Forum Rules era that was declared on August 15, 2020, by the forum's owner and moderator. It's certainly a step in that direction. Considering that forum member (now ex-forum member) Boondawg was just banned.
Whobody knows?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-09-2020).]
I was just reading about that the other day. What sticks in my mind is that there is another part of that process that involves the House voting in its regular way, where all 435 members of the House of Representatives vote.
DEAD WRONG AGAIN
The 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution says you areDEAD WRONG AGAIN
I really wish that you would show at least a tiny bit of respect for the members of this forum and do just a minimum amount of basic, high school level American civics, study before you blow off with Leftist nonsense on these issues.
That looks to me like the kind of message that could get forum member randye in trouble again,.............
Again?
Why don't you enlighten the class and tell everyone precisely how it is "again" as you state.
It seems as though as closely as you follow every post I make on this forum, even to the point of obsessively counting my posts, you above anyone else would know that I haven't received even ONE probation since the "new rules" were established. NOT ONE
Additionally, if you have some kind of bug up your butt about your buddy bongdog being banned then take it up with Cliff Pennock because I didn't ban him.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-10-2020).]
Oh get off your high horse. You were one of the main reasons why these "new rules" were implemented here in the first place.
Your personal OPINION doesn't make anything a fact Patrick.
Tell you what, how about you get Cliff Pennock to state what the "main reasons why these "new rules" were implemented here" or get off YOUR high horse.
While we're at it, what exactly does your post have to do with anything regarding the topic of this thread other than the sole purpose of you personally attacking me without provocation.... AGAIN
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-10-2020).]
While we're at it, what exactly does your post have to do with anything regarding the topic of this thread other than the sole purpose of you personally attacking me without provocation.... AGAIN
Your attempt at humor (it was an attempt, right?) is hilarious... coming from the guy who has spent years going from thread to thread here, stalking PFF members whom he considers to be inferior... due to their vocation, their education, their perceived IQ... whatever reason he feels is worthy of being mocked.
You must be an absolute delight to be around in person. OMG.
Why don't you enlighten the class and tell everyone precisely how it is "again" as you state.
It seems as though as closely as you follow every post I make on this forum, even to the point of obsessively counting my posts, you above anyone else would know that I haven't received even ONE probation since the "new rules" were established. NOT ONE
Additionally, if you have some kind of bug up your butt about your buddy bongdog being banned then take it up with Cliff Pennock because I didn't ban him.
As much as it goes against my general preferences for this moment, I will respond very directly to this message from forum member randye.
I don't have a "bug up my butt" about Boondawg having been banned earlier today. I brought it up because I thought it might make you pause and consider that today (or yesterday, by now) the forum's owner and moderator gave evidence that he is "on the job" in so far as being the moderator of this forum. Boondawg's been banned. How can that be explained, except by the "hand" of the forum's moderator?
It's interesting that you say that you have not received even one probation SINCE the New Forum Rules were established (on August 15, 2020.) As far as I know, you have never been put on probation. I do know that quite some time ago now, the moderator deleted two of your messages. I know what the messages were. I have a screen copy of one of your moderator-deleted messages saved on my hard drive.
When the New Forum Rules era was established on August 15, 2020, you immediately started toeing the line by reducing the constancy and the ugliness of your violative public messaging on this forum. You "downsized" that aspect of your participation, at least enough to get by in this brave new world of Forum Rules. I just shortened "New Forum Rules" to "Forum Rules" because that's really what it is. It's not new rules. It's a new emphasis on the rules being upheld with consistency and attentiveness by the moderator, who gave fair warning, on August 15, 2020.
I lean towards the theory that the moderator used the Private Messages mode to send you a strongly worded warning about your behavior. A "cease and desist" order. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems far more likely than the other idea, that you saw "the writing on the wall" and proactively modified your behavior. You're not proactive. You're reactive.
Now I see that you are pushing back (again) against the forum rules. I see you testing the waters to see how much you can get away with. I see you going out of your way to try to provoke and insult other members, instead of discussing the topics that come up in a civil way, as is called out at the very beginning of the posting guidelines--that "sticky" thread that is always at the top of the Totally O/T part of the forum's list of topics. You've been cautious, but clearly, you are now trying to push the envelope, hoping that you can reestablish the "bad old days" when you were free to create absolutely any kind of public message whatsoever, without the slightest regard for civility or any of the norms of civilized discussions.
I never tried to count the number of your violative public messages. They are in the thousands and strewn across hundreds of different topics in the record of this forum. That's just an estimate. A conservative estimate. Anyone who is truly familiar with your "body of work" can attest to that.
As far as this assertion that I chase you around on this forum and obsess over your posts--that's ridiculous. That's as stupid on your part as if you were suddenly become the Benito Mussolini of 20th century history--"El Duce"--and were complaining about myself (and some other forum members) as being too "bossy" and "domineering" for your liking. You're projecting.
I don't know what will happen if you continue to push the envelope and resume your violative behaviors, as they were plain for anyone here to see before the "edict" of August 15, 2020.
Do you?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-10-2020).]
I am inclined towards the theory that the moderator used the Private Messages mode to send you a strongly worded warning about your behavior. A "cease and desist" order. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems like a much more credible idea than the other idea, that you yourself saw "the writing on the wall" and modified your behavior to fall more in line with the forum rules......
Once again you are DEAD WRONG
But you do concoct some wild fantasies.
I also shouldn't have to remind you that YOU are not the arbiter of what is, or isn't. permissible to post on this forum.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I know what the messages were. I have a screen copy (I guess) of one of your moderator-deleted messages squirreled away on my hard drive. I wasn't systematic enough to archive the other message of yours that was moderator-deleted.......
..........
As far as your assertion here that I chase you around on this forum and obsess over your posts--you are being utterly ridiculous.
Yep. It's "utterly ridiculous" when you admit that you are actually archiving my posts on a hard drive.
Now back to the thread topic.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-10-2020).]
"Trump’s scheme for state legislatures to overturn the election won’t work"
Keith E. Whittington for the Washington Post; November 20, 2020.
quote
Federal law provides that members of Congress may state objections to the counting of the electoral votes from any state. The votes certified by the state governor are counted unless both chambers [the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives], by majority vote, agree to sustain the objection.
This might be the article that I was trying to find again. Where it says "majority vote." I think that means by majority vote of all 435 members of the House of Representatives. If the author's intention was to describe that other way of voting in the House, where each State delegation has a single vote, wouldn't he (likely) have made that more explicit?
Keith E. Whittington (we go way back ) is a professor of Politics at Princeton University.
But I guess (maybe) that paragraph isn't relevant if the SCOTUS pleases the POTUS (and perhaps the FLOTUS, although I wonder) and decides to honor the "Texas + 18" lawsuit and throws the Presidential election entirely into the lap of the U.S. Congress?
Ta-ta.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-10-2020).]
We haven't seen anything yet to compare with what will happen if the House gets to make the call.
If President Trump wins a 2nd consecutive term and there are widespread riots as a result then the Leftist's "smokescreen" that they used this past summer is effectively GONE
It will be manifestly clear that it's NOT about George Floyd, black lives mattering, or ANY of the other crap that was used as camouflage for their larval Communist insurgency.
It will clearly be seen as what it was and is. An attempt at a violent Marxist revolution in this country.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-10-2020).]
There will always be another George Floyd, Traevon, Rodney King. When has there not been? Even when it's an armed criminal who gets killed, they will riot. They murdered police officers in Texas at a BLM march during Obama's term. Did you sleep through that one?
"Trump’s scheme for state legislatures to overturn the election won’t work"
Keith E. Whittington for the Washington Post; November 20, 2020.
This might be the article that I was trying to find again. Where it says "majority vote." I think that means by majority vote of all 435 members of the House of Representatives. If the author's intention was to describe that other way of voting in the House, where each State delegation has a single vote, wouldn't he (likely) have made that more explicit?
Keith E. Whittington (we go way back ) is a professor of Politics at Princeton University.
But I guess (maybe) that paragraph isn't relevant if the SCOTUS pleases the POTUS (and perhaps the FLOTUS, although I wonder) and decides to honor the "Texas + 18" lawsuit and throws the Presidential election entirely into the lap of the U.S. Congress? Ta-ta.
The House of Representatives scheme is not Trump's. It's the founding father's scheme. Hate the game.
for Contingent Election of President and Vice President
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution requires that presidential and vice presidential candidates gain “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” in order to win election. With a total of 538 electors representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 270 electoral votes is the “magic number,” the arithmetic majority necessary to win the presidency. What would happen if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes? In these circumstances, the 12 th Amendment also provides that the House of Representatives would elect the President, and the Senate would elect the Vice President, in a procedure known as “contingent election.” Contingent election has been implemented twice in the nation’s history under the 12th Amendment: first, to elect the President in 1825, and second, the Vice President in 1837. In a contingent election, the House would choose among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state, regardless of population, casts a single vote for President in a contingent election. Representatives of states with two or more Representatives would therefore need to conduct an internal poll within their state delegation to decide which candidate would receive the state’s single vote. A majority of state votes, 26 or more, is required to elect, and the House must vote “immediately” and “by ballot.” Additional precedents exist from 1825, but they would not be binding on the House in a contemporary election. In a contingent election, the Senate elects the Vice President, choosing one of the two candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts a single vote, and the votes of a majority of the whole Senate, 51 or more, are necessary to elect. The District of Columbia, which is not a state, would not participate in a contingent election, despite the fact that it casts three electoral votes. Although contingent election has been implemented only once each for President and Vice President since the 12th Amendment was ratified, the failure to win an electoral college majority is a potential outcome in any presidential election. Some examples include an election closely contested by two major candidates, one in which one or more third-party or independent candidacies might win a portion of the electoral vote, or one involving defections by a significant number of so-called “faithless” electors. A contingent election would be conducted by a newly elected Congress, immediately following the joint congressional session that counts and certifies electoral votes. This session is set by law for January 6 of the year following the presidential election, but is occasionally rescheduled. If the House is unable to elect a President by the January 20 inauguration day, the 20th Amendment provides that the Vice President-elect would act as President until the impasse is resolved. If neither a President nor Vice President has been chosen by inauguration day, the Presidential Succession Act applies, under which the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, or a Cabinet officer, in that order, would act as President until a President or Vice President qualifies. A contingent election would require Congress to consider and discharge functions of great constitutional significance, which could be complicated by a protracted and contentious political struggle that might stem from an electoral college deadlock. This report provides an examination of constitutional requirements and historical precedents associated with contingent election. It also identifies and evaluates contemporary issues that might emerge in the modern context.
) is a professor of Politics at Princeton University.
