Michigan Legislators Face Calls For Possible Criminal Charges After Meeting With President Trump On Certification

We have been discussing the campaign of The Lincoln Project and others to harass and abuse lawyers who represent the Trump campaign or other parties bringing election challenges. Similar campaigns have targeted election officials who object to counting irregularities.  Now, the Michigan Attorney General and others are suggesting that Republicans who oppose certification or even meet with President Donald Trump on the issue could be criminally investigated or charged. Once again, the media is silent on this clearly abusive use of the criminal code target members of the opposing party in their raising objections under state law.

On Friday afternoon, leaders of Michigan’s Republican-controlled state legislature met with Trump in the White House at his invitation.  My column today explores the difficulty in any strategy to trigger an electoral college fight. However, the objections from legislators could focus on an host of sworn complaints from voters or irregularities in voting counts. We have not seen evidence establishing the type of systemic problems that would flip a state, let alone the election as a whole. While the legal team did raise some credible electoral concerns, I was also critical of Rudy Giuliani’s global communist conspiracy claim at the press conference this week. Some of these questions are being addressed in the courts. In the meantime, state legislators have a right to raise electoral objections and seek resolution in the legislative branch.

According to the Washington Post, Dana Nessel “is conferring with election law experts on whether officials may have violated any state laws prohibiting them from engaging in bribery, perjury and conspiracy.”  It is same weaponization of the criminal code for political purposes that we have seen in the last four years against Trump.  Notably, the focus is the same discredited interpretation used against Trump and notably not adopted by the impeachment-eager House Judiciary Committee: bribery.

In Politico, Richard Primus wrote that these legislators should not attend a meeting with Trump because “it threatens the two Michigan legislators, personally, with the risk of criminal investigation.” This ridiculous legal claims is based on the bribery theory:

The danger for Shirkey and Chatfield, then, is that they are being visibly invited to a meeting where the likely agenda involves the felony of attempting to bribe a public official.

Under Michigan law, any member of the Legislature who “corruptly” accepts a promise of some beneficial act in return for exercising his authority in a certain way is “forever disqualified to hold any public office” and “shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years[.]”

We repeatedly discussed this theory during the Trump presidency. As I have previously written, a leading proponent has been former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason, who insisted that “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” Eliason further endorsed the House report and assured that “The legal and factual analysis of bribery and honest services fraud in the House report is exactly right” and “outlines compelling evidence of federal criminal violations.” 

The theory was never “exactly” or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back. Indeed, the greatest danger of the theory was not that it would ever pass muster in the federal court system but that it would be used (as here) in the political system to criminalize policy and legal disagreements. (Eliason recently defended the attacks on fellow lawyers who are represented those challenging election results or practices).

In my testimony, I went into historical and legal detail to explain why this theory was never credible.  While it was gleefully presented by papers like the Washington Post, it ignored case law that rejected precisely this type of limitless definition of the offense.  As I told the House Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of the statutory definition of bribery, including distinctions with direct relevance to the current controversy in cases like McDonnell v. United States, where the Court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell. Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated what he called the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” The Court explained the such “boundless interpretations” are inimical to constitutional rights because they deny citizens the notice of what acts are presumptively criminal: “[U]nder the Government’s interpretation, the term ‘official act’ is not defined ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited,’ or ‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” 

I will not repeat the litany of cases rejecting this type of broad interpretation. However, the case law did not matter then and it does not matter now to those who believe that the criminal code is endless flexible to meet political agenda.

It doesn’t even matter that the Supreme Court reaffirmed prior rejections of such broad interpretations in a recent unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie. The Court observed:

“That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials. Some decades ago, courts of appeals often construed the federal fraud laws to “proscribe[] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.” McNally, 483 U. S., at 355. This Court declined to go along. The fraud statutes, we held in McNally, were “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. They did not authorize federal prosecutors to “set[] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.” Ibid.”

That is the argument that I raised in the impeachment against the proposed articles of impeachment — supported by a host of experts on MSNBC and CNN as well as Democratic members — that the Ukrainian allegations could be charged as mail and wire fraud as well as crimes like extortion.

What is most disturbing is that, if there was an objection to voting irregularities or fraud, these legislators would be acting under their state constitutional authority. They would be investigated for carrying out their official duties under state law. Many of us can disagree with such objections. (I have stated repeatedly that I do not see the evidence of systemic voting problems to reverse such state results and  I have criticized President Trump’s rhetoric). However, when Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Cal.) challenged the certification of Ohio’s electoral votes in 2004, no one suggested criminal investigations. Nessel is threatening state legislators that, if they meet to discuss such objections, they might be targets of criminal investigations. That would seem an effort to use the criminal code for the purposes of intimidation or coercion. Imagine if this was U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr threatening Democratic legislators with possible criminal investigation for challenging Trump votes. The media would be apoplectic. Yet, when used against Republicans, major publications and politicians are celebrated for the use of the criminal code for such politically motivated threats.

As with the attacks on Republican lawyers, the threats against Republican legislators has been met with utter silence in the media. Just the familiar sound of crickets.

386 thoughts on “Michigan Legislators Face Calls For Possible Criminal Charges After Meeting With President Trump On Certification”

  1. SMH.

    Brad Heath (Reuters):
    “Meanwhile, some Pennsylvania Republicans led by Rep. @MikeKellyPA are asking a state court to declare that the state’s entire vote-by-mail system violates the state constitution and that millions of votes cast this year must now be invalidated. …
    “The lawsuit is a challenge to Act 77, which it says is “another illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting” in the state constitution. The act was approved more than a year ago; the lawsuit doesn’t say why they waited until after this election to challenge it.
    “The lawsuit claims that to expand mail-in voting, Pennsylvania would need to amend its constitution, which it didn’t do, so the whole thing is illegal. …
    “So Rep. @MikeKellyPA argues, the mail-in part of Pennsylvania’s election was actually invalid, the state legislature can swoop in to choose the winner. The lawsuit filed today by Rep. @MikeKellyPA is explicitly asking a Pennsylvania court to say that 2.5 *million* votes must be thrown out and shouldn’t count when the state certifies its election results.
    “Here, meanwhile, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit praising the mail-in voting system he now says is illegal and encouraging people to use it, though now saying that the votes of those who took this advice should not count -> …”
    The Twitter thread embeds a bunch of images from the suit, along with a copy of a tweet for the last claim.

    copy of the suit: https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20413920-620-md-2020-petition-for-review-filed

    Shame on all of the people who are trying to disenfranchise voters. Disgusting.

    1. The eminently incoherent and hysterical Feminazi White Shirt and Dutiful Solder of the Global Communist Deep Deep State, NeedsToBeCommitted, KNOWS “disgusting.”

    2. “Shame on all of the people who are trying to disenfranchise voters. Disgusting.”

      Shame on all the people who are trying to dilute the votes of legal voters. Disgusting and illegal. Shame on these people for trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed. Shame on Democrats for not permitting fair elections where ballot stuffing doesn’t occur.

      1. Yes, shame on anyone who knowingly votes illegally. There aren’t many people who do that, but some do. Some have already been arrested for it. The difference is: that’s already illegal (so I wouldn’t think it necessary to point out that it’s shameful), whereas what I described is legal.

        As for your other claims, I presented evidence of a lawsuit where people are trying to disenfranchise all of the voters in PA (millions of people), whereas you have not presented evidence of people “trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed” (as far as I know, all of the lawsuits where that was alleged have been dismissed) or of people “not permitting fair elections where ballot stuffing doesn’t occur.” Do you have evidence?

        1. If Pennsylvania didn’t follow the legislatures voting procedure rules and hundreds of thousands of votes are involved then Pennsylvania might forfeit the ability to cast their electors votes.

          “whereas you have not presented evidence of people “trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed””

          You can search out the pictures yourself. There are plenty on the net. A judge will decide the validity and perhaps it will also go to the SC in part based on things like equality under the law and due process concerns.

          The Democrats caused this. It is a disgrace. It has destroyed the trust we are supposed to have in our elections. We (based mostly on Democrat activities) have acted like a third world nation.

          1. “You can search out the pictures yourself. There are plenty on the net.”

            Do it yourself. I’m not your unpaid research asst. Your claim, your burden of proof.

            1. No need to since the supply of pictures and articles so readily available. You talk about the complaints made by the Trump team and that is one of the major complaints so obviously you have seen the pictures or at least the reports. If not then all you are doing is regurgitating left wing talking points and haven’t read much of anything.

              1. Oh, I know about the *complaints* they’ve made. I also know that Marc Elias, who has been keeping track of all of the post-election lawsuits, updated his count this evening (after Judge Brann’s ruling in PA) to “Trump and his allies are 2-34 in post-election court cases” (2 wins, 34 losses). I’d have to look up the two that they won, but I don’t recall either judge agreeing that people were “trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed.”

                I haven’t followed all 34 suits, though, only some of them, like the suit that Trump lost tonight in PA.

                1. “Oh, I know about the *complaints* they’ve made. “

                  If you know about the complaints then there is no need for me to prove their existence. In other words your previous requests were made to waste my time.

                  Eventually it is my belief that claims will end up before the SC. That has been said by many. What you seem to have complained about most is that you want proof. The SC wants the proof as well and even if they think Democrat cheating was rampant they will rule based on the facts brought to them.

                  1. I didn’t ask you to prove the existence of the complaints. I asked you to provide evidence that the claims are **true** (e.g., that a judge has agreed that people were “trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed”).

                    1. This is actually what you said: “whereas you have not presented evidence of people “trying to stop the poll watchers from seeing the votes being processed”

                      There was no mention of a judge in that sentence.

                      If you already know about the complaints then you are only providing worthless banter.

  2. Perhaps it is time that this wealth of intellectual energy be directed to the problem driving this mess: it is entirely reasonable for any candidate and their supporters from any party affiliation to question the outcome of an election. Why? Because the voting machines, their software, their components, and even who owns the private companies that sell them and service both the hardware and software are trade secrets.

    Many of us remember the extended vote re-counting in Florida in the 2000 election. Perhaps we even yearn for the simplicity of punch-card voting; a hanging chad was at least inspected in the light of day with a wealth of observers present. The desire to gain power by any means necessary seems to be inherent in human nature. The complexity of the current system appears to have given a more sophisticated tool to those who succumb to that desire.

    Following that contested 2000 election, a woman named Bev Harris followed her curiosity about possible voting fraud in our election system at all levels. A documentary called “Hacking Democracy” was made following the work of Ms. Harris and her fellow citizen investigators. This documentary is available to watch on Vimeo for a small fee. http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

    Ms. Harris continued her investigations for over 2 decades. What she and her colleagues learned remains publicly available in a well-maintained website of her organization, Black Box Voting at https://blackboxvoting.org/ . She also offers a free download of her book Black-Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century. blackboxvoting.org/black-box-voting-book/

    She notes: “Though it is old (I wrote it in 2003) the information in it still stands – if anything, elections today are even more opaque and tamper-friendly than before”. The blog posts at the organizations site, dating up to November 2018, inform about the known nature of the black boxes we’re currently using in our elections.

    Why hasn’t this problem been fixed? The simplest explanation is that those in charge of the voting process in various states, and those who have oversight at the federal level don’t want to fix it. It is also possible that inertia comes from ignorance of the black boxes and how they can be used to distort vote results by those who do understand them.

    Ms. Harris has apparently gone on to other writing projects. The organization still exists. It is time for those who really care about fair and honest elections to take up the mantle of the work done by Ms. Harris and her colleagues. This must not continue to happen.

    1. merighen,

      You might not be aware but this website only permits two links per comment. I edited your comment above to remove the protocol header on the third link so that it would post. If you would like in the future for the readership to review more than two hyperlinks, this can be accomplished by using multiple comments having two or fewer links each.

    2. @Merighen-

      Interesting and well thought out comment, Harris’ work sounds interesting. Yet the inertia has gone the other way – we added even more complexity with the rush to mail-in voting.

      1. Mail-in voting is illegal.

        By law, the election occurs on Tuesday; one day; 24 hours.

        The absolute fastest theoretical mail-in election would require 48 hours, which would be impossible in the vast majority of cases.

        Mail-in voting is corruption designed to expand the vote to favor parasites in search of more and more benefits, entitlements and “free stuff.”

        The vote was important, sober, solemn and restricted in 1788 when turnout was 11.6% by design.

        There were no benefits and entitlements to vote for.

        Benefits and entitlements were unconstitutional as they are today.

        Now, the vote is only important, sober and solemn for parasites in search of infinite benefits, entitlements and “free stuff.”

        If the Constitution had been supported by the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, over the past 231 years, there would be no benefits and entitlements to vote for.

        The parasites would not bother to attend polling places which could not and did not provide infinite benefits, entitlements and various and sundry other forms of “free stuff.”

        The vote of the parasites will soon be insurmountable, not only in California but in the entire one-party communist state of the Union of American Socialist Republics (UASR), the nation formerly known as the

        United States of America.

  3. Turley predictably looks the other way when Republicans are the ones condemning Trump for inviting Michigan Republican state legislators to the White House.

    Jeff Flake: “There are no words to describe how inappropriate this is.”

    Romney: “It’s difficult to imagine a worse, more undemocratic action by a sitting President. Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law, the President has now resorted to overt pressure on state & local officials to subvert the will of the people & overturn the election.”

    Trump attorneys are clearly synced up with their client’s pressure campaign. Sidney Powell: “The entire election in all the swing states should be overturned & the legislations should make sure the electors are chosen for Trump.”

    Turley will always leap into action to defend Trump attorney’s ongoing quest to enlist state electors to subvert the will of the people & overturn the election.

    1. Condemn all you want. the rinos can read their scripted lines. What Turley is pointing out, is the idiocy of claiming a crime was committed.

  4. Let’s just say that all of the info here on over-voting is correct. Over-voting or no over-voting is not the issue that Proffessor Turley is addressing in his column. The issue is the threat of criminal charges against members of an opposing party for meeting with the head of their party. We will put you in jail if you attempt to organize. The threat of prosecution was at one time used against the unions to keep them from organizing. In the threat to the unions the courts recognized their constitutional right to freedom of assembly. The founders were prohibited by the laws of the Crown of England from assembling. This is the reason that they included the right to assembly in our founding document. The over-vote issue will pass, but the loss of one of our rights will last for a very long time. Some in these comments do not address the subject of this column because they can not defend the actions of Michigan prosecuters. Don’t look at that, look over here instead. These commentors have a right to assemble here. However, dismissing the importance of the issue expressed by the author to climb up on their soap box is an exercise in exposing their character and their lack of a respect for our founding principles.

    1. Utter nonsense.

      And the Trump goons who plotted the kidnap and murder of the mIchigan governor also had the right to assemble.

      Shame on law enforcement for trying to prosecute them.


      1. Do we stop every groups right to assemble because their purpose might be nefarious? Who gets to choose? I hope it’s not you. The Synagogues in Germany were closed because the Jews were meeting there for the purpose of plotting against the people. The law was used against them. Don’t you understand were this goes? If you don’t want to apply the lessons from history than elimanating the history books is no big deal. Some eliminated history from their minds in high school. For the rest of us, we are thankful that these records of the past have been archived. It is a requirement of us all to remain vigilant. Thank you, Proffesor Turley.

        1. They weren’t prevented from meeting with Trump, and there was no threat of criminal prosecution simply for meeting with him.

          1. Ofcourse the threat was not for meeting. The threat was against what they might have said. I can hear the magistrate from the English court. “We are not saying you can’t have a meeting but we declare that you are plotting against the Queen and must henceforh be remanded to the London dungeon. Be sure now its not about a meeting. Let this be a warning to the good anonymous people of England. Be assured your turn awaits”

              1. Anon. Proffesor Turley provided a link to a Wasington Post story about the threat by the Michigan Attorney General. Surely a newspaper of great reputation. If you are going to post you should do more than scan the article in pursuit of your daily outrage.

                1. Thinkitthrough, if you’d bothered to read that story, you’d know that it didn’t include any threat from the MI A.G.

                  “Michigan’s attorney general is exploring whether officials there risk committing crimes if they bend to President Trump’s wishes in seeking to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in their state, according to two people familiar with the review” is not a threat.

                  “The attorney general is conferring with election law experts on whether officials may have violated any state laws prohibiting them from engaging in bribery, perjury and conspiracy, according to people familiar with the deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter” is not a threat.

                  The so-called threat only exists in your imagination.

                  1. Anon. Let’s see. We are looking into the law to see if Anonymous might have done something wrong. This sould not cause you to worry Anonymous. I am sure that if you discontinue your actions our inquires will all go away. Even if we are wrong it could cost you a ton of money to defend yourself. The State will pay for our investigation. Our resources are never ending. How deep are your pockets? Ofcourse we are not trying to say this in a threatening manner. If you get our drift. Is Anonymous niave or purposeful???

      2. So now the plotters are Trump goons. I don’t beleive that Antifa is a bunch of Biden goons. You expose yourself. You have lots of company. I don’t know wether to be mad or sad. Both I guess.

        1. The term Trump goons is not the way to describe those Trump supporters, they are really terrorists who believe in Trump policies’, or to say Trump terrorists would be more correct.

          1. Wow terrorists are people who bomb places like the Twin Towers. You equate Republicans with these people. You should be quiet. You hurt your cause. You expose yourself as to not to be considered.

          2. Fish! Where did you go? First you said Trump supporters were goons. Then you said they were terrorist. I was sure your next post would convince us that they are a secret coven of child molester witches. You could be sucessful at turning us all against them. Your missing your opportunities. Wrap it up in a newspaper. It stinks.

      3. Moron, what an ignorant, communist, clueless Idiot. Trump stopped the leftists that were plotting the overthrow.
        Turn off CNN.

        1. Moron, the FBI stopped it, not Trump, and the guys plotting to kidnap Whitmer weren’t leftists. Turn off Fox and OANN.

          1. At least some of the men were anarchists and hated Trump. The leader owned a business. If you recall Whitmer destroyed small businesses and stopped gatherings while her husband broke the law.

              1. Prove it. This sounds more like people fed up with governors that were acting like dictators. However, this should never have happened.

                Anarchists more typically come from the left.

                  1. Wikipedia is not a good source for political issues. They even use Facebook determinations to determine the validity of facts.

                    In any event you would have to demonstrate what you think you know. YOU DON’T KNOW.

                    Example: To make things clear from your source: Barry Croft: ” included Trump’s name in a grievance-filled hit-list of politicians that he wanted to hang ”

                    You should read what you link to and then utilize a bit of critical thinking.

                    1. Allan,

                      Only you could write, “[t]hey even use Facebook determinations to determine the validity of facts.”

                      Along with your favorites: “YOU DON’T KNOW.” and “…utilize a bit of critical thinking.”

                      Obviously, you are determined to not use critical thinking about things you don’t know so that you can determine the validity of facts despite other’s determinations.

                      Contact mespo, I’m sure he’ll lend you one of his highly altered wrestling uniforms from high school along with some clips he has been furiously loading for two years so that you both can show us all the determination of determinate facts.

  5. Jonathan: Once again you miss the forest for the trees. Probably intentionally so. By concentrating on some alleged scheme by Democrats to prosecute two Michigan legislators for meeting with Trump in the White House you distract from the big picture. Shirkey and Chatfield knew or should have known the purpose of the White House invite was not to discuss Covid but to try to get them to disregard the popular vote and select a slate of pro-Trump electors. They should have refused to meet with Trump on principal. For over a century state legislators have chosen electors based on the popular vote. As Richard Primus points out in his Politico article state legislatures have the power to change the way electors are chosen but only prospectively–not after the election has already been conducted. But that’s what Trump wanted Shirkey and Chatfield to do. For Trump there is always a quid pro quo involved in every transaction. Perhaps he offered more Covid aid in exchange for what he wanted– overturning the will of Michigan voters. This ploy is no different than that infamous phone call with the president of Ukraine that got Trump impeached. It’s a little late to impeach Trump now for trying to overturn the electoral and constitutional order. But it is clear that Trump is trying to make an end run around the Constitution–an attempted coup d’etat. Former Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder put it best in describing what Trump has tried to do: “What’s troubling through all this is the president’s behavior–and that of the people on his legal team. They’re actually undermining democracy with their actions”. But your approach is to criticize Democrats for everything Trump has done to undermine the electoral process. Sad, very sad.

    1. Lib you are blinded by your deranged obsession with anything Trump, while Hillary and Joe spoke of “never conceding” you are expecting Trump to forfeit his legal right to challenge election results which in any honest individuals mind would at the very least constitute a legal contest. Grow up

    2. The Deep Deep State caused John F. Kennedy to lose the election of November 22, 1963.

      The Deep Deep State caused Donald J. Trump to lose the election of November 3, 2020.

      CIA “overthrow” operations in South America were brought home for deployment against John F. Kennedy.

      Operation PBSuccess

      Allen Dulles, director of the CIA during the 1954 coup, and brother of U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles

      The CIA operation to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz, code-named Operation PBSuccess, was authorized by Eisenhower in August 1953. The operation was granted a budget of 2.7 million U.S. dollars[f] for “psychological warfare and political action”.[85] The total budget has been estimated at between 5 and 7 million dollars, and the planning employed over 100 CIA agents.[86] In addition, the operation recruited scores of individuals from among Guatemalan exiles and the populations of the surrounding countries.[86] The plans included drawing up lists of people within Árbenz’s government to be assassinated if the coup were to be carried out. Manuals of assassination techniques were compiled, and lists were also made of people whom the junta would dispose of.[85] These were the CIA’s first known assassination manual, and were reused in subsequent CIA actions.[87]

      – Wiki

      Venezuelan Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems were employed to “fix” foreign elections and they were brought home for deployment against Donald J. Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

  6. Trump Lost This Election In Suburbs

    So Why Are Cities Blamed??

    President Donald Trump’s longshot bid to overturn the election focuses on invalidating ballots cast in Philadelphia, Detroit and other heavily Democratic cities, an effort that would disenfranchise a disproportionate number of Black voters if successful.

    While the Trump campaign says it is merely targeting places where fraud is most likely to have occurred, the racial cast to the president’s attempt to cling to power has drawn criticism from Democrats. The president’s lawyers have not presented evidence of widespread fraud in court and he has had little success so far with his legal challenges.

    Trump’s focus on cities with large Black populations belies the fact that his re-election was largely lost in places outside the urban centers of battleground states. In suburban counties in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Biden improved his margin of victory by nearly 6 percentage points, compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016, or a combined 361,000 votes.

    In urban counties with more than 1 million population, Biden’s margin increased just 1.6 points, or 193,000 votes, relative to Clinton.

    In Pennsylvania, the most hotly contested state, those suburban voters alone were enough to flip the state to Biden. Urban voters alone were not.

    But Trump and his allies aren’t contesting the outcome of the election in the suburbs. The racial tone of his fight has been most evident in Detroit, a city that is 79% Black.

    On Tuesday, two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers initially refused to certify the Nov. 3 election results on grounds the vote in Detroit was suspect. The Republican chairwoman of the board, Monica Palmer, said during the debate that she would be open to certifying the vote in “communities other than Detroit,” according to the Detroit Free Press.

    The two Republicans reversed their position following the criticism and agreed to certify the election, then tried to rescind their votes after the president called Palmer.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in an interview on MSNBC that the board’s first vote was an attempt to disenfranchise Black voters based on “only clerical errors,” not widespread evidence of fraud.

    After losing or withdrawing a string of lawsuits contesting his defeat in several states, Trump appears to be pursuing a legally dubious and improbable attempt to persuade Republican-led state legislatures to overrule voters and award him enough electoral college votes to secure re-election.

    He met with the GOP leaders of the Michigan state legislature at the White House on Friday. But after the meeting, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and House Speaker Lee Chatfield said they hadn’t yet seen any reason to alter the outcome of the election.

    Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who’s taken over the legal effort to challenge the election results, has repeatedly depicted Philadelphia, Detroit and other cities where the campaign is trying to invalidate votes as being run by corrupt political machines with a history of election fraud. He has said without evidence that there was a national conspiracy to rig the election, with Democrats picking 10 cities where “they can control” workers and law enforcement.

    Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the allegations insulting to Black people living in the cities.

    Edited from: “Trump Challenges To Election Results Hit’s Hardest At Black Voters”

    Bloomberg News, 11/21/20

    1. “Trump Lost This Election In Suburbs So Why Are Cities Blamed??”

      Because the corruption occurred in the cities bonehead. The same places where Democrat corruption is the greatest, where theft, shootings and murder are the greatest. Haven’t you noticed how many minority kids get killed in these cities? Forget that. I forgot. You are a racist.

  7. 12th Amendment

    The 2020 election has failed and goes to Congress.

    50 states will cast one vote each.

    37 are republican.

    Trump wins.


    No power related to healthcare is enumerated to Congress by the Constitution and is reserved to “the people.” Personal healthcare is the purview of the individual, aka “the people.” Vulnerable individuals may choose to privately seek medical advice and treatment and protect themselves (i.e. quarantine). General welfare applies only to issues related to ALL WELL PROCEEDING, such as roads, water, sewer, electricity, trash collection, post office, etc. The matter of individual, specific and/or personal healthcare is reserved to “the people” as differentiated from “the States” by the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment does not conflate “States” and “the people,” the 10th Amendment differentiates “States” and “the people.” Individuals contracting a cold or the flu are not the concern or purview of Congress or government.

    All individuals who are threatened or jeopardized by the “China Flu, 2020” may and should attend to their personal conditions and healthcare.

    The 10th Amendment is clear and unambiguous.

    10th Amendment

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  9. Tell you what? That you are a racist. Everyone can see and judge for themselves based on your comments.

  10. Unfortunately you have linked this entire discussion to your racism where you assume only black people could be providing illegal votes. You assume all blacks are crooked forgetting the the corruption of the Democrat Party.

  11. I woke up hoping that JT would write a post denouncing the attempt by Trump to steal the election. I was again disappointment. Calling legislators to the WH to pressure them to ignore the results of a legal election is disgusting and JT seems ok with it.

    1. I was again disappointment.

      The long range forecast is not looking good for you to wake up and not be a disappointment.

    2. Calling legislators to the WH to pressure them to ignore the results of a legal election is disgusting and JT seems ok with it.

      You should take your mind reading schtick on the road

  12. Funny thing… old Whitless is guilty of at least three felonies:
    MCL 750.157a – Conspiracy to commit offense or legal act in illegal manner;
    MCL 750.218 – False pretenses with intent to defraud;
    MCL 750.483a – Prohibited acts; penalties; “retaliate,”“official proceeding,” and “threaten or intimidate”
    She conspired to commit a legal act in an illegal manner by attempting to circumvent the legislature using an already superseded (void) 1945 Emergency Powers Act while knowing that the Emergency Powers Act of 1976 would have limited her powers.
    She used false pretenses on more than one occasion: first, in claiming that the 1945 Emergency Powers Act gave her the authority to lock down the state without the interaction of the State Legislature, and also by using claims made by the media as “scientific fact” to back her actions when actual scientific fact nullified her actions.
    She used prohibited acts by retaliating against businesses who had won Supreme Court rulings that went against her orders, and used threats of jail terms and heavy fines for refusing to comply with her illegal and unconstitutional orders.
    Her buddy, Dana Nessel, is also guilty of a felony:
    18 USC §4 – Misprision of Felony – for her part in not doing anything about Whitless’ felonies…. but I guess if you REALLY break the law, it doesn’t matter if you’re a democrat… but if you’re a republican, or otherwise don’t drink the demonrat Koolaid, then you’re guilty of something… the left haven’t decided what yet… but they’ll find something to charge you with…

  13. I’m deeply embarrassed for you, Jonathan.

    Here is the evidence of “voting irregularities” that Trump, Giuliani have put forward:

    In its wild news conference Thursday, President Trump’s legal team promoted a very simple-sounding theory that seems likely to be central to its voter fraud allegations: that many precincts in the key states had more votes than actual voters, particularly in Michigan and Wisconsin.

    “Well, in Michigan and Wisconsin, we have over-votes in numerous precincts of 150 percent, 200 percent and 300 percent,” Giuliani said.

    Sidney Powell alleged that it was “up to 350 percent in some places.”

    Within hours, the evidence for that claim began to crumble.

    The source of Powell’s number is an affidavit from a security consultant in Texas named Russ Ramsland. Ramsland appeared on Lou Dobbs’s Fox Business Network show on Tuesday and detailed his claims.

    “The things that you find in Michigan are amazing,” Ramsland began. “There are over 3,000 precincts where the presidential vote cast compared to the estimated voters … is 99 percent all the way up to 350 percent. Those kind of numbers don’t exist in the real world. So where did all those votes come from?”

    But as the Powerline blog first reported, the affidavit made a major mistake. Its data wasn’t actually from Michigan; it was from Minnesota. What’s more, its conclusions about over-votes even in those Minnesota locations aren’t backed up data from the Minnesota secretary of state.

    Here’s the applicable part of the affidavit, which Trump campaign lawyer L. Lin Wood has now filed as part of a lawsuit in Georgia:
    Ramsland affidavit
    Ramsland affidavit (Aaron Blake)

    Ramsland’s affidavit later focuses on alleged over-votes specifically in Wayne County, Mich., where Detroit is located:
    Ramsland affidavit Part 2
    Ramsland affidavit Part 2 (Aaron Blake)

    𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿-𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗮. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝘆𝗻𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗶𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝘆𝗻𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆, “𝟮𝟱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝟰𝟳 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝘀/𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘁.” 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝟮𝟱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘁𝗮.

    𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝘂𝗯𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗶𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁.

    Of course, errors can happen. And just because they got the state wrong doesn’t mean that the data might actually show something nefarious — albeit not where intended.

    So what about the idea that it shows something amiss in Minnesota? On that count, too, the data is highly suspect, and it most certainly doesn’t speak to a plot to actually help Joe Biden.

    It’s not exactly clear where Ramsland was getting his data on “estimated voters” in each precinct. (I have reached out to Ramsland for more information.) But his affidavit cites “SOS Est. Voters” — an apparent reference to the secretary of state. Yet the Minnesota secretary of state also has a detailed breakdown of its registered voters, and its numbers don’t show over-votes.

    The biggest alleged over-vote in Ramsland’s affidavit is from Benville Township — the place where actual voters were allegedly 350 percent of estimated voters. According to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s election results, 63 people voted in the township. But its data show there were precisely that many registered voters in the township at 7 a.m. on Election Day, and then eight more registered on Election Day (Minnesota has same-day registration).

    The story is the same for the second-highest alleged over-vote: Monticello’s 1st Precinct. There, 3,693 people were registered when polls opened, and another 385 registered on Election Day. The number of votes was 3,211.

    The number of votes in each of the next three biggest alleged over-voting precincts (Monticello-2 and two precincts in Albertville) also fall well shy of the number of registered voters.

    While it’s not clear what numbers Ramsland was using for “estimated voters,” one logical conclusion presents itself. As Max Hailperin, professor emeritus at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, theorized to me, the affidavit might have been relying upon incomplete “estimated voters” data from the Minnesota secretary of state in the days after the election.

    In Benville, for instance, 18 of the 63 voters were recorded as casting absentee ballots. Absentees a type of vote that might very logically have been included in the secretary of state’s “estimated voters” numbers before others were, given they would have arrived the earliest. If the results were updated more quickly than the “estimated voters” numbers, there might have been a time in which the results showed 63 votes but the “estimated voters” number showed 18. And what’s 63 divided by 18? Exactly 350 percent.

    Even sub-100 percent numbers in the current secretary of state data suggest very high turnout. But that’s one area in which transposing Minnesota data with Michigan data matters. That’s because Minnesota routinely has among the highest turnout rates in the country — and often the highest. The idea that we’d see 79 percent turnout in Monticello’s 1st Precinct is hardly remarkable. In fact, it’s not that dissimilar to past elections, including 2016, and 2020 was the highest-turnout election since 1900.

    Another key reason the difference between states matters: the voting equipment used. Minnesota secretary of state spokeswoman Risikat Adesaogun confirmed to me that the precincts identified above didn’t use the Dominion software that the affidavit cites as being problematic and that the Trump campaign has baselessly linked to voter fraud. And even in Michigan, the Princeton University professor cited in the affidavit as raising concerns about Dominion has clarified that the state doesn’t use the specific software he warned about. He noted Michigan uses paper ballots which can be recounted by hand — “the state-of-the-art most-secure-known way of conducting elections.”

    And then there’s one final key point. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the affidavit’s data are accurate based on numbers from somewhere else. What if the Minnesota secretary of state has just somehow done a really good job at covering its tracks by rigging its voter registration numbers too?

    Well, even in that case, this would be a pretty harebrained plot to throw the election to Biden. While Ramsland’s affidavit appears to suggest these were precincts in Wayne County, in fact they are from rural Minnesota — i.e., Trump country. In Benville, where actual votes were allegedly 350 percent of total voters, Trump won 75 percent of those 63 votes. Trump also won about 6 in 10 votes in Monticello and more than 6 in 10 in Albertville. The results in each precinct are also similar to 2016, suggesting this wasn’t a bunch of votes being added to Biden’s tallies.

    Giuliani at Thursday’s new conference repeatedly attacked the media for not reporting on these affidavits, saying they are real, bona fide evidence of fraud.

    “It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence,” Giuliani said.

    And it’s the Trump campaign’s job to actually do some research on the claims they spout in public and in court.


    1. well researched– I’m a former whistle blower and accidental litigator that exposed securities/REMIC fraud, foreclosure fraud, pension fraud and rampant judicial corruption after the 08′ crash. I only started litigating (self taught) when I couldn’t find any lawyers with a backbone. I ended up litigating in a dozen states in state, federal and bankruptcy courts, as well as in Panama (with Panamanian attorney who had balls)

      I don’t have the time or energy to verify your statements so I’ll take them as true– They are just one piece of a much larger puzzle. A reasonable person has to ask themselves why all the Dominion employees- starting with Eric Coomer– would attempt to wipe every trace of themselves off the internet after they were exposed. I’m presuming you are aware of Eric Coomer, and the interview Michelle Malkin did with Joe Oltman- link below.


      A pattern I saw with every case I litigated was I could never get meaningful discovery. All my complaints were verified (sworn under penalty of perjury as true– for those that don’t know what verified means) and I could give you example after example of discovery requests met with motions for protective orders that were granted, requests that were ignored– followed by crooked judges that would deny my motion to compel.

      This is a much larger picture of suppression, threats, gaslighting, intimidation and outright hostility– when the end goal is to determine “was this a fair election?” doesn’t matter if it’s Mickey Mouse against Donald Duck. We are at risk of becoming a banana republic (if we aren’t already there) if this election turns out to be a sham– which it appears to be.

      Doesn’t matter who you support –a reasonable person would agree that if there’s nothing to hide– why so many attempts to cover up, threats, harassment, etc?wouldn’t everyone in the country want to ensure the election was fair?

      1. “A reasonable person has to ask themselves why all the Dominion employees- starting with Eric Coomer– would attempt to wipe every trace of themselves off the internet after they were exposed.”

        As a reasonable person, I’ll ask you to provide valid evidence for your claim that “all the Dominion employees- starting with Eric Coomer– … attempt[ed] to wipe every trace of themselves off the internet.”

        The column you linked to certainly didn’t do that. Re: that column, you might want to read https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eric-coomer-dominion-trump/

        “Doesn’t matter who you support –a reasonable person would agree that if there’s nothing to hide– why so many attempts to cover up, threats, harassment, etc?wouldn’t everyone in the country want to ensure the election was fair?”

        We have processes that address that, such as standard voting audits. We’ve already gotten a number of reports about it having been fair (e.g., https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election). If someone has evidence of fraud, they should present it.

      2. It is not about ensuring the election was fair, it is about holding up the transition and sowing doubt in the mind of the public. They make wild claims, the media runs with it, but the reporting that the claims were debunked is not as widely reported.

        1. 12th Amendment

          The 2020 election has failed and goes to Congress.

          50 states will cast one vote each.

          37 are republican.

          Trump wins

  14. Those Michigan legislators took the trip for a reason, and it wasn’t a free happy meal at the White House. Questions should be asked under oath if the POTUS asked for or received any favors. Who paid for their trip and lodging at Trump Hotel DC? Trump or taxpayers. Turley has his panties in a bunch because people are asking? Due to past actions by Trump, they should, by all means necessary.

  15. All affected persons, including blog moderators, will recognize that the following is intended as satire to foster discussion on important issues relating to the role of the government and the media, the rule of law, and free speech.

    -Promote Truth, Unity and Accountability

    WASHINGTON, DC – The Party today announced new guidance for professionals in the legal and financial sectors. This guidance is intended to promote constructive alignment among sector participants, their clients, and the Public Interest.

    The following guidelines are announced with immediate effect. Where appropriate to prevent future harm from past misconduct, these guidelines may be applied retroactively.

    1. Legal Sector

    Abuse of the legal system for partisan political purposes presents a clear and present danger to the administration of Justice.

    All attorneys serve as public citizens in the Public Interest. They are reminded that their duty to represent the interests of their clients is not unlimited. The Rules of Professional Conduct require that all representations be carried out within applicable guidelines. Attorneys should be alert to situations where the representation of certain clients, or the advocacy of legal positions contrary to Party-aligned interests, may place them in conflict with their ethical obligations.

    Attorneys are also reminded of their ethical duty to report other lawyers that have committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. In those situations, the attorney shall inform the appropriate professional authority. See Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3(a).

    2. Financial Sector

    Auditors, public accountants, and other financial professionals play a critical role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of financial information. They are in a unique position to detect fraud or other financial transactions inimical to Party aligned interests. Auditors are encouraged to apply heightened efforts to identify and report any such activity as a matter of Public Interest.

    In addition, auditors should exercise special care when reviewing financial information relating to Party-aligned organizations or affecting Party-aligned interests. In those situations, strict adherence to generally accepted accounting standards (GAAS) may be inappropriate and even dangerous.

    Sector participants are also reminded of the ethical requirements set forth in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, including the Accountability Standards set forth therein, which shall be strictly applied consistent with the Public Interest.

    3. Cooperation with Political Partisans Misaligned with Party Interests

    Legal and financial sector participants are reminded that cooperation with Political Partisans is presumed to be contrary to the Public Interest and a violation of applicable law. All such cooperation should be discontinued with retroactive effect. For more information, please refer to previous guidance issued by the Party Secretariat for Truth and Reconciliation.

    Immediate implementation of these guidelines is authorized under previously approved directives adopted in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Further information on these guidelines will be communicated as circumstances dictate.

    1. This Party Secretary crap is written by the nerdiest of losers. Just some creepy Trumper who thinks he should be writing for SNL.

      1. Dear Mr. Anonymous:

        As part of your ongoing education as to Party Doctrine, you are encouraged to familiarize yourself with “The Banality of Evil” as described by Hannah Arendt.

        However, please use extreme caution in communicating the doctrine set out in Ms. Arendt’s text, as it is not to be applied to Party-aligned elements. Proper usage dictates that activities undertaken on behalf of the Party be characterized as noble, in the furtherance of social justice, or their functional equivalents.

        Pending further guidance, please contact your local Secretariat for Party Education for more information.

    1. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

      Secretary of treasury Steve Mnuchin accidentally reveals Trump is actively making the pandemic worse on purpose.

      “ Well, we hope it won’t and again you know we’re working on mass distribution of the virus,” Mnuchin replied. ”


      It seems trump IS the deep state. It makes sense. He’s actively seeking to overturn the election and is now trying to bribe Michigan officials into changing their vote to certify the votes. Where is Fox News on this! We need our honest Fox News analysis to know the real truth!

      1. Svelaz, you are a wholly dishonest hack.

        The headline:

        “Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin flubs and says the White House is ‘working on a mass distribution of the virus”

        Do I need to explain what a “flub” means?

        If you’re not sure just let me know and I’ll provide multiple examples of Biden “flubs” that go back long before he had Dementia.

  16. More Blacks Voted This Election, Even For Trump

    Yet Trump Lawsuits Target Cities With Large Black Populations

    The Trump campaign withdrew its lawsuit against Wayne County Thursday morning, saying that the goal of holding up the certification was achieved, though Michigan election officials have said that the certification can’t be reneged.

    But the Trump campaign has also launched attacks on Philadelphia, another city with a large Black population. Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani at a Thursday press conference casually suggested that there was routine cheating in the city by people who traveled from Camden, N.J., to vote in Pennsylvania. As with other allegations, Giuliani offered zero hard evidence for the charge.

    It’s also not entirely clear that some huge, disproportional turnout by Black voters in Philadelphia or Detroit doomed Trump.

    Detroit and Philadelphia are the most populous cities in Michigan and Pennsylvania, respectively. Nearly 80 percent of Detroit’s population is Black, while over 40 percent of Philadelphia’s is Black.

    According to an initial analysis done by the Voter Participation Center (VPC), approximately 1 million more Black Americans across the country cast ballots in 2020 than in 2016, an increase of 1 percent in terms of Black voter turnout rate. Per the VPC, not only did more Black, Indigenous, people of color vote, but they also made up a larger percentage of total votes cast this election cycle. As a result, voters of color pushed Biden’s margin of victory by 1.8 percent, Black voters accounting for 0.5 percent of that.

    “The margins that they voted for Biden over Trump make very clear that African American voters specifically, and people of color more broadly, had … a significant impact on this election,” Tom Lopach, CEO of the VPC, told The Hill.

    However, election results signal that the increase of Black voter turnout didn’t come from either city.

    In fact, the president did better in both Detroit and Philadelphia this election cycle than in 2016, aligning with exit polls that show Trump’s support among Black voters grew.

    In Detroit, Biden received nearly 1,000 votes fewer than Hillary Clinton received in 2016, while Trump increased his vote total in the Motor City by almost 5,000. A similar story played out in Philadelphia.

    Biden did receive more votes than Clinton — the city had its highest voter turnout since 1984 — but his share of the city’s vote actually fell by a point. Trump’s vote total was more than in 2016 and his share of the vote increased.

    China Dickerson, Forward Majority’s national political director, told The Hill that while the intent of Trump’s lawsuits might not be to disenfranchise Black voters by invalidating their votes, their impact would be to do so.

    “No one is surprised by these lawsuits, which is why I think a lot of the people aren’t taking them seriously,” Dickerson said. “Trump is the master of distraction, the master of storyline. He has one here, so he is capitalizing on it.”

    Edited from: “Trump’s Legal Fight Targets Black Americans”

    The Hill, 11/20/20

    1. Republicans wonder why Blacks stay loyal to Democrats. Yet Republicans are trying to invalidate Blacks votes in several different cities. How clueless can you get!

      1. Because they said the quiet part out loud, people of color should not be able to vote. Look at the lawsuits by Trump, it’s never in areas of white population that voted for Trump or Biden just areas they feel “those” people should not vote.

      2. This racist, Anonymous, never stops.

        Republicans are trying to invalidate illegal votes. If illegal votes are brought into the counting room why do you assume blacks are the ones that did that? Do you think only blacks are criminals and corrupt. You are the biggest racist on this blog.

        1. You linked blacks to any accusation of illegal ballot harvesting, illegal votes, etc. If Trump loses you are a racist.
          If Trump wins, you are a racist. Your voice has condemned you for what you are.

          1. ““Barb,” Giuliani wants to invalidate hundreds of thousands of legal votes.”

            That is a lie. He wants to remove illegal votes and that is all he can do if permitted to do that. You sound ignorant when you make this type of comment.

            1. Anon. @ 4:51pm:

              It’s not a lie. You can listen to Giuliani here –
              Giuliani is asking the judge to invalidate hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots.

              Or read what lawyers are saying about in their discussions of the hearing. Here’s an example from Prof. Rick Hasen (UC Irvine law school, specializes in election law): https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118872
              “the complaint in Pennsylvania is not likely to survive a motion to dismiss: there are strong arguments that the campaign has no standing to bring this claim under Third Circuit precedent; that the claim is barred by the doctrine of laches because the campaign could have brought these claims before the election and to bring it now would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters and overturn the will of the people based upon no showing of any illegal ballots; that their Bush v. Gore equal protection theory does not apply to this context; and that the appropriate forum to contest an election is a state court rather than a federal court.” (emphasis added)

              Or read other reports about the suit, such as politico.com/news/2020/11/17/giuliani-federal-judge-pennsylvania-tallies-tossed-437066

              Or read the suit. There’s a link to one of the motions in Hasen’s discussion, more here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18618673/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-boockvar/?page=2

              1. ” invalidate hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots.”

                Commit, the legislature is responsible for the laws used in the voting process. If other rules were followed in the voting process whether just a few or hundreds of thousands then those votes are not legal. Whether you like it or not you have to stick by the law. Unfortunately there was corruption and negligence on the side of Democrats. That has caused tremendous confusion and likely a fraud on the public.

                No matter who wins or loses the Democrats should be blamed for not protecting the voter process.

                1. Barb22,

                  You haven’t presented evidence that hundreds of thousands of ballots were cast illegally. Giuliani didn’t either. Again, as Hasen noted, “to bring it now would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters and overturn the will of the people based upon no showing of any illegal ballots” (emphasis added).

                  “Whether you like it or not you have to stick by the law.”

                  Duh. You do as well. We’ll find out soon how the judge rules.

                  “Unfortunately there was corruption and negligence on the side of Democrats.”

                  Prove it.

                  1. I will repeat what I said.

                    “Commit, the legislature is responsible for the laws used in the voting process. If other rules were followed in the voting process whether just a few or hundreds of thousands then those votes are not legal. Whether you like it or not you have to stick by the law. ”

                    If the votes were deemed illegal then those votes won’t count
                    If they are deemed legal they will count.

                    What is wrong with that?

                    1. What’s wrong is that you’re moving the goalposts from your claim that “[Giuliani wants to invalidate hundreds of thousands of legal votes] is a lie.” If they’re deemed legal, then Giuliani was trying to have hundreds of thousands of legal ballots thrown out, right?

                      The judge just dismissed the case:

                      Part of what he wrote:
                      “the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners … In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters.
                      “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. …”

                      The judge has confirmed that Giuliani was trying to invalidate not just hundreds of thousands but millions of legally cast votes.

                      I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim that “there was corruption and negligence on the side of Democrats.” If you can’t, then the honest thing to do is say “I can’t” instead of ignoring it.

                    2. “The judge just dismissed the case:”

                      I think this is the same level Pennsylvania Court that overruled the legislatures rules on voting procedures. We have to wait until this goes or doesn’t go to the SC. I think it will end up there. Pennsylvania did not follow their own rules and regulations. There is a significant chance that due to Democrat lack of adherence to law all Pennsylvanians may be disenfranchised.

                    3. Me: “I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim that “there was corruption and negligence on the side of Democrats.” If you can’t, then the honest thing to do is say “I can’t” instead of ignoring it.”
                      You: [crickets]

                      “I think it will end up there.”

                      What do you think the judge got wrong in his ruling?

                    4. “What do you think the judge got wrong in his ruling?”

                      As we have seen, judges don’t always rule based on the constitution. Some are outright biased. There is a lot of maneuvering by attorney’s to protect their arguments so I don’t know whether the judge was provided with all the information the Trump lawyers had. Remember, the Trump lawyers while filing suits are gathering more information. Their eye is on the SC.

                      No matter who wins in the lower court appeals will be made. That means everything is geared to the Supreme Court after the lower courts have completed their duties. The issues in the lower court are the ones that will eventually be brought before the SC.

                      The SC will determine if “there was corruption and negligence on the side of Democrats.”, not me. If that determination is made then the entire state’s electoral votes could be in jeopardy.

                    5. None of that answers the question “What do you think the judge got wrong in his ruling?”

                    6. I already answered the question. To analyze this 36 page decision would require a book to be written and I’m not about to do that. What I do believe is that despite his decision the case will go to the SC. Voting laws were not followed.

                    7. This case will either go to the SC or not. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

                      I am more concerned about the country than any particular candidate. What was done to Trump in my mind was illegal and dangerous. He was spied upon before and after he assumed the Presidency. We had to face the Steele Dossier which was phony. We had the Russia and Ukraine Hoaxes along with impeachment and many other things that should never have occurred. No one should put their own politics ahead of the nation and the law.

                      I understand why some don’t like President Trump and I understand why they voted for Biden even though I disagree and given time could probably convince most people that were not wedded to the Democrat Party that Biden was the wrong man.

                      I would rather debate Trumps significant actions and the history around each of them. That we do not do on this blog because we are too busy attacking rather than discussing. Just a few of them are the economy, record low unemployment, decrease in illegal aliens, peace deals in the middle east, rebuilding our military, rise in household income, millions off food stamps, energy sufficiency, regulations simplified, USMCA trade agreement, no new wars with mostly withdrawal of troops, space force, etc. etc. These are some of the policies that should be under discussion.

              2. Some jurisdictions allowed faulty absentee ballots to be ‘cured’ something not allowed by the law. Other jurisdictions did not allow the same opportunity to cure. According to Bush v Gore, the disparate treatment does come under equal protection laws.

      3. I guess none of these votes that are supposedly being disenfranchised were cast by white voters. Don’t you understand that this “rascist under every rock” exclamation is what cost you control by losing in down ballot ellections. This tactic has grown very weary and has proven through the vote to be presented by the untrustworthy. Be aware, I hope you keep using it. Blacks and Latinos are coming to the understanding that it’s just a scam to get there votes.

    2. “More Blacks Voted This Election, Even For Trump Yet Trump Lawsuits Target Cities With Large Black Populations”

      You racist pig. Trump targeted areas where known corruption existed. You are inferring that all blacks are criminals. They aren’t. Their problem lies with the fact that some live in large cities under corrupt Democrat leadership.

      You continuously demean black people and that type of speech should be recognized for what it is.

        1. You just outed yourself once again as a bigoted racist, ChiCom.

          But you got one thing right. Trump did far better with black and Latino voters than the Democrat plantation owners expected.

          Which is the reason for the fallacious story on The Hill.

Leave a Reply