2020 Presidential Race

[NCFisher]

Looking like Wisconsin is set to toss out at least a couple of hundred thousand votes in their recount. If that's the case, predictions are that WI is about to turn Trump win. (Reports are at least 200,000 mail-in ballots with no request for mail-in ballot attached. By WI law, those must be tossed out.)

Damn, never can find a 1000 count can of 9mm when you may need one....

 

[Weezer]

Again they had committed other crimes against other men and women that day in that exact area which is why they were charged to begin with

Were they found guilty of these "other crimes"? If not, still innocent. Our system is predicated om innocent until proven guilty.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Uhm, it's just possible he refers to Biden being viewed as a legitimate presidency.
A concept the left is intimately familiar with.

I think the 'dumb' is assuming the "dumbest"thing out of bias confirmation.

That is not what he said. I'm interpreting Trump's words just as they are written. He was shifting the burden of proof to Biden because Trump knows that his legal team has no evidence in support of what they are alleging.

 

[AM64]

They can't be explained because they aren't real.

The questions aren't real or the events in the questions aren't real? I suppose if you just pretend the questions aren't real then the question of resolving the question becomes moot. If it's a matter of questionable events, then you have to pass the question into an open hearing to see what's in it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump may know something we don't.

Trump wouldn't be keeping it a secret over 3 weeks after the election, if this "something" was evidence of systemic fraud.

 

[Weezer]

Let's have a do over, only this time, neither Trump nor Biden can run. Sounds fair to me.

 

[volfanhill]

Trump wouldn't be keeping it a secret over 3 weeks after the election, if this "something" was evidence of systemic fraud.

It’s like they want to forget he has the largest bully pulpit on earth.

 

[NCFisher]

That is not what he said. I'm interpreting Trump's words just as they are written. He was shifting the burden of proof to Biden because Trump knows that his legal team has no evidence in support of what they are alleging.

That's not true; illegal contravention of federal and state election laws occurred in a number of battleground states. By state officials who should know better. Those votes must be invalidated.

This is simply fact.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Trump wouldn't be keeping it a secret over 3 weeks after the election, if this "something" was evidence of systemic fraud.

Says you.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The results from Pennsylvania were already certified on Tuesday, and Gov. Tom Wolfe has already chosen the electors.

 

[AM64]

Joe has never been a great speaker/verbal communicator. I certainly didn't expect him to suddenly improve at 78 years old.

Yeah, Joe's never been that intelligent, and I don't see that improving. Joe's always been short on ethics, and I don't see that improving either. Since a lot of people (according to you) have seen enough of Trump, when do you think your hypocrites in waiting will have seen enough of Biden? I'm guessing when hell freezes over.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's not true; illegal contravention of federal and state election laws occurred in a number of battleground states. By state officials who should know better. Those votes must be invalidated.

This is simply fact.

That is simply bull $hit... per Judge Stephanos Bibas - an appointee of President Donald Trump's. You don't get to create your own set of facts. Sorry.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

@PointGuard
I did read the Weissmann report, branded for public consumption as the "Mueller report". There was no collusion/conspiracy by any American, and no basis for charging obstruction notwithstanding the DOJ OLC opinion regarding indictment of a sitting president.

===========================================================
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true.

In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Barr said there were others in the meeting who heard Mueller say the same thing – that the OLC opinion played no role in the special counsel’s decision-making or lack thereof. The attorney general repeated this in his news conference the day Mueller’s report was released to the public:

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could not have accused the president of obstruction because he was handcuffed by the OLC opinion. Why, then, did Mueller allegedly inform Barr that a special counsel can abandon the opinion if the facts merit it?

“He (Mueller) said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”

Mueller did not abandon the OLC opinion in this case because he surely knew the facts and evidence did not support the law of obstruction. Instead, in his 448-page report, he implied presidential obstruction in a remarkable achievement in creative writing.

He set forth in luxurious detail “evidence on both sides of the question.” But this is not the job of any chief prosecutor, anywhere.

Mueller was not retained to compose a masterpiece worthy of Proust. He was hired to investigate potential crimes arising from Russian interference in a presidential election and make a reasoned decision on whether charges were merited.

Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality.

This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.

If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.

In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report. It was guaranteed to ignite the impeachment fire:

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

To reinforce the point, Mueller stated it twice in his report. He then reiterated the argument on Wednesday when he said: “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Prosecutors are not, and have never been, in the business of exonerating people. That’s not their job.

An experienced federal prosecutor, Mueller certainly knew this. It appears he had no intention of treating Trump equitably or applying the law in conformance with our criminal justice system.

In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries. Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence. Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built.

Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.

What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.
========================================================
Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's presumption of guilt

I was talking about you. AirVol.

Btw, I don't need your long winded explanations nor your extremely biased rationalizations

 

[NCFisher]

Hey! - don't disturb me while I'm polishing my "Office of the President Elect" pledge pin, okay!?

 

[Orange_Crush]

@PointGuard
I did read the Weissmann report, branded for public consumption as the "Mueller report". There was no collusion/conspiracy by any American, and no basis for charging obstruction notwithstanding the DOJ OLC opinion regarding indictment of a sitting president.

===========================================================
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true.

In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Barr said there were others in the meeting who heard Mueller say the same thing – that the OLC opinion played no role in the special counsel’s decision-making or lack thereof. The attorney general repeated this in his news conference the day Mueller’s report was released to the public:

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could not have accused the president of obstruction because he was handcuffed by the OLC opinion. Why, then, did Mueller allegedly inform Barr that a special counsel can abandon the opinion if the facts merit it?

“He (Mueller) said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”

Mueller did not abandon the OLC opinion in this case because he surely knew the facts and evidence did not support the law of obstruction. Instead, in his 448-page report, he implied presidential obstruction in a remarkable achievement in creative writing.

He set forth in luxurious detail “evidence on both sides of the question.” But this is not the job of any chief prosecutor, anywhere.

Mueller was not retained to compose a masterpiece worthy of Proust. He was hired to investigate potential crimes arising from Russian interference in a presidential election and make a reasoned decision on whether charges were merited.

Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality.

This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.

If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.

In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report. It was guaranteed to ignite the impeachment fire:

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

To reinforce the point, Mueller stated it twice in his report. He then reiterated the argument on Wednesday when he said: “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Prosecutors are not, and have never been, in the business of exonerating people. That’s not their job.

An experienced federal prosecutor, Mueller certainly knew this. It appears he had no intention of treating Trump equitably or applying the law in conformance with our criminal justice system.

In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries. Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence. Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built.

Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.

What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.
========================================================
Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's presumption of guilt

NC, I wanted to commend you for your excellent posts.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I was talking about you. AirVol.

Btw, I don't need your long winded explanations nor your extremely biased rationalizations

His posts are like Halcion. They work great for insomnia, but they don't do much good for anything else.

 

[AM64]

I think somebody flipped a switch. It's been officially nasty lately.

It will be interesting to see how masochistic the VN Biden admirers are; the next couple of years are going to be hard on them. Gaff a minute Joe will provide lots of ammunition.

 

[TechnoVol]

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

 

[Orange_Crush]

 

[BowlBrother85]

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

I get tired of responding to the same posts over and over... but here goes one more time:

Judge Patricia McCullough's ruling stated that, "To the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election ... for the office of President and Vice President of the United States of America, Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from from doing so, pending an evidentiary hearing."

... but that's just it. The results had already been certified by the time of this ruling. Joe Biden was certified as the winner of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Tom Wolfe has chosen the electors. This ruling doesn't overturn that which has already been done.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution

It's looking more and more that PA is about to turn Trump. And it sounds like WI may turn Trump by the end of the weekend. (Just what I'm hearing.) Also, it sounds like Lin Wood's case in GA is extremely strong. If he wins, it will put the EC in the hands of the state legislators.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It's looking more and more that PA is about to turn Trump. And it sounds like WI may turn Trump by the end of the weekend. (Just what I'm hearing.) Also, it sounds like Lin Wood's case in GA is extremely strong. If he wins, it will put the EC in the hands of the state legislators.

You are either stupid or something more than simply delusional. Trump's legal team has been laughed out of every court in which they have appeared.

 

[TechnoVol]

 

[AM64]

I remember the commercials on all 3 stations we had. That's high living, 3-channels.

I always enjoyed watching the F-104 High Flight clip when they signed off.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I get tired of responding to the same posts over and over... but here goes one more time:

Judge Patricia McCullough's ruling stated that, "To the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election ... for the office of President and Vice President of the United States of America, Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from from doing so, pending an evidentiary hearing."

... but that's just it. The results had already been certified by the time of this ruling. Joe Biden was certified as the winner of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Tom Wolfe has chosen the electors. This ruling doesn't overturn that which has already been done.

You really should start reading.There DOES remain further actions. From the link:

A Pennsylvania state court Judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings.

In other words, PA EC activity is frozen. PA can't elect the president until this is sorted. And teh PA state legislature has started the cogs to take the EC into their own hands due to election fraud.