Plan B Forum

There are still 42 days left in this administration. Trump is clearly deranged and incapable of executing the Presidency. The 25th Amendment is right there in the Constitution. It's beyond time for Pence and the Cabinet to go ahead with it. If the price of removing this dangerous idiot is a Pence presidency for 6 weeks and even the possibility of Trump's being pardoned, I'll pay it. It's that bad.

Darren wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:12 pm

Anyone else want to bet Trump won't take Pennsylvania?

18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating the overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Darren wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:12 pm

Cats and dogs cohabitating. States suing other states.

Way to go Texas, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Yeah boy! Straight to SCOTUS.

It's going to be historic. Then certain folks will be hysterical.

Anyone else want to bet Trump won't take Pennsylvania?

His suit is so ridiculous that it led some commentators to wonder whether the attorney general might have another motive for filing it. Paxton, after all, is reportedly under investigation by the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office. Trump, meanwhile, has been distributing pardons to his allies like candy. Paxton’s suit makes more sense as pardon-bait than it does as a legal document. And he may need presidential clemency to escape the federal criminal charges that could be imminent.

Darren wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:03 pm

SCOTUS already set a date for the defendant states to respond. Is that touching, in your words, or not?

Those courts that dismissed cases apparently didn't review the evidence presented.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:20 pm

Darren wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:03 pm

SCOTUS already set a date for the defendant states to respond. Is that touching, in your words, or not?

Those courts that dismissed cases apparently didn't review the evidence presented.

You are apparently totally unfamiliar with court process, Darren. When someone files something into a court, the clerks automatically set a schedule of pleading deadlines and hearings. It’s clerical, a placeholder based on court rules for response deadlines, it means absolutely nothing with regard to the merit of the substance of the filing. When the court - the justices - reviews the filing and declines to hear it, the filing deadlines and hearings go ‘poof’ - off the docket.

PMS Princess wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:24 pm

Yeah, right. Voter fraud doesn't exist...bullshit. Just watch C-Span, Veritas. Skynews. I worked for people who published white papers on the vulnerability of voting machines. That basically it could be hacked by a high school student and has been proven over and over at DEFcons. That paper was back in 2002 I believe and nothing has changed. I have seen ballot machines for sale on the Goodwill site.

So this is a stupid thing to bring to court? The Domain machines were tampered with not to mention Pelosi's husband's messed involvement in the company. Do you know what's stupid to bring to court? My husband being brought to court for something I had written here about ripping off a mattress tag. No joke.

Sorrry that was off topic.

The Kraken Cracks Up As Sidney Powell's Last Two Election Suits Implode

Liz Dye

December 10, 2020 11:59 AM

Pro Tip: Don't fabricate quotes in court filings. Just don't. Like ... ever.

Check out this passage from US District Judge Pamela Pepper's order dismissing Sidney Powell's Wisconsin Krakenhead lawsuit.

The plaintiff also asserts that the "cutoff for election-related challenges, at least in the Seventh Circuit, appears to be the date that the electors meet, rather than the date of certification." Dkt. No. 72 at 24. He cites Swaffer v. Deininger, No. 08-CV-208, 2008 WL 5246167 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2008). Swaffer is not a Seventh Circuit case, and the court is not aware of a Seventh Circuit case that establishes a "cutoff for election-related challenges." And the plaintiff seems to have made up the "quote" in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer. The plaintiff asserts that these words appear on page 4 of the Swaffer decision: "even though the election has passed, the meeting of electors obviously has not, so plaintiff's claim here is hardly moot." Dkt. No. 72 at 24- 25. The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court's colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words. In fact, Swaffer did not involve a challenge to a presidential election and it did not involve electors.

So, Swaffer v. Deininger, the case the plaintiffs cited as establishing that Wisconsin treats the Electoral College vote as the real "cutoff" for the purposes of litigating a presidential election, has nothing to do with presidential elections, isn't a Seventh Circuit opinion at all — it's from the very trial court where this case is being heard — and the quote cited appears to be entirely fabricated. But other than that, BANG UP JOB!

No, not really. Judge Pepper goes to great pains to describe all the ways this has been a debacle ever since Powell and her merry band of democracy-despising pranksters pratfall-ed their way onto the federal docket 10 days ago with three defective filings in the span of 24 hours. Which is a thing that can happen when you have six attorneys signing the complaint and not a single one of them is barred in the jurisdiction where it's filed.

This is the case where one of the two plaintiffs turned out to have been added without his consent and had to be later removed. Was Judge Pepper impressed that the lawyers in this case managed to misspell their own client's name (and not for the first time) and that they demanded footage from the TCF center, which is in Michigan? No, she was not!

Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the "why." But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks. The court will dismiss the case.

So the Wisconsin Kraken suit has now been tossed for — DRUMROLL, PLEASE — lack of standing; mootness, because Wisconsin's vote has already been certified; being filed in the wrong jurisdiction, as it concerns a question of purely state law; sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, since Congress hasn't specifically granted citizens a right to sue in federal court; laches, since the case was filed a full month after the election; and good, old-fashioned failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because shut up, "vote dilution" is not a thing individual voters can sue for.

Also, who the hell do these people think they are seeking to nullify the votes of Wisconsin's citizens?

He complains that his vote was diluted and that he wants his vote to count. But he asks the court to order the results of the election de-certified and then to order defendant Evers to certify the election for Donald J. Trump. Even if this federal court had the authority to order the governor of the state of Wisconsin to certify the results of a national presidential election for any candidate—and the plaintiff has presented no case, statute or constitutional provision providing the court with that authority—doing so would further invalidate and nullify the plaintiff's vote. The plaintiff wants Donald J. Trump to be certified as the winner of the Wisconsin election as a result of the plaintiff's vote. But what he asks is for Donald J. Trump to be certified the winner as a result of judicial fiat.

Over in Arizona, US District Judge Diane Humetewa has also had it up to here with Sidney Powell's Kraken bullshit.

Obviously, the Court cannot enjoin the transmission of the certified results because they have already been transmitted. (Doc. 40 at 4). Plaintiffs' counsel orally argued that Defendants had the power to de-certify the election under 3 U.S.C. § 6. Nothing in that statute authorizes this Court to de-certify the results. The manner provided to contest elections under Arizona law requires election contest claims to be brought, "in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa County." A.R.S. § 16-672. Therefore, if de-certification were possible, it would only be possible through an action brought in Arizona superior court. In other words, this Court has no power to de-certify the results. But even assuming the Court were able to grant the extraordinary relief requested, ordering Governor Ducey to de-certify the election, such relief would necessarily run afoul of 3 U.S.C. § 6 by ignoring Arizona law. In this instance, the Court cannot allow Plaintiffs to circumvent both federal and Arizona law.

This challenge was booted for most of the same defects as the Wisconsin case: lack of standing, laches, mootness, Eleventh Amendment, FOH with that "vote dilution" business, and failure to state a redressable claim. She also made calamari rings out of the supposed expert witness using statistical analysis to prove that it was UNPOSSIBLE for Biden to get more votes than Trump, ruling that an emergency order requires more than just shouting "fraud" and demanding the court do your bidding.

Advancing several different theories, Plaintiffs allege that Arizona's Secretary of State and Governor conspired with various domestic and international actors to manipulate Arizona's 2020 General Election results allowing Joseph Biden to defeat Donald Trump in the presidential race. The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections. Because the Complaint is grounded in these fraud allegations, the Complaint shall be dismissed.

Powell's still trying to get two cases re-heard on appeal, and ... well, good luck to her! At the end of the day, these idiotic Kraken cases will disappear like Rudy toot — they're malodorous and embarrassing, but ultimately waft away into a pathetic nothing.