Is “Curing” A Colorable Claim Under Equal Protection? [Updated]


There is more rage than reason being expressed in the country over election challenges, but there are some interesting legal issues. One is found in Pennsylvania where the Trump campaign is alleging that counties used different approaches to “curing” ballots. The issue brings back memories of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), under equal protection. Notably, while academics have uniformly dismissed this claim, they largely refer not to the claim but to the relief.  The fact is that there does not seem a sufficient number of votes that could change the outcome of the election. The question however is whether there is still a colorable claim of an equal protection violation.  This could come down to the two distinct parts of Bush v. Gore.

The issue involves curing ballots or allowing voters to correct errors on the mail-in ballots. Some counties in Pennsylvania allowed curing by contacting the affected voters while others simply rejected the ballots. Again, there is no evidence of a partisan pattern or that such curing impacted a large number of ballots. Moreover, the Pennsylvania litigation has gone from bad to worse with the first appearance of Rudy Giuliani as counsel yesterday (though he did get a tip on a good martini bar). The question is whether courts should still address claims when they are unlikely to change the outcome but capable of repetition under a mootness analysis.

However, it does appear that different rules were applied and it is alleged that it resulted in some votes counting and some not counting for lack of curing.

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).

102 thoughts on “Is “Curing” A Colorable Claim Under Equal Protection? [Updated]”

  1. Years ago, I heard about designing a simpler, faster and more accurate counting system using industrial scales. It would require changing the ballots or using a lightweight token of some sort. Industrial scales can weigh a single piece of paper or a metal BB, these high tech scales can count millions of tiny objects and be 99.99% accurate. Counts are instantaneous and accurate.Maybe a manufacturer could design a better system. Keep it simple.

    1. We can permanently eliminate voter suppression in all its forms by REPLACING our current voting system of ballots and bull#@%^ with SECURE ONLINE VOTING. Remember when Americans stood in long lines that snaked through the bank and out the front door down the sidewalk? We ELIMINATED those long lines and problems by implementing SECURE ONLINE BANKING. So why don’t you sit there and tell me how wrong I am for demanding we implement SECURE ONLINE VOTING, THEREBY COMPLETELY ELIMINATING ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH OUR CURRENT VOTING SYSTEM: SEE, SOCIAL SECURITY VOTING:

  2. “6 Factors Which Point to a Rigged Election

    The mainstream media are quick to call the claim “baseless”, but there’s plenty of evidence for anyone willing to see it.”

    There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, which breaks down into six basic categories:

    1) Precedent – It has happened before.

    2) Motive – Deep State/Military dislike of Trump’s policies is widely known.

    3) Foreknowledge – Establishment voices predicted this exact situation.

    4) Opportunity – The voting system is highly susceptible to fraud.

    5) Voting Irregularities – Known software “glitches” & irregularities in the reporting of the results.

    6) Cover-up – Dishonesty in the reporting of the situation.

    Number 3 is the most telling of all.

    “In January of this year – well before anyone could have predicted the effect the “pandemic” would have on the world – legal scholars were Wargaming the outcome of a disputed Presidential election based on postal ballots in Pennsylvania.

    In August a group naming themselves the Transition Integrity Project published a document predicting a “disputed” election, that the counting would take much longer than usual and that it would not be certain who was President until January.”

    I would add that Hillary also started telegraphing her foreknowledge that the fix was in well before January of this year.

    1. Chris Krebs, head of DHS Cybersecurity Dept

      “ICYMI: On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, “in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.” #Protect2020″

  3. Communications progression and talking points:

    Theme: Any suggestion that mail in voting facilitates election fraud is a conspiracy theory. This is the most secure election in history.

    1. There is no evidence of fraud.
    2. There may be some local irregularities, but those happen in any election.
    3. There is no evidence that the irregularities were enough to change the outcome.
    4. Each example is a separate event and is not evidence of systemic fraud.
    5. Under no circumstances should you acknowledge that multiple irregularities when combined would likely change the outcome.

    Items 3, 4, and 5 are really important for the mootness analysis.

  4. You know I really like Jonathan Turley but he must have slipped and bumped his head causing temporary memory problems, Turley quoted Bush v. Gore AS IF Bush v. Gore could be applied in any future U.S. Supreme Court case. I remind Turley the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled and wrote that Bush v. Gore CANNOT BE USED AS LEGAL PRECEDENT IN ANY FUTURE CASE. hello? Is this microphone on? I paid for this microphone….Ron Harold. “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” – U.S. Supreme Court, Bush v. Gore.

    1. Yeah exactly! I guess that’s why the 7th paragraph was added in:

      “It was on the remedy that the Court split 5-4. I was critical of the decision not to send the case back to Florida to see if a uniform standard could be applied. I was also critical of the Court expressly limiting the use of the precedent.”

      1. “You’re right, why should the military get to vote?”

        Said the person who does not grasp the difference between a “mail-in” ballot and an “absentee” ballot

  5. Is there a psychotherapist here that can explain WHY Biden looked at the camera and said that the democrats had developed the most inclusive fraud operation in the history of politics?

    How did that idea pop into his head?

    By the way, if a governor or judge steps in and says that signatures don”t have to be compared thus changing the rules laid out by the legislature, doesn’t that violate the Constitution? If election procedures call for poll watchers and the poll watchers are denied meaningful access, isn’t that a violation of procedures put in place by the state’s legislature?

    1. Am also tired of the gaslighting going on about how the fake and fraudulent ballots won’t change the overall count in PA.
      President Trump was in the lead by more than 650,000 votes before the counting stopped at 1 AM. Then by surprise, the vote total changed around. And those are mostly fake votes to be sure.
      So why does the President have to prove it was wrong? Why can’t Joey B’s be brought up to show the votes were legal and valid?!
      President Trump and the real American people are always getting screwed when having to prove a negative!!

      1. The counting didn’t stop.

        Pennsylvania didn’t start processing the mail-in ballots until the morning of Election Day, and Trump discouraged his supporters from using mail-in ballots, so Democrats are the majority of the people who voted by mail.

        There is no evidence of significant #s of “fake and fraudulent ballots.”


    The American Founders intended voting in a constitutional election to be a somber and solemn duty of import, circumscribed to execution by vested, patriotic, capable, independent and ambitious members of

    society who strictly adhered to the Constitution.

    The vote has been diluted into an hysterical wish list submitted by global parasites.

    The irony is that were the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution implemented, these wish lists would be moot and parasitic voters would find no reason to attend the polling places as none of their benefits and

    entitlements is licit by fundamental law.

    Original acts as original intent:

    To vote in the 1788 presidential election, a citizen must have been male, European, 21 and in possession of 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

    Turnout in the 1788 presidential election was 11.6% by design.

    Voters presented at a polling place, were identified, were certified, signed the roll and obtained, executed and submitted a ballot in private, in secret and in the complete absence of political influence.

    1. Google gives some information but it is a claim with some plausibility but not neccesarily winnable.

      It is somewhere between a clam that is clearly untenable and an obviously strong claim.

    2. A very few Blacks say it means it’s Racist to question Voter Fraud in Black areas of large Dem Plantation Cities. Like happened in Detroit last night.

    3. Colorable Claim

      A plausible legal claim. In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. The claim need not actually result in a win.

    4. Unlike then this is for the future of our country. Comparable! My nam neighbor in the ice.u with covid. About drafted to contain commies….no the stakes are higher now. already given them too much freedom….that they vote against our lives. The 15 percent of cross-country supplied 50 percent of the troops….now the fat cup cakes want communism. Screw am….the court must be extraordinary here and now to preserve not just the vote but the contracts…the a\substantive part of the constitution….oh wait those rights can be taxed away by the mob….come on man ….how we gonna build wealth….? Go on crack and sleep with China town ?

  7. I like the legal analysis, but some issues are not truly the province of law.

    Perhaps all that is happening now is that remedies are being exhausted before taking political and national security measures to deal with an election that has been corrupted beyond salvage in part by foreign nationals. Do we quibble in Court while the Chinese Communist Party picks a man who at times appears to be senile to run the nation? Increasingly I am thinking not.

    We didn’t sue after Pearl Harbor. Some issues are too big for our increasingly politicized and unreliable courts.

    By the way, what is Judge Sullivan doing?

  8. I don’t understand why anyone would be upset about the lawsuits.

    They have a time frame. There is a hard wall when the electors vote.

    Trump has a Constitutional right to make his case, and it’s up to his legal team to prove it. Even if they can’t prove enough fraud or mistakes to flip the election, still, this is valuable information for improving election security.

    1. @Karen- That assumes that improving election security is a goal. The Dems don’t want their harvesting methods exposed because the leaks get plugged and they would have to come up with new ones. It the same logic that the CIA/NSA uses when they want to keep their tradecraft secret.

    2. I don’t understand why anyone would be upset about the lawsuits.

      You’re assuming that partisan Democrats are normal adults.

        1. “What is a “normal adult,”

          If you want to see the archetype of an abnormal child, go look in a mirror,.

          1. Rhodesy, when you look in the mirror, you see an abnormal child? Are you sure you don’t see an adult troll?

    3. Karen skips over the part about the tradition and importance of a smooth transition and peaceful respectful handover of power in a democracy. Her cult leader continues to spew venom and lies from his bunker while the party establishment which knows better enables his destructive behavior, which now includes trying to literally steal state electors from the voters and set up a vote of in congress with one vote per state.

      Sure, why would anyone be upset by that?

      Here’s the guy Trump fired for doing his job this week:

      Chris Krebs, head of DHS Cybersecurity Dept

      “ICYMI: On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, “in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.” #Protect2020″

      1. “Karen skips over the part about the tradition and importance of a smooth transition and peaceful respectful handover of power in a democracy.”

        You skipped over the part about the “importance” of a fair and free election.

        Without that, there is no democracy.

        Regardless of who is in the Oval Office on January 20th, the Dominion Voting Systems fraud will be exposed, along with the massive amount of mail-in voting fraud.

        In the meantime, the Democrats are about to find out the hard way that aligning itself with the Antifa/BLM insurrectionists was a very stupid and shortsighted move.

        “There is no honor among thieves” fits perfectly.

        1. Chris Krebs, head of DHS Cybersecurity Dept

          “ICYMI: On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, “in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.” #Protect2020″

          Court cases to date:

          Trump 1
          The People 27

    4. First you said you didn’t understand, then you mention the Constitution. That’s exactly where the disconnect is for leftists. They have no external/universal truth that obliges them to adhere to words on a piece of old parchment. Rest assured though, they’ll use that parchment to cudgel any dissent of their agenda and party-approved propaganda.

  9. You watch. Democrats will push to automatically send mail-in ballots to every registered voter, and ramp up vote harvesting. If you object, they will claim you want to suppress the vote.

  10. There were all kinds of court challenges before the votes were cast this year about how to count this or that vote, or what the rules would be. That would have been a good time for Republicans to have raised this equal protection challenge. There were a lot of challenges like this raised, and courts advised on the rules to be followed.

    Once the election is over, the courts really should not be getting involved in cases where someone lost by 100,000 votes and is challenging 5. They can bring it up for the next election, but it should not delay certification of this one. Nor should it result in someone who tried to vote and then came in to vote learn that their vote did not count.

    1. So true.

      And America can allow Fidel Castro’s replacement, Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez, to count that “next election” from Botswana or East Timor using only a thumb drive.

  11. Why bother? Since there are many, many different ways in which vote counts could result in “unequal” protection, why burden down the courts with cases in which the outcomes could not be changed?

    1. Why?….in order that election processes be “de-gamed” and improved for their reliability and trustworthiness after every cycle. The “mootness” argument evades this responsibility of the legal system, puts off identified problems, and invites a catastrophic election where the post-election legal fight could actually overturn the initial interpretation of the election. We should avoid another Bush v. Gore mess. That’s why every claim of fraud or bias should be completely resolved, and countermeasures adopted as needed.


    “[Attorney Sidney Powell revealed] how a Venezuelan “whistleblower,” who she says was a high-ranking military official once close to Hugo Chavez who now lives in the United States, claimed in an affidavit that Smartmatic software [in Dominion Voting Systems] had the capability to change votes clandestinely.

    “From the affidavit: ‘designed in a way the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected.

    “He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumbprint or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote.

    “He made it clear that the system would have to be set but not leave any evidence to the changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or thumbprint was going with a changed vote.

    “‘Smartmatic agreed to create such a system and produce the software and hardware that accomplished the result for President Chavez,’ Powell said to Lou Dobbs, quoting the affidavit.

    “According to Powell, the whistleblower cites multiple instances where the Smartmatic software was used in Venezuela to help the socialist former President Hugo Chavez win elections in 2006 and 2013.”

    – Anthony Leonardi

    1. Thank you for pointing out that there was once election fraud many years ago in another country.

      I guess that means Trump and Putin must have cheated in 2016 and that Susan Collins cheated this year.

      1. Your illuminating insight is overwhelming. Thank you so much.

        There was once massive, egregious and treasonous election tampering and fraud.

        It occurred about two weeks ago on November 3, 2020.

        1. The most surprising result that day was Susan Collins’ win in Maine. The polls did not see that coming. Seems more suspect than the Biden result of where he won by a little less than polls predicted.

          1. America was indoctrinated to believe Collins was in trouble.

            The campaign was intended to be a “confidence builder” for the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs – one can’t be half pregnant, one can’t be half communist).

      2. “Thank you for pointing out that there was once election fraud many years ago in another country” — by the very same company (Smartmatic) that was instrumental in our election.

        When you drop the context, as you did, you can conclude anything you want (or nothing, at all).

        1. History is replete with proof that fraud in elections is something that should concern us.

          It is NOT rare. It is quite common – both throughout the world and the US.

          Should the 2016 election be scrutinized for Fraud – absolutely. Collins recent election ? Certainly.

          We should look to reduce fraud in every election.

          There is excellent historical reasons to expect that the frequency and scale of election fraud will not distribute ideologically evenly.
          That there is less reason to suspect Collins than Biden. But I have no problems with looking for fraud ALWAYS.

          Regardless, “if you build it, they will come”. If you structure elections to make fraud easier you will get more fraud.

          Shifting to mail in voting is just about the most ludicrously stupid thing that states could possibly do. It is pretty much the opposite of what is needed to reduce fraud.

          While I have little doubt there was massive fraud in this election – though probably not “organized” fraud. I think contra Guiliani that it is unlikely that democrats got together and plotted to inject a million fraudulent votes. At the same time they did deliberately relax rules that they knew would encourage greater fraud and then turned a blind eye to the fraud under their noses.

          Regardless, you are free to disagree with me.

          You can believe that there is little or no fraud, not in this election or in past elections. That LBJ did not “find” 80,000 votes to win his campaign. that There were not 60,000 “dead people” voting in Chicago to flip the 1960 election. That Tammany Hall and the Daley machines never existed.

          None of that precludes our agreeing to scrutinize this election AND to work towards making fraud in the future difficult to impossible.

          It is not hard to conduct an election such that fraud is difficult and that if you engage in it, you are likely to get caught.

          But we can not do so, unless you accept that fraud is possible and that it could pose a problem.

          We are seeing increasing razor thin elections – not just for president but across the board.

          Across the country there are hundreds of instances where very small numbers of votes would alter the outcome.

          This is one of my gripes regarding Turley. Elections problems are NOT small. They are huge. A few hundred votes in 2000 determined the president. We can not close our eyes and say that the integrity of the elections does not matter – the scale of the problem is small.
          The scale of the problem is NOT small. If we do not trust the results – that problem is huge.

          Further with respect to fraud – Fraud will grow to be as large as we allow it. How much fraud have we had in 2020 ? Who knows,

          But whatever the extent in 2020 – we will see more in the future if we do not catch what we have now.

          1. Great idea John Say! I don’t know why no one has previously thought of this before. Imagine, there could be a Cybersecurity Department in Homeland Security and the states could check signatures with poll watchers from both parties.


            1. “Great idea John Say! I don’t know why no one has previously thought of this before.”

              JF The sarcasm is stupid. There is nothing I am saying that is new. We have known how to reduce election fraud – probably for a century.

              What should trouble you is that we have had election fraud forever – both in the US and in the world – so we know it is real.
              We know how it occurs and we know what to do to reduce and prevent it – and yet very little is actually done.

              Could it possibly be that those in our government might no want to elminate election fraud ?

              “Imagine, there could be a Cybersecurity Department in Homeland Security”
              Typical left wing nut – if there is a problem create a federal agency to deal with it.

              Sorry JF but dealing with elections is trivial. Costs no money, and requires no government agencies.

              Vote in person with government issued photo ID.

              After verifying the voter, issue them a ballot, and direct them to voting booths, where they actually vote.
              No one who is not voting may access the booth area.

              When complete have the voter scan their own ballot, into a scanner that also counts.
              Preserve paper ballots for each scanner and randomly hand audit them after the fact to assure that the counts match.
              All audits done publicly.

              All handling of filled in ballots done with meaningful public observation

              All scanner counts are made public immediately after the polls close.

              That probably covers everything necescary.

              Overall this uses LESS people than what we currently do.

              We can eliminate voter registration entirely if you must vote with valid photo ID and the ID lists your address within the district you are voting.
              And I do not care much about signature matching if you have ID and are voting in person.

              Further there is not alot of difference between in person voting and actual absentee voting – aside from the fact that it is not on election day.

              In person secret voting elimanates all ability to coerce or induce voting.
              If only the voter handles the ballot from the moment they receive a blank until it is scanned/counted, then all the nonsense we are currently fighting over goes away.

              Because scanners/counters are going to be randomly audited any effort at systemic computer hacking fraud is going to get caught.

              Because raw counts are made public from each scanner/counter immediately after the close of polls we need not be concerned about the rest of the states counting process – because any attempt at fraud will be caught – as the raw counts are publicly available.

              Further the accurate results of the election will be available within hours of the close of polls – the media will probably work out all the counts faster than the state will.

              And the opportunity for big fights afterwards will be miniscule.

              What I would ask you is since the above is so obvious, and has been known for decades, why is it that we do not do something very close to this ?

              If you wish to make suggestions as to how to improve on this – be my guest. I have no problem making it better.
              What i would again ask you is why aren;t you behind trustworthy elections ?

      1. An election is going to a polling place, being identified, being certified, signing the roll, executing a ballot and depositing a ballot in the ballot box.

        That is all.

  13. “it should still be possible to discuss such questions without personal or professional attacks”

    Like it should be possible for the head of cybersecurity to issue a report that this was the most secure election in history without him being fired by Trump? Or the Republican Secretary of State issuing vote totals saying the Republican candidate lost without his job being threatened by the President and the Republican Senators in his state? Or that anyone who tells it like it is – that Trump lost – gets attacked personally on Trump’s twitter feed.

    It should be possible without personal or professional attacks, but that is not the world we currently live in and not the work Trump created, at least for the next two months.

    1. Every lawyer representing Trump in these cases needs to understand they are part of a larger picture. They need to read Trump’s Twitter feed and the allegations he is making that he won by millions of votes, and there are millions of fraudulent votes. They need to understand any challenge Trump is presenting in court is adding to this disinformation campaign. They cannot just say “hey, I am just working on this one discrete issue”. No, they are part of this disinformation effort, and they can’t just say “hey I don’t know about all that.” No, they need to not be a part of this. History is watching.

  14. This is an interesting issue about how Philadelphia called voters to have them cure defective ballots to ensure their right to vote was protected, and other counties did not go through the trouble of doing that. Rather than hash this out in the courts, perhaps the other counties can learn from Philadelphia’s example and call their voters as well to cure defective ballots. That way, everyone who tries in good faith to vote has their votes count. Perhaps all candidates can encourage early and by mail voting too.

    I do not see how the courts can add to this obvious solution for the future.

  15. Trump lost by about 65,000 votes in Pennsylvania and probably 7,000,000 votes nationally, and won by three states in the electoral college. He is not legitimately challenging 65,000 votes in Pennsylvania. The people would have more faith in the system if Trump merely conceded, rather than giving his credulous followers more fodder for their conspiracy theories that something has been stolen from them. He is 1 for 28 in court at this point, and his lawyers cannot back up anything he tweets about in court, yet he continues to promote conspiracy theories. Don’t think hashing this out in court is going to convince people who are not convinced by facts unless One America News Network or Q tells them those facts. OANN, for example, right now is claiming some server which was found in Germany says Trump won California, amongst other things, and Trump is tweeting that he won by millions of votes and is telling his followers to tune in to OANN. What is being hashed out in court is a few votes here and there, but Trump’s followers continue to believe what they believe just like a Scientologist or any other cultist might.

    1. Trump Nation is a Cult – No Facts Matter to Them your moniker is pure psychological projection. If you want to see a real cult look at the hive minded extreme progressives and the 21st century social justice warriors.

      That aside…

      I have called for President Trump to concede and continue the law suits but he is not required to do so even after the states have certified their elections. All valid legal ballots should be counted and all invalid and/or illegal ballots should not be counted and all law suits should be heard. Just because the biased media has chosen to call the election does not mean the election is actually over. The constitution requirements for the election must be met regardless of what the biased media says.

      If Biden is eventually shown to have won the election, which I think is likely, and the Electoral College votes that way then the full Presidential transition can actually begin. There is plenty of time between Electoral College vote and inauguration day for the transition to take place.

      There are people out there that are making demands as if Biden is already President when in fact President Trump is currently the President of the United States and remains the President until a new President is inaugurated.

      1. Trump is currently President.

        There are record-high Covid hospitalizations and a record # of new cases. Cases, hospitalizations and deaths are expected to increase during the winter. What is he as President doing this week to limit these increases?

          1. Yes, clearly presidents have no power to do anything at all to limit the spread of disease. He cannot have a Presidential Address to the Nation to encourage people to act in ways that limit the spread, he cannot model appropriate behavior, he cannot use the DPA, he is totally powerless. That’s why he blames Obama and Biden when it comes to Ebola and H1N1, knowing that they were just as powerless as he is.

            1. Anonymous wrote, “Yes, clearly presidents have no power to do anything at all to limit the spread of disease.”

              Actually this is not in the purview of the President of the United States, it falls on the states.

              Anonymous wrote, “He cannot have a Presidential Address to the Nation to encourage people to act in ways that limit the spread, he cannot model appropriate behavior, he cannot use the DPA, he is totally powerless.”

              Actually he could do those things but the spread is still not his responsibility, the responsibility lies 100% with We the People. If you were to extend you logic failure out then the President is to blame for the drunk driver that kills innocent citizens because he crashed into them by going the wrong way on the highway; the President didn’t tell him he shouldn’t do it. This idiotic logic could be used on anyone, how would you like it to be used on you and blame you for something that is not your fault.

              Anonymous wrote, “That’s why he blames Obama and Biden when it comes to Ebola and H1N1, knowing that they were just as powerless as he is.”

              You won’t get me to attempt to justify the nonsense that comes out of President Trump’s loose cannon unethical mouth but I will alos not place blame on the President for that which is not his responsibility, I’ll leave that nonsense to political hacks.

              1. It is absolutely in the power and responsibility of the President to act in a national emergency using the powers only he possess. That includes the Production Act and marshaling of federal resources, and in this case exercising leadership in the two pronged attack the pandemic requires. The first is clear messaging by word and example of the critical action citizens can take to limit the spread. The second is marshaling and centralizing distribution of resources to the states based on need.

                On the first Trump has repeatedly sabotaged his own administrations guidelines on masks and distancing and on the 2nd failed to fund and provide adequate resources while allowing states to be forced into bidding wars for scarce resources. His response could not have been more counter productive if he were a Russian agent.

                1. There you go, bringing in that Russian agent conspiracy theory nonsense smear. I’ll give you this, your consistency to spewing stupid sh!t is remarkable.

                  As for President Trump’s response to the pandemic, I think it’s been relatively good considering the virus was completely unknown and even the medical professionals were winging it. The Trump administration did what it could in the midst of attacks from the lunatics on the left and the absolute inconsistency shown by the World Health Organization and medical professionals in the USA in the early stages of the outbreak. Other than partisan based and extremely biased conjecture, there is absolutely no actual evidence that anything would have changed the number of people infected by the virus if the President or others in the Administration did anything different. Going down the path of predicting what might have been is nothing but political bull sh!t, unethical, and immoral. The problem with spreading the virus has been and will always be We the People. Could things have been done differently, yes and we do not know if doing things differently would change any of the outcomes. What I hope is that the world learns the things needed from this pandemic to make the next pandemic less of an issue.

                  What we do know fully from 20/20 hindsight is that China should have completely locked down Wuhan with absolutely no movement in or out of that area, China did not do this and the entire world suffered because of their negligence. They knew about it and they did nothing to stop the spread, there should be some kind of consequences for their lack of action.

                  As for the President power to control the actions of individuals on the street, the President has very limited power to control the actions of the individual on the street unless Martial Law is imposed, this is by design in the Constitution. The states have a different set of powers and responsibilities, that is why mask ORDERS and stay at home ORDERS and school shutdown ORDERS and restaurant/bar occupancy ORDERS all come from state and local authorities not the federal government.

                  You want to blame Trump for everything and it’s not logical when it’s literally not the President’s responsibility. It comes across as blatant partisan political hackery.

              2. Actually this is in the purview of the President of the United States, governors, mayors, Congress and state legislatures.

                1. “Actually this is in the purview of the President of the United States”

                  Your lack of knowledge about civics is rearing its ugly head.

                  By design, the Constitution limits the power of the President of the United States over the actions of the individual and making the individual wear a mask and stay at home is NOT within the power of the President of the United States unless Martial Law is imposed.

                  1. The President certainly has the unique power to communicate to citizens what they can do to help in a national emergency – he not only failed to do that but sabotaged the efforts of others. Could not have done a worst job if he was a Russian agent.

                    The President certainly has the power under the Production Act to marshal even private businesses in the manufacturing of needed supplies to combat a national emergency – he refused to use that power.

                    The President certainly has the power to marshal federal resources and agencies to provide supplies and coordination of distribution and to provide help to states most in need at a given time. He failed at this task.

                    Far from a partisan attack, this is a fact based attack on his gross incompetence due to the infantile emotional needs and basic laziness of Trump. The virus was actually a gift to him to win re-election if he wasn’t such a cripple. He could have been the hero of the virus war, ever present on TV encouraging and teaching and in the states, visiting facilities he helped stock and posing with health care workers – wearing a mask by the way.

                    His problem? He lacks vision exceeding his immediate emotional needs. It’s hard to imagine anyone has standards as low as Steve for judging satisfactory performance by an executive.

                    1. NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG!

                      Now here’s something that is really, really interesting; this comment above from Joe Friday seems to have a different name behind it that only shows up in my WordPress reply notification window (see link to screenshot below), that name is Френк and that translates back to be a Ukrainian word meaning Frank. It appears that we have a foreign agent commenting on Turley’s blog trying to stir up discord with his trolling. It’s also interesting that reports about the Russian interference in our election in 2016 specifically stated that there were Russian “agents” that were trying to interfere in the 2016 election by spewing all kinds of inciting nonsense with their gaslighting on social media platforms and those Russian agents were using offices and personnel in Ukraine.

                      To prove that I’m not making this up, I present the following screen shot of the notification I got from WordPress…


                      You can get your own translation of Френк from Google Translate if you like to verify my claim.

                      Joe Friday, your gig is up and you have been exposed.

                      You all can choose to openly engage with this Joe Friday, who is likely a foreign agent, if you like; as for me there will be no conversations just a rhetorical hammer beating down a foreign agent troll.

                      I suspect that Joe Friday will now reply with some rationalizations, excuses, accusations, and other nonsense to deflect from being nabbed as a foreign agent troll.

        1. The President should end the millions of deaths from cancer and heart disease. If he isn’t doing that he must be bad.

          Such is the logic of fools and the ignorant.

          Take a bow Anonymous.

          1. This video from Sharyl Attkisson demonstrates this pandemic didn’t originate as a surprise in December 2019 as we’ve been led to believe. Moderna apparently began working on a vaccine at least as early as March 2019. It sheds an entirely different light on who should be in the crosshairs for responsibility and it isn’t our current President.

    2. “The people would have more faith in the system if Trump merely conceded”

      The people will never trust the “system” again if Trump concedes.

      This was FU in your face election fraud. Of course, you could care less as long as Dementia Joe takes office.

      1. The people will never trust the “system” again if Trump concedes.

        No rational person should ever trust our electoral system…ever. It’s designed with as many process variations as there are states and territories. Add in the special cause variations ie.,mail-in ballot process, ballot harvesting, the blocking of election watchers, found ballots on thumb drives, offshoring of computerized-ballot results, software irregularities, etc. None of it should instill any level of confidence in this process for anyone that is concerned their 1 legitimate vote isn’t being disenfranchised by an illegitimate vote.

        The most glaringly obvious reason that we should never trust the current electoral process is this: the political class won’t take steps to regulate it. That’s their tell.

        1. Democrats have done a lot to enhance election security in recent years; ensure paper trails for recounts and auditing. It is Republicans who have resisted this … until Trump lost, that is.

          1. Democrats Have Pushed Election Security wrote, “Democrats have done a lot to enhance election security in recent years; ensure paper trails for recounts and auditing. It is Republicans who have resisted this … until Trump lost, that is.”

            I’d be really interested in you informing us of exactly what these things are the Democrats have done to enhance election security in recent years. Don’t be general as you were in you comment, be specific.

      2. Start here. By law, election day is Tuesday and Tuesday only – one day – 24 hours – period.

        A citizen must present at a polling place, be identified, be certified, sign a roll, obtain, execute and deposit a ballot in the complete absence of any form of influence, all within the 24 hours of Tuesday.

  16. Even though there may not be evidence of a partisan pattern in the Pennsylvania count, there was a disparity in the process of how the votes were cured. If the number of votes is such that it would make the issue moot this time, it may not next time. If the issue is decided solely on the numbers, it does not answer the question as to whether individual voters were treated equally.

    1. The state allows each county to choose. Some counties chose to help voters cure their ballots, some didn’t.

  17. Turley admirably wants an open discussion about whether voters should be allowed to make sure their ballots meet legal requirements. This has little to do with what Trump is alleging. Today, Trump said “I WON THE ELECTION. VOTER FRAUD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!…The Georgia recount is a joke and is being done UNDER PROTEST. Even though thousands of fraudulent votes have been found, the real number is in matching signatures. Governor must open up the unconstitutional Consent Decree and call in the Legislature!… This was a rigged election. ”

    Turley says there are interesting arguments on both sides. Care to be more specific about Trump’s argument that he won the election, voter fraud took place all over the country & the Georgia recount is a joke after finding thousands of fraudulent votes?

Leave a Reply