Biden won

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
He also said covid would disappear from the news after the election, that is was a media hoax, after he recovered with the aid of antibodies, if not for that he would probably be dead or fucked by now. No bottom and he never lost much approval since the election either.

If a public trial caused 1% of them to fall away it would be worth it for that reason alone. Surprisingly many people accept a fair trial by judge and jury, especially with the defendant accorded extraordinary rights. It would help to split the more moderate ones off from the fanatics, and perhaps public trials on TV will help to cause a split in the republican party and stress out the base.
Are you sure you aren't some authoritarian asshole who just wants to see heads roll?

Biden will stay out of it and let the DOJ investigate before anything can happen. Trump's trial is years away. I want justice and am willing to let the wheels grind ever so slowly but finely.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
When Donald goes on trial it should be televised, as should all of his criminal trials and law suits, he has called the legal system and government into disrepute, as a high government official. He claims the election system, judges and courts are corrupt along with the FBI, 75 million citizens claim to believe him and in him.

His trial by judge and jury must be public, sunlight is the best disinfectant and the TV lights should work as well for such purposes. I figure his first trial as individual #1 should be public and by that I mean TV, Donald will want to manage his own defense, so no decent law firm will touch him, he will probably have Rudy defending him! He will appeal because of incompetent counsel, so warn him repeatedly about Rudy before and during the trial! :lol:
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Are you sure you aren't some authoritarian asshole who just wants to see heads roll?

Biden will stay out of it and let the DOJ investigate before anything can happen. Trump's trial is years away. I want justice and am willing to let the wheels grind ever so slowly but finely.
Nope, the process as it was pre Trump, a TV trial is warranted by the extraordinary circumstances and public impact of the offences, in his official capacity he said there was no justice in America, it must be publicly demonstrated otherwise. He will be indicted by his own appointees or their successors in the SDNY, or there really is no justice in America and Trump was right. If it doesn't happen, some one will go to prison over it, that's not authoritarian, that is common sense and logical.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Biden will stay out of it and let the DOJ investigate before anything can happen. Trump's trial is years away. I want justice and am willing to let the wheels grind ever so slowly but finely.
I agree completely, however the investigation on individual #1 is complete and the indictments are sealed, that is the proper legal procedure, at 12:01PM they can be unsealed and presented to a judge by a SDNY prosecutor who wants to keep his job, along with his boss. That's the way the law works, TV trials are the judge's discretion under law and I've presented some arguments that will be used in court. Not a show trial, justice must be not only done, in must be seen to be done, in this case in particular.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Are you sure you aren't some authoritarian asshole who just wants to see heads roll?

Biden will stay out of it and let the DOJ investigate before anything can happen. Trump's trial is years away. I want justice and am willing to let the wheels grind ever so slowly but finely.
I dunno if Joe's appointees will be looking into the SDNY, normally prosecutors are not changed out wholesale, but in an orderly fashion. I should hardly think they need to instruct a line prosecutor to indict Trump, a private citizen, the new SDNY DA might take an interest, but after the fact, selecting the trial team etc. Only normal operating procedures and no political interference is required to quickly indict Trump as Individual #1 and muzzle him pre trial and most everybody wants that. If he breaks the court order, he will be jailed like anybody else, if he breaks bail conditions. If he ends up in jail awaiting trial, he won't delay it too long!
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Are you sure you aren't some authoritarian asshole who just wants to see heads roll?

Biden will stay out of it and let the DOJ investigate before anything can happen. Trump's trial is years away. I want justice and am willing to let the wheels grind ever so slowly but finely.
Personally I think Joe should not appoint anybody to the SDNY for awhile, see how the people who are there are doing, Berman's replacement seems like a good choice, if she can remain there. If they follow the law and normal procedure indictments for individual #1 will be forthcoming quickly. But it would not be unreasonable to assume the SDNY would be seeking some guidance on the matter from the DOJ, especially if Trump is waving a self pardon around.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Personally I think Joe should not appoint anybody to the SDNY for awhile, see how the people who are there are doing, Berman's replacement seems like a good choice, if she can remain there. If they follow the law and normal procedure indictments for individual #1 will be forthcoming quickly. But it would not be unreasonable to assume the SDNY would be seeking some guidance on the matter from the DOJ, especially if Trump is waving a self pardon around.
Personally, I think that Biden should let his appointee to head the DOJ do his job and maintain a hands off policy to that department. Biden is making speeches saying that same thing and it's the best thing he could do to get this country back on track.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think that Biden should let his appointee to head the DOJ do his job and maintain a hands off policy to that department. Biden is making speeches saying that same thing and it's the best thing he could do to get this country back on track.
Agreed, Joe is POTUS, it's not his job, the legal system as usual pre Trump. One can hardly accuse the other side of breaking the rules while one is doing the same. If there is no case a prosecutor will not indict and a judge will not hear the case and if they do, it must be proved to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. Personally I'm not even sure Joe's AG should be involved in the prosecution or even investigation of Trump, most of that should be handled by a special independent counsel and I believe you need the senate to do that. I also believe Joe mentioned a presidential crimes commission to examine those crimes Trump committed while in office. The Stormy Daniel's crimes predated his term in office, were initiated by his own appointees, or the court's (Berman) and indictments should be waiting in the SDNY to be unsealed.

I want justice here, not something else, the same justice anybody else would get, the only difference being a public on TV trial, because of extenuating circumstances of his own doing, the trial judge makes the call on that one.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Washington Post Reporting Describes Trump In Denial Over His Election Loss | Deadline | MSNBC

Washington Post White House bureau chief Phil Rucker discusses his newest report about what went on inside the White House during the 20 days between Election Day and when the GSA ascertained Joe Biden’s victory
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
He's talking about technology here, more than science, more about applying what is scientifically possible, in theory anyway. Challenges with timetables work but is often expensive unless there is a big imperative, in this case there is. A big government socialist enterprise like WW2 or the moonshot might not be the way you wanna go though. This is a challenge of a different nature, the same drive, motivation, energy and commitment are required though and the problem won't wait, neither will the rising sea levels and disruption. America is back in the climate game and the world ain't waiting, with electric vehicle mandates and plans to go green any way we can.

Like masks and Trump, you don't need to convince everybody, just a clear majority that climate change is a threat, not to the planet, it will do just fine, but for human human civilization.

Let's talk about innovations and logical fallacies....
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
I want justice here, not something else, the same justice anybody else would get, the only difference being a public on TV trial, because of extenuating circumstances of his own doing, the trial judge makes the call on that one.
Why do you want to give the donald so much joy? Even as he's being sentenced to jail he'll be on top of the world with the ratings he'd get and we'd never hear the end of it. ;)

He's have to wear a gag the whole time too or we couldn't hear anything else.

:peace:
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Why do you want to give the donald so much joy? Even as he's being sentenced to jail he'll be on top of the world with the ratings he'd get and we'd never hear the end of it. ;)

He's have to wear a gag the whole time too or we couldn't hear anything else.

:peace:
Judges have been known to tie defendants to a chair and gag them during trial, perfectly legal too, I refer you to the Chicago seven
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I see there are repots that Trump wants to fire Bill Bar, but aides are trying to talk him out of it. Donald would cut off his cock and brain by firing Barr. I think Bill was playing Donald for a sucker, he knew there are sealed indictments in the SDNY for individual #1. He fired Berman supposedly over the Turkish banking scandal, it was a foreign matter and within the presidents purview. He failed because a Judge had appointed Berman and his deputy automatically became his successor, even though Bill tried to put his own guy in there. If he could have succeeded in getting his DA installed, I doubt he could have fucked with sealed indictments, unless he wanted to do prison time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump White House won't endorse Barr - The Washington Post
William Barr gets the cold shoulder from the White House

If there’s a member of President Trump’s Cabinet who has gone furthest out on a limb for him, it might be Attorney General William P. Barr. Since issuing a misleadingly pro-Trump summary of the Mueller report, Barr has intervened in a number of cases on behalf of Trump’s allies, sometimes in extraordinary ways. He has also echoed Trump’s controversial rhetoric on issues such as mail voting and antifa.

But even Barr has apparently become a squish in the eyes of Trumpworld. And on Wednesday, he received a rather conspicuous lack of an endorsement from the White House.

In a news briefing, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was asked whether Trump has confidence in Barr after the attorney general said Tuesday that he had found no voter fraud on the level required to change the results of the 2020 election.

Her answer was decidedly noncommittal — even more so than past instances in which she has been asked about other administration officials and nominees.

“Does he have faith in Attorney General William P. Barr? Does he still have confidence in him?” asked NBC News’s Kristen Welker.

McEnany declined to commit to that.

“The president, if he has any personnel announcements — you’ll be the first to know,” McEnany said, without answering the question. She quickly asked for another question.

This is a frequent question in White House briefings when it appears an official or nominee has run afoul of the president. And McEnany’s answer isn’t wholly different from past instances in which she has been asked it. Perhaps she simply doesn’t know. She has certainly punted on a thing or two in her time, despite being in Trump’s inner circle.

But her answer was also notably different from some recent instances in which she has been asked pretty much the same question.

When asked whether Trump had confidence in White House coronavirus task force member Anthony S. Fauci this summer, she suggested Trump did, while couching her words: “The president has confidence — confidence in the conclusions of our medical experts, but it’s up to him to determine what to do with that information.”

When asked about Juan Guaidó, whom the Trump administration had deemed the acting president of Venezuela, she said in June, “He has not lost confidence at all.”

Asked about the U.S. intelligence community, she said in July: “Yes, he does have confidence. And he has, many times, acted on verified intelligence.”

At other points, she has offered similar boilerplate about journalists needing to wait for any personnel announcements, but in doing so she has also indicated Trump still had confidence.

After Pentagon nominee Anthony Tata’s anti-Islam tweets came to light, she said in August, “I have no personnel announcements other than to say that the president still supports him.”

On whether he had confidence in Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn in September: “There are no changes. Dr. Hahn is FDA commissioner. So, yes.”

But there’s one relatively recent instance in which she offered a version of that — but gave a similar answer to Wednesday’s, without committing to Trump’s confidence.

She was asked in June, after Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper distanced himself from Trump’s display in D.C.'s Lafayette Square amid protests, whether Trump maintained confidence in Esper.

“With regard to whether the president has confidence, I would say: If he loses confidence in Secretary Esper, I’m sure you all will be the first to know,” McEnany said.

Esper was fired last month, after tensions from the summer lingered and Trump apparently felt he had more latitude after the 2020 election.

Does that mean Barr will be fired as Esper was? Not necessarily. Time is running short on Trump’s presidency, and perhaps this is simply meant to send a message to Barr not to run afoul of Trump again.

But that message is pretty unmistakable when compared with how the White House and McEnany have fielded similar questions in the past. Trump’s allies have long hailed Barr as their savior when it comes to rooting out supposed corruption in the Russia investigation, but Trump has in recent weeks complained frequently about the lack of action on that front and others — such as alleged voter fraud.

If an ally of Barr’s stature and history were to find himself on the outs with Trump, that would certainly be a commentary on where we are in this moment.
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
I see there are repots that Trump wants to fire Bill Bar, but aides are trying to talk him out of it. Donald would cut off his cock and brain by firing Barr. I think Bill was playing Donald for a sucker, he knew there are sealed indictments in the SDNY for individual #1. He fired Berman supposedly over the Turkish banking scandal, it was a foreign matter and within the presidents purview. He failed because a Judge had appointed Berman and his deputy automatically became his successor, even though Bill tried to put his own guy in there. If he could have succeeded in getting his DA installed, I doubt he could have fucked with sealed indictments, unless he wanted to do prison time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump White House won't endorse Barr - The Washington Post
William Barr gets the cold shoulder from the White House

If there’s a member of President Trump’s Cabinet who has gone furthest out on a limb for him, it might be Attorney General William P. Barr. Since issuing a misleadingly pro-Trump summary of the Mueller report, Barr has intervened in a number of cases on behalf of Trump’s allies, sometimes in extraordinary ways. He has also echoed Trump’s controversial rhetoric on issues such as mail voting and antifa.

But even Barr has apparently become a squish in the eyes of Trumpworld. And on Wednesday, he received a rather conspicuous lack of an endorsement from the White House.

In a news briefing, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was asked whether Trump has confidence in Barr after the attorney general said Tuesday that he had found no voter fraud on the level required to change the results of the 2020 election.

Her answer was decidedly noncommittal — even more so than past instances in which she has been asked about other administration officials and nominees.

“Does he have faith in Attorney General William P. Barr? Does he still have confidence in him?” asked NBC News’s Kristen Welker.

McEnany declined to commit to that.

“The president, if he has any personnel announcements — you’ll be the first to know,” McEnany said, without answering the question. She quickly asked for another question.

This is a frequent question in White House briefings when it appears an official or nominee has run afoul of the president. And McEnany’s answer isn’t wholly different from past instances in which she has been asked it. Perhaps she simply doesn’t know. She has certainly punted on a thing or two in her time, despite being in Trump’s inner circle.

But her answer was also notably different from some recent instances in which she has been asked pretty much the same question.

When asked whether Trump had confidence in White House coronavirus task force member Anthony S. Fauci this summer, she suggested Trump did, while couching her words: “The president has confidence — confidence in the conclusions of our medical experts, but it’s up to him to determine what to do with that information.”

When asked about Juan Guaidó, whom the Trump administration had deemed the acting president of Venezuela, she said in June, “He has not lost confidence at all.”

Asked about the U.S. intelligence community, she said in July: “Yes, he does have confidence. And he has, many times, acted on verified intelligence.”

At other points, she has offered similar boilerplate about journalists needing to wait for any personnel announcements, but in doing so she has also indicated Trump still had confidence.

After Pentagon nominee Anthony Tata’s anti-Islam tweets came to light, she said in August, “I have no personnel announcements other than to say that the president still supports him.”

On whether he had confidence in Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn in September: “There are no changes. Dr. Hahn is FDA commissioner. So, yes.”

But there’s one relatively recent instance in which she offered a version of that — but gave a similar answer to Wednesday’s, without committing to Trump’s confidence.

She was asked in June, after Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper distanced himself from Trump’s display in D.C.'s Lafayette Square amid protests, whether Trump maintained confidence in Esper.

“With regard to whether the president has confidence, I would say: If he loses confidence in Secretary Esper, I’m sure you all will be the first to know,” McEnany said.

Esper was fired last month, after tensions from the summer lingered and Trump apparently felt he had more latitude after the 2020 election.

Does that mean Barr will be fired as Esper was? Not necessarily. Time is running short on Trump’s presidency, and perhaps this is simply meant to send a message to Barr not to run afoul of Trump again.

But that message is pretty unmistakable when compared with how the White House and McEnany have fielded similar questions in the past. Trump’s allies have long hailed Barr as their savior when it comes to rooting out supposed corruption in the Russia investigation, but Trump has in recent weeks complained frequently about the lack of action on that front and others — such as alleged voter fraud.

If an ally of Barr’s stature and history were to find himself on the outs with Trump, that would certainly be a commentary on where we are in this moment.
You couldn't write a believable script for what's going on. A laugh a minute if it wasn't so dire.

Tripping balls on some nice Penis Envy 'shrooms tonight. Think I'll watch whatever isn't the news tonight. A Doc Martin re-run is going down good. :)

:peace:
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Upcoming deadlines :

  • November 3, 2020: Election Day
  • Voters across the country select a candidate for president and vice president. In doing so, voters determine which political party sends a slate of electors to the Electoral College to represent their state. Each state receives the same number of electors as the members of its congressional delegation.
  • December 8, 2020: Safe harbor deadline
  • Federal law sets what is called the safe harbor deadline. If states have nominated electors in accordance with state law by this date, Congress cannot challenge their nomination.[1]
  • December 14, 2020: Electoral College votes
  • The 538 members of the Electoral College cast their votes. Electors do not convene in one location but vote in their respective state capitals.[3] A record of the outcome is mailed to the Vice President, the Archivist of the United States, the state's Secretary of State, and the U.S. District Court judge in the district where the vote took place.[1]
  • December 23, 2020: Deadline for receipt of election results
  • If the Vice President does not receive the official record of a state's Electoral College vote by this deadline, he or she must request the record from the relevant Secretary of State and U.S District Court judge.[1]
  • January 6, 2021: Congress counts electoral votes
  • The newly elected Congress convenes in a joint session to count the electoral votes. Members of Congress can present objections to the results. If an objection is made in writing by both a member of the Senate and a member of the House, Congress will debate and vote on the objection's merit. Electoral votes can be excluded only if both chambers vote to accept the objection. If a ticket receives 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the 538 members of the Electoral College, the Vice President formally declares the winner of the election.[1]

I'm not clear on what the "Safe harbor" deadline means. "Congress cannot challenge their (a state's) nominated electors". We will be at the deadline tomorrow. Sounds good whatever it is.

In one week, the Electoral College will cast their votes and the record saying that Biden won will be official.

Of course, as Baldrick says, it won't be "over", as in, the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party will still be out there, denying the result and eating the faces of any member of their party or political leader who says otherwise.

Only 30 days left before the final steps to declaring that Biden won are taken and even the LEPFP can't stop it. They can scream bloody murder but they can't stop it.

What a great day.
 
Last edited:

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I'm not clear on what the "Safe harbor" deadline means. "Congress cannot challenge their (a state's) nominated electors". We will be at the deadline tomorrow. Sounds good whatever it is.

What a great day.
I heard this talked about today for the first time too.

It looks like this is why Trump has been filing nonsensical lawsuits in the key states to tie up the electoral college votes to be able to certify by it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-safe-harbor-day-why-it-s-bad-news-trump-n1250205
Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 2.50.28 PM.png
WASHINGTON — States that haven't yet certified their votes for president or that face legal challenges are rushing to resolve any remaining disputes by Tuesday, known as safe harbor day.

Under federal law, Congress must count the electoral votes from states that act by Dec. 8 to choose their presidential electors — the people who meet next week in each state to cast the actual votes for president — and to resolve any remaining legal disputes over the choice.

The Electoral Count Act was passed in 1887, after four states sent in votes from two different sets of electors from the 1876 presidential race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Congress had established no mechanism for resolving fights over competing slates of electors and adopted the act in hopes of heading off future disputes.

Under the law, Congress must count the electoral votes from states that chose their electors and resolve any legal disputes over the choice by the act's deadline, which is six days before the electors meet to vote. Of course, if a state fails to meet the safe harbor deadline but chooses its electors by Dec. 14, Congress can still count the votes.

President-elect Joe Biden has 306 electoral votes to President Donald Trump's 232, with 270 needed to win the White House.

The safe harbor deadline, however, is something of a guarantee. If for example, a state legislature decided to send in its own slate, the law says the electors chosen by popular vote and certified by the governor must be counted by Congress from states that met the safe harbor deadline.

Individual members of Congress could try to object and claim a state did not achieve safe harbor status. But states are nonetheless eager to meet the deadline. It was the Florida legislature's desire to meet the safe harbor deadline in 2000 that led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule, in Bush v. Gore, that the state had run out of time to conduct any further recounts.

The federal law says a state qualifies for the safe harbor protection if it has resolved "any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors." State court cases remain active in six states that certified Biden the winner — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin. So they may not be able to claim the protection unless their cases are resolved by Tuesday.

In Wisconsin, Judge Stephen Simanek, presiding over Trump's newly filed challenge to recounts in two counties, pressed the lawyers in the case to act quickly. "We have a safe harbor issue, but I want to go beyond that as little as possible," the judge said. He scheduled a hearing in the case for Thursday.

Seeking the protection of the law is something of a belt-and-suspenders approach, given that there appear to be no serious efforts by the legislatures in those states to send Congress a separate slate of Trump electors.

Federal court cases remain active in Pennsylvania, but the general view among election law specialists is that the mere filing of a federal court lawsuit would not block a state's achieving safe harbor status, unless a judge had required the state to take steps that would delay its choice of electors.

"Assuming that the pending federal court litigation does not give the plaintiffs any of the remedies they are seeking, these federal cases should not affect safe harbor status, even if they go past Tuesday," said Edward Foley, an election law expert at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

Trump, his campaign, and Republican supporters have filed more than four dozen lawsuits since Election Day. But so far they have affected only a small number of votes in disputed state races. And no court has upheld any of the claims of fraud.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The below story is really long, so I am not going to post the entire thing, but it is interesting with the delay tactic to stop the states from certifying before the Safe Harbor day with a nonprofit tied to Trump spamming the courts with nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/thomas-more-jenna-ellis/2020/12/07/09057432-362d-11eb-b59c-adb7153d10c2_story.htmlScreen Shot 2020-12-07 at 3.01.08 PM.png
A conservative legal organization that has filed lawsuits challenging the election results in five states has a tie to President Trump’s legal team, raising questions about the independence of what has appeared to be an endeavor separate from the president’s last-gasp legal maneuvering.

Senior Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis serves as special counsel to the Thomas More Society, which has filed lawsuits through the newly formed Amistad Project alleging problems with the vote in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The Thomas More Society confirmed her relationship to the group but said she is playing no role in its election-related activities.

However, her affiliation with the organization — as well as other links between Trump’s team and the conservative group — suggest a coordinated effort to flood the nation’s courts with repetitive litigation that allows the president to claim the election results remain contested.

The first glimpse of the Amistad Project came late this summer, when the new legal outfit popped up in courts across the country, trying to stop county election officials from taking grants to bolster their operations amid the pandemic.

A lawyer who works with the group was also spotted encouraging Republican observers to challenge the absentee ballot count at Detroit’s TCF Center on Election Day.

Last month, the Amistad Project announced in a news release that the Trump campaign would join the group on “a case-by-case basis” in challenging election results across the country. The statement, which has since been taken offline, quoted Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani calling Amistad “our partner in the fight to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
Amistad attorneys also drew up a draft complaint to file jointly with the president’s campaign in Michigan, according to a document posted a website used by Amistad to raise money and publish its legal briefs. Ian Northon, an Amistad attorney named on the brief, told The Washington Post there was no such joint effort and that the draft was posted by mistake.

The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based nonprofit law firm focused on religious liberty issues, has said the Amistad Project is “dedicated to election integrity” in the public interest.

“As a tax-exempt organization, the Thomas More Society doesn’t support or endorse candidates, but when our election laws and even our constitution are under attack, we take action,” the group said in an October announcement.

Ellis is a Thomas More Society special counsel and is also listed as part of the “Leadership and Advisory Board” on the website used by Amistad.

The group’s tactics have complemented the president’s own legal and public relations strategy, and its work has been promoted by both Trump and his influential allies in the conservative media.

Amistad’s lawsuits have asked courts to allow the Republican-controlled legislatures in battleground states to appoint presidential electors — a strategy Trump and his legal team have urged state lawmakers around the country to embrace.
Amistad sought to justify the plan in a paper published on Friday that railed against the conduct of election officials in “urban Democrat strongholds.”

Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 3.02.32 PM.png

In response to questions from The Post, Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha wrote in an email that Ellis “has no association or involvement with our Amistad efforts” and that the group was not “at all connected with the Trump Campaign.”
 
Top