I fervently hope the Antrim County judge denies her motion to intervene.
I read AZ's brief as saying "We're not taking sides between Texas and Pennsylvania. But just so you know, we support fair elections and would appreciate a quick decision on this case if you decide to accept it."
Exactly. Any audit conducted by Benson is fake news. Her loyal bureaucrats will spend six months producing a massive report that nobody reads saying it was the best election ever, only isolated instances of garden variety irregularities.
Long, rambling article. Not impressed. She has a stretch argument that all votes must be counted by midnight of election day under 3 USC section 2, so votes counted early Wednesday morning and beyond can't count. Nobody is going to buy that argument.
This is good news. Keep the pressure on Benson. Some say she's the brains of the Democrat takeover, not Whitmer or Nessel.
Way better than that: 16 states joined Missouri on the amicus brief!!! Amici curiae are the States of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Quick, meaningful response by Republican leaders. I think they may be getting the message. Cynthia Johnson helped our cause.
Great point: Fellow pedes, do you think Trump is weak by never talking down to people without power, even when they disagree with him?
I cancelled my 30-year WSJ subscription this morning.
Can't find the clip using this link.
Great observation.
Just cancelled my 30-year WSJ subscription. The customer service rep was friendly and did not give me too hard of a time. She asked why and I told her because the paper wasn't seriously covering the biggest news (stolen election). Whether it was part of her script, I don't know, but she says I'm not the only one. I will miss Kimberly Strassel and the smart editorial coverage, but it's not worth $50/month.
Pay attention Christians! It is happening here too. Sure, our supreme court said Cuomo's oppressive orders violated 1st Amendment, but we'll see liberal governors simply ignore supreme court orders citing "public safety" just as they ignored the plain text of the Constitution.
This is great reporting. Old-fashioned hard work tracking down receipts through state FOIA requests. Original article was Forbes. Would be sweet if China lost its $400 million investment Dominion getting nailed for tax evasion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/12/08/dominion-voting-systems-received-120-million-from-19-states-and-133-local-governments-to-provide-election-services-2017-2019/?sh=201e1505620f
I frequently litigate cases in federal courts of appeal (not SCOTUS however). Based on my quick research, SCOTUS denies about half of the petitions it receives to invoke its original and exclusive jurisdiction. That's why a few more states intervening on the side of Texas will help. I'm not a doomer! But I think even the conservatives on SCOTUS would prefer that the states or Congress decide the election than SCOTUS, e.g. under the 12th Amendment.
Getting other states to join Texas in this is really important or this may die on the vine. Even though it has original and exclusive jurisdiction of state v. state claims, SCOTUS frequently denies a state leave to file its "bill of complaint." A majority of the justices must agree to accept the case (only four needed to grant certiorari). Plus the standard of proof is higher to win -- basically clear and convincing. If you want to educate yourself, here is a link to a law review article. https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1399&context=appellatepracticeprocess
Fake news. SCOTUS docket shows no order dismissing the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html#
Docketing means nothing because to the best of my knowledge every case properly filed at the court receives a case docket number - many thousands of cases every year. Only a small fraction are ever heard. But this case has a much higher chance of actually being adjudicated because it invokes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
I'm not too upset over this dismissal for two reasons. 1) The issues in the Texas case present many/most of the same issues as Mike Kelly's case (the one Alito just rejected) and 2) The Texas case is cleaner. I was concerned that Kelly's case had messy issues because it would require the U.S. Supreme Court to interprety (and overrule) Pennsylvania's own Supreme Court on Pennsylvania law. The Texas case avoids those problems.
Short answer: usually yes. Also, Antrim could argue the provision is unenforceable because it violates Michigan's public policy in favor of transparent election proceedings.
This affidavit is intentionally misleading. The money line is "our investigation discovered." This is pure hearsay and inadmissible as evidence. I suppose it is not technically perjury, which is hard to prove, because the aviant can simply say "okay, our investigation was faulty. Sorry, but that's not perjury.".
what paragraph?
that's funny! "3" for boobs