Biden’s Pony Problem: Why The Hunter Biden Scandal Is No Dead Horse

President-elect Joe Biden has a pony problem. During the primary, Joe Biden bizarrely responded to a woman who asked why voters should believe that he could win a national election by saying “You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.” That encounter came to mind when Biden this week mocked Fox reporter Peter Doocy, who violated the virtual news blackout on the Hunter Biden story. by asking about the scandal. Biden immediately walked off stage and then stopped and said “Yes, yes, yes. God love you, man — you’re a one-horse pony, I tell you.”

Like many kids this Christmas, many voters are still angling for a pony. Biden has spent months mocking the Hunter Biden story – and anyone asking about it.  When CBS News reporter Bo Erickson asked Biden about his son’s scandal, Bo Erickson drew a similar rebuke from Biden.  He simply asked ‘Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about your son, sir?’ Biden’s response was again a personal attack: “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.” Biden also blew up at a question that referred by the scandal by a NBC reporter and at a Fox reporter who asked about his son.

It is just not working. The media openly worked to bury the Hunter Biden scandal before the election, but the ponies keep finding their way back. The problem is when you one reporter like Doocy who refuses to be corralled and insists on an answer to a serious question.

The question yesterday was a good one.  Doocy yelled out “Mr. President-elect, do you still think that the stories from the fall about your son Hunter were Russian disinformation and a smear campaign like you said?”  Biden’s response of “yes, yes, yes” seemed to continue a discredited claim (indeed, “disinformation”) put out by figures like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who assured the pubic that the allegations against “this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.” Some 50 former intelligence officials, including Obama’s CIA directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, also insisted the laptop story was likely the work of Russian intelligence. Cable hosts and journalists laughed at the laptop story as fake news to justify the blackout on coverage before the election.

Then the pony showed up again. After the election, it was confirmed (as some of us discussed in columns before the election) that Hunter Biden is under federal investigation. The laptop appears to be genuine. The emails appear to be genuine. And Doocy continued to ask the obvious questions.

Biden is still hoping that he can continue to mock and the media will continue to do the rest.  One reporter yesterday did raise the scandal but only to ask if Biden discussed it with Attorney General candidates (the campaign already said that Biden was going to allow the Justice Department to reach its own conclusions).  There are other obvious questions, including whether a key business associate of the Bidens, Anthony Bobulinski, is lying. Either Tony Bobulinski or Joe Biden is lying. Bobulinski is repeatedly praised by Hunter Biden in the emails and identified as the person in control of transactions for “the family.” He has directly contradicted Joe Biden’s denial of any knowledge or involvement in his son’s dubious dealings.

There is a reason why Biden may not want to answer that question. If he calls Bobulinski a liar, Biden would be hit with a defamation lawsuit within days. He would then be forced to go under oath in a defamation. Such depositions present their own dangers. Just ask Bill Clinton.  So it is not a pesky pony but a sworn deposition that Biden may be trying to avoid.

The same problem exists on other questions.  For example, not only were Joe and Jill Biden included as “office mates” with controversial Chinese investor (and associate of Hunter) Gongwen Dong, but emails also refer to unsecured loans going to the Biden family and shares going to “the big guy.”  The “big guy” appears to be Joe Biden. Moreover, Biden spent the election denying that his son did nothing wrong and made no money from China. The question is when Biden learned of the federal investigation and whether he was aware of the dealings over multimillion dollar unsecured loans (as well as alleged gifts like a valuable diamond to his son).  Answering those questions falsely could trigger congressional investigation and then more ponies would show up.

That is the problem with a bunker press strategy of denial and isolation.  Like water, truth has a way of coming out. Clearly many in the media will continue to be in the bag for Biden. However, horses tend to gather where the water is found.  First, there was one pony (Doocy). Then another showed up (Erickson). Before you know it, you have a herd and a threat of a stampede.  Then it could be too late.

In mocking comment to Doocy, Biden was clearly trying to say a “one-trick pony.” That trick however was once called “journalism” back in the day when reporters doggedly demanded answers, particularly on questions like influence peddling. So many of us still hoping for ponies – and even some answers – for Christmas.

WhiteHouse.gov

 

This column also appeared on Fox.com.

 

492 thoughts on “Biden’s Pony Problem: Why The Hunter Biden Scandal Is No Dead Horse”

  1. President Joe Biden could be immediately impeached for 4 major scandals.

    1) Accusation of sexual assault: Biden’s former Senate staffer, Tara Reade, has credibly accused the former Delaware senator of sexually assaulting her in 1993. She has seven pieces of corroborating information to back up her allegation, and as of right now, Biden is defiantly engaging in a cover-up of his Senate papers, which are hidden away at the University of Delaware.

    2) Illegal Domestic Spying on Rival Campaign: We know Biden was involved with Obama in spying on Trump and Mike Flynn.

    3) Using U.S. Aid to protect his son from Ukrainian prosecutor: Joe Biden did what Democrats falsely impeached Trump over: he threatened to withhold American aid from Ukraine for reasons involving self-dealing, in this case to protect his son Hunter Biden. Joe Biden is running around bragging about his impeachable offense.

    4) The China connection with Hunter and the whole Biden family.

    1. Donald J. Trump
      @realDonaldTrump 5h

      I saved at least 8 Republican Senators, including Mitch, from losing in the last Rigged (for President) Election. Now they (almost all) sit back and watch me fight against a crooked and vicious foe, the Radical Left Democrats. I will NEVER FORGET!
      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      Joe, Trump’s tweet is so far out it defies comprehension. And to think he’s tweeting this on Christmas Eve!

      1. Easily worst human to ever occupy the WH and the single strongest argument for reforming the electoral college. We cant afford mistakes like him that last 4 years.

        1. Easily the worst to sit as POTUS was obammy….afterall was he really a citizen ?. His own college propaganda states him as a foreign exchange student. Which if one could prove he was a real citizen than that would make him guilty of fraud for college moneies. Anyhow his reign of terror continues in backchannels.
          The absolute worst would be china chump joe if he manages to seal the steal. As we ponder presently he is violating the Logan act with all manner of back channel “talks” with foreign leaders. Hell the Chinese communists already told senile joe that he will jump back into the Iran stupidity or else. He’s a bought pawn by the chicoms…and leftists like you love that sellout.

        2. In a recent Fox News poll, 42% of voters said that Trump will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever. Historians rank him as the worst.

          1. In a recent Fox News poll, 42% of voters said that Trump will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever. Historians rank him as the worst.

            No historian worth listening to would make such a judgment at this time.

                  1. Not quite as I am willing to defend what I say. You just hit and run. But I like hit and run with you alone. I don’t have time to offer opinions and prefer to remain in relative obscurity, but you changed my outlook at least for the moment.

                1. Hit and run tactics are taught at West Point, the “Nice” Anonymous, You need to get up to date on your tactical warfare.

                  1. Hit and run. We are not at West Point and it teaches a lot more than that. Keep grasping for something to say.

                    1. “nice” anonymous, you may not be at West Point, however you have no idea if I am. 🙂 BTW, I am well aware of what West Point teaches. Just accept that hit and run is an acceptable military tactic.

                    2. Wraps himself around Jesus and now he pretends he is at West Point. He wants glory and thinks if he posts nasty things over and over again he will climb the ladder.

            1. Yes, if more people were well-informed, an even larger percentage of voters would say that Trump will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever.

              1. Foolish. Let’s detail some of the things he has done one at a time and you can explain why Trump was foolish.

                For almost 75 years there has been no peace between Israel and countries that we ally with officially or unofficially. There were multiple wars and the US supported both sides. Trump was criticized for his management of the middle east but we now see countries making peace with Israel something many deemed impossible.

                Tell us how this made Trump such a bad President.

              2. What “information” would result in that conclusion ?

                Even with Covid – Trump has had as good or better an economy that Obama managed – and Obama was coming out of a deep recession, and should have had a great economy.

                Europe is doing better at defending itself – which constrains Russia.
                Oil prices are low – again constraining Russia (and despots in the ideast).

                For the first time possibly in my lifetime there is almost no fighting in the mideast – certainly not involving the US.

                China has been contained – for now.
                North Korea is contained – for now.

                Covid will with certainty be defeated, though Biden could delay that.
                A new vaccine has been developed and distributed in 1/4 the previous record time.

                In myriads of ways the country is significantly better off than in 2016.

                There are lots of things to criticize. Trump is not the best president ever.
                But he is inarguably the best president in the 21st century.

                You disagree ? Fine – WHY ?

                Dont just assert something to be true – make a clear claim and then support it.

                You are not going to persuade anyone by asking us to disregard reality.

          2. “Historians rank him as the worst.”

            Citation?

            Trump is still President, and a Historian is someone who chronicles past events. It is not the job of Historians to present subjective opinions such as ranking past Presidents.

            “Historians are left forever chasing shadows, painfully aware of their inability ever to reconstruct a dead world in its completeness.”

            – Simon Schama (Dead Certainties)

            You’re a simplistic moron.

            1. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
              – Gospel of Matthew (the Bible)

              Do you call others simplistic morons because you lack love for yourself?

              1. Matthew 25:31-46

                Please point out where it says force others to feed the the hungry, …. ?

                I do not think people who can not get the constitution right should be citing the bible.

          3. So ?

            I am after facts.

            “Historians” are telling us that the US was conceived for the purpose of enslaving blacks.

            It is not like most historians have much credibility today.

            1. John Say, even one of the writers of The 1619 Project agreed it was garbage. Most American historians have disapproved of the work as sloppy and ahistorical.

                1. John Say, educators will teach any preprinted curruculum handed to them. They are lazy about doing their own work.

          4. Anyone who thinks Trump was the worst president ever is a fool who listens to the lying leftist press. No one before him has done the amazing things Trump has achieved including four Middle East peace deals, harnessing private and public cooperation to achieve record production of personal protective items and Covid19 vaccines. The same sort of despicable lies that protect an old corrupt lifelong political lizard like Biden were used to create a false and hated persona for Trump. Anyone who claims Trump’s four years were the worst is a tool of the left.

        3. “Easily worst human to ever occupy the WH”

          How so ? Actually make an argument.

          “the single strongest argument for reforming the electoral college.”
          Again how so ?

          “We cant afford mistakes like him that last 4 years.”
          He was not a mistake. He was the direct consequence of the idiocy of the left and you can be certain we will get him or someone much less acceptable to you than him in the near future if you do not straighten yourselves out.

          There is no consequential threat to our liberty from the right.
          What has Trump taken from you that was yours to begin with ?

          The only consequential threat this country faces is from the left.
          So long as that is the case there will be more Trumps.

        4. “Easily worst human to ever occupy the WH”

          Tell that to the people of Libya or Syria, you simplistic, unintelligent, pedestrian, moron.

          The worst POTUS was undoubtedly Woodrow Wilson. But you don’t have neither the knowledge or intelligence to even begin to understand why.

            1. You have to decide, John Say, whether it is the worst human or the worst President. Carter is currently our modern worst President, but appears to be a decent person.

              1. “You have to decide, John Say, whether it is the worst human or the worst President.”
                I do ? Why ?

                Regardless, I am interested in worst president – not worst person.

                I do not know if Trump is a good person. I can accept that many on the left think he is a horrible person – I do not care.
                He has been the best president of the 21st century.

                “Carter is currently our modern worst President, but appears to be a decent person.”

                Carter is seriously underrated as a president. Nearly the entire reagan revolution actually started with Carter.
                Carter was the most deregulatory president EVER. He also put Volker at the head of the FED, and even though it likely cost him a 2nd term – he stuck to the monetary policies that resulted in the longest sustained period of growth in US history.
                Reagan gets credit for continuing Carter’s many of Carter’s policies.

      2. Why is the tweet far out ?

        Why does it matter that it was christmas eve ?

        It is just a tweet, you can agree or disagree. But it is still just a tweet.

        He did not threaten to kill your puppy.

      3. Only an uninformed person would see Trump’s tweet as “so far out it defies comprehension.” I am amazed at how many deeply uninformed people love to trash Trump. The same people who100% believe the leftist mainstream media.

  2. Jon Swaine (Washington Post): “Sidney Powell’s secret intelligence contractor witness is a pro-Trump podcaster. An N.D. judge found she broke fraud laws by exaggerating her resume & using charity donations to pay for personal expenses at McDonalds. Powell filed her testimony to SCOTUS. https://t.co/hMSDWZ1i9n [Washington Post link]”

    Jonathan Turley: “Not a good sign when the Supreme Court extends the schedule for argument in the Pennsylvania election challenge beyond Inauguration Day. https://t.co/U1QQptjAKq [Fox News link] The reply is not due until Jan. 22nd. Inaugurations are like cats: it is hard to get either to walk backwards.”
    twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1342191700614270976

    1. Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof.):
      “For those (wrongly) claiming that courts keep ducking the merits of the constitutional challenges the Trump campaign has been pressing to how states have appointed electors, here’s the Seventh Circuit rejecting the campaign’s Wisconsin challenge on both the merits *and* laches: [linking to the comment below from Marc Elias]”

      Marc Elias (Democracy Docket):
      “BREAKING: 7th Circuit AFFIRMS dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the results of the November election. [quoting from the ruling:] ‘Even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature.’ Trump and allies remain 1-59. https://t.co/K7tamLl95m ” (comment links to a copy of the ruling)

      In another comment from earlier in the day, Elias also notes “Georgia Court DISMISSES @GOP voter suppression lawsuit. The Republican Party is now 0-4 in their efforts to convince courts to disenfranchise voters in the upcoming run-off elections. Proud to represent the @DSCC & GA Dems which are 4-0.”

      1. CTDHD – still not an evaluation of the claims on the merits.

        Further the court oppinion you quote is not only not on the merits – the question is a constitutional one,

        And the language of the court is precisely the problem.

        You do not interpret the constitution BROADLY, you interpret it narrowly.

        The constitution requires that LEGISLATURES determine the process of elections.
        There is no provision to delegate that authority. The court is simply wrong.
        The decision you cite REQUIRES a broad reading to be correct and rejects the ACTUALLY CORRECT narrow reading.

        This is ALWAYS the error of those on the left regarding the constitution.

        Read it narrowly. The constitution did not grant election powers to the state.
        It granted them to the state legislatures specifically and to congress.

        BTW there is enormous history specific to these clauses when the constitution was written.
        Our founders spent more time getting the langauge of election clauses – and specifically presidential election clauses correct than it did on most any other part of the constitution. The electors clause specifically has different language than used elsewhere in the constitution.

        A principle of law is that we can not read worse out of the statute or constitution – the correct reading must give all words meaning.
        If the founders intend as the 7th circuit claims they would have written STATES, not State Legislatures.

        But we can not only know that from the language itself but from the debate that produced that language.

        The founders deliberately constructed all the language in the constitution regarding elections or representatives, appointments of senators and the selection of the president. They deliberately made each different. They deliberately sought to pit power against power.

        Representatives are elected directly by the people – that is where the founders gave the people the strongest voice.
        Senators and presidents are each determined by other and different processes to assure that no temporary fit of passion could put control of government in the hands of a single group, person or party. The electoral college was a deliberately anti-democratic process.
        Specifically intended to counter the direct election of representatives.

        The entire complex process related to the election of presidents was intended to preclude amassing too much power in the presidency or concentrating power of both the house and the presidency. Initially senators were not elected either.

        In the subsequent 250 years we have evilly reversed exactly the checks and ballances that the founders put in place.

        The seventh circuit decision is not on the merits. It is also completely and obviously wrong on the constitution and law.

        There is only one possible decision on the merits – that is that states failed to follow their own election laws.

        The only relevant question is what is the harm and what is the remedy.

        Regardless, a decison is not on the merits – just because you say it is.

        1. John say, the court read the constitution narrowly. It followed the literal meaning. The legislature’s method of choosing its electors was according to the law passed by the legislature. That’s deciding on the merits of the complaint.

          You just don’t want to accept the basic fact that what you just described is exactly what transpired. All you did was add a bunch of literary BS muddying the basic point made by the court. It was not a complicated decision. You’re trying to make it much more complicated than it is because it’s the only way your argument barely holds water.

          Every single GOP lawsuit has provided “evidence” to the courts and under scrutiny by the courts have crumbled into a non-argument and dismissed accordingly. Even a former originalist judge from the state concurred with the decision. The GOP has been beating this dead horse so much it’s become so predictable the outcome will be the same every time.

          1. “John say, the court read the constitution narrowly. It followed the literal meaning. The legislature’s method of choosing its electors was according to the law passed by the legislature. That’s deciding on the merits of the complaint.”

            False. As has already been discussed repeatedly the election laws were not followed – therefore by definition the means prescribed by the legislature were not followed.

            I can specifically address PA as I live there – though much the same problem exists elsewhere.

            In 2019 PA passed Act 77 – the currently in effect election law. Ignoring the fact that Act 77’s creation of mailin voting violates 2 separate clauses in the PA constitution – one requiring secret ballots, and the other barring voting at any time or place other than the polls on election fay without a valid excuse.

            Regardless, numerous provisions of Act 77 were violated.
            Act 77 specified that only ballots received by 8pm election day could be counted.
            That all ballots – including mailin ballots were subject to PA voter ID laws – that signature matches were required, that either a DL# or a PA ID # must be provided and must match, that the address must be provided and must be in the district.
            That observers must be present for all election processes and that they are empowered to object to ballots or processes.

            Every one of these provisions is CLEAR in ACT 77, and not one of those was followed in several democratic counties.

            Therefore the method specified by the legislature WAS NOT followed.

            “You just don’t want to accept the basic fact that what you just described is exactly what transpired.”
            Because it is not

            Your argument – and the courts is that if the legislature specifies the method – that is sufficient.
            There is no requirement that what the legislature directed is actually followed – that is pure nonsense.

            So that you are clear – neither I nor anyone else is arguing that the constitution requires the legislators to appoint the electors – though it does allow for that.

            The constitution ONLY allows the legislature to dictate how the election for federal offices must be conducted.
            The constitution empowers the “State Legislature” to determine the process. Not the governor, not the state courts.

            The ENTIRE process specified by the state legislature must be followed or it is not legitimate. The only constitutional override specified is congress.

            “All you did was add a bunch of literary BS muddying the basic point made by the court.”

            No that would be what the court did. The US constitution is clear. The narrow reading – the only reading, is that the state legislature ALONE sets the process for federal elections.

            “It was not a complicated decision.”
            It is not and it is clearly wrong – as a matter of both fact and law.

            “You’re trying to make it much more complicated”
            No I am making it very simple – the state legislature sets the election laws. Not the executive, not the courts.
            A valid election requires those laws to be followed. They were not. therefore the electors can not be appointed as specified by the law – because the law was not followed.

            This is extremely fundimental.

            The courts argument you are claiming is both correct and on the merits is essentially claiming that you can be executed if a judge sentences you to death – even if you have not been found guilty of violating the law.

            The executive and courts do not get to pick and choose the parts of the law they wish to follow. A judge can only impose sentence AFTER the other requirements of the law – a fair trial and conviction by a jury are followed.

            “than it is because it’s the only way your argument barely holds water.”

            This is really pretty trivial – and you do not seem to grasp it – if you prevail, then these decisions become the standard for the future.

            I noted several parts of PA Act 77 that were Openly not followed. There is no dispute they were not followed.
            Absent the courts remedying that, then the law will not be followed in the future.
            Not be democrats – not be republicans.

            It is trivially for me to come up with methods of totally screwing up the next election – by not following the same election provisions that were not followed in 2020. Though if we are not going to follow 3 provisions of the law – why must we follow any provisions of the law ?

            As PA was in the process of evading the law in Philadelphia county – there were some republicans asking PA residents to vote twice – to send in mailin ballots after the election. that is illegal – but it is no more illegal than what occurred.

            If the election does not end when the legislature says it end – then when does it end ? Why is the PA election over now ?
            Why cant I vote several more times ?

            It is the law – passed by the legislature that prevents that. But in PA numerous provisions of the law were ignored by the state and some counties.

            This is not secret, this is not some right wing conspiracy theory – it is what really happened.

            “Every single GOP lawsuit has provided “evidence” to the courts and under scrutiny by the courts have crumbled into a non-argument and dismissed accordingly. Even a former originalist judge from the state concurred with the decision. The GOP has been beating this dead horse so much it’s become so predictable the outcome will be the same every time.”

            False. And obviously so.

            I explicitly note your reference to a “former originalist judge” – I take that as an admission that the decision was NOT originalist.

            I would further note that the fundimental problem with this election – does not even hinge on the electors clause.

            PA Act 77 was passed by the PA legislature AND signed by the governor. Even if you misinterpret the constitution – you still have a validly passed law governing the election that was not followed.

            You can not have a lawful election that does not follow the law. You do not need to be an originalist to grasp that.

            Either you follow the law, or the actions of government are not valid.

            I am specifically addressing PA – because I have become familiar with the provisions of the PA law and constitution that were not followed.

            Much the same is true in other states. My understanding is that the GA ballot requirements are more strict than those in PA – so the violations in Fulton county are even more egregious.

            The PA constitutions requirement for secret balloting and for inperson voting with only limited exceptions are present in many other state constitutions. These were typically added in the late 19th and early 20th century after decades of experience with voter fraud in the 19th century. Buying votes was common place, as was coercing people into voting as their employer or their party demanded.
            These state constitutional provisions were the remedy for that fraud.

            Those of you keep claiming that voter Fraud does not exist – ignoring the long history of voter fraud in the US and elsewhere

            Voter Fraud in the US prior to 2020 was SMALL – as a result of the voting laws and constitutional provisions you wish to ignore out of existance. But small is not nonexistant. We have had innumerable elections in the 21st century so close that small amounts of fraud would have altered the outcome – and we have no clue whether that occurred.

            But mailin voting without consequential verification in 2020 opens the flood gates to large scale voter fraud in the future.

            “If you build it, they will come”

            The extent of actual fraud in 2020 is not yet know. But the lawlessness of the election eliminates any constraint on the scale of the fraud.
            The extent of future fraud will be much larger than in 2020 – and it will not likely be exclusively by democrats.

            1. John say, after reading your long winded arguments you failed to account for the fact that the pandemic presented a unique circumstance that the legislature recognized. The. PA legislature gave the power to make necessary accommodations in such circumstances. That’s why the courts deemed such changes legal.

              Observers from both parties were present and the GOP lawyers admitted in court they were there. They didn’t break any rules at all. What the GOP wanted to argue as well as you do is that the law should be followed as literally as possible. We both know that’s never truly the case. If it were everyone violating the speed limits by just 1mph would be getting a ticket every hour of the day.

              The Pennsylvania legislature didn’t object to the changes either. If it was as you say it should have been they would have made an argument in court. They didn’t. That leaves the impression that they recognize the unique circumstances the pandemic presents.

              All ballots that were post marked before the Election Day deadline but not counted are still valid due do meeting the law’s stipulation that all ballots be submitted before or at the deadline. Once a voter mails in their vote and it’s dated before the deadline it is legally considered cast.

              If the USPS had reduced capacity due to malfeasance by the Trump picked post master. All votes still in the system are considered cast. Letting the USPS deliver cast ballots three days after the deadline is perfectly within the law’s intent. This is why the GOP keeps losing these cases because they seek to change the rules after the previous rules were followed and claim the new rules were not followed. The courts saw thru that charade and correctly determined the rules were indeed followed.

              Mail in voting itself has ample safeguards against the level of fraud being claimed. The GOP could not present credible evidence of their claims. Theories about possible fraud is not evidence of fraud. This is why no court, even Trump appointed judges don’t buy the argument presented.

              1. “John say, after reading your long winded arguments you failed to account for the fact that the pandemic presented a unique circumstance that the legislature recognized.”
                False.

                “The. PA legislature gave the power to make necessary accommodations in such circumstances.”
                False

                “That’s why the courts deemed such changes legal.”
                False.

                Your argument is nonsense. It is an instant jump to totalitarianism merely by claiming an emergency.

                A Federal Judge in PA has already found in a broader case that you can not suspend the constitution – federal or state for months because of an emergency. That any legislative grant of emergency powers is inherently temporary, lasting only as long as the legislature is unable to act. The PA legislature has been in session since May. The governors emergency grant of power can not last beyond that.

                Separately, neither the legislature nor the courts can not authorize the governor to violate constitution.

                Further Gov. Wolf did NOT suspend in person voting. Nor did he cancel absentee ballots. He did not suspend the requirements for Voter ID for either. As I suspect logic eludes you, you can not claim that an emergency requires X while simultaneously permitting not X.

                Finally, the pandemic did NOT require ignoring the law on ballot deadlines – people had months to get their mailin ballot filed.
                The pandemic did not require ignoring voter ID requirements there is absolutely zero health risk to a person correctly signing their ballot, writing their DL or State ID # or their correct DOB or address.
                The pandemic did not require counting ballots in secret. a minum of two observers are required for everyone counting ballots.
                If there is a health issue – fewer counters can be used to acheive the same density and the whole count will just take longer.

                Even if an emergency requires changes it is ALWAYS possible to accomodate those changes without violating the law.

                There is no legitimate pandemic excuse for lawlessness.

                “Observers from both parties were present and the GOP lawyers admitted in court they were there. ”
                False – there is plenty of documentation of this – you do not get to make up facts as you wish.

                On PA observers were kept 20ft from counters for more than a day, before the courts ordered them to be allowed within 6 fit.
                After that the counters moved back 20 more feet. Then the observers were told counting had stopped and were sent home.
                Only it was not. This whole thing was a game to Philladelphia election officials.

                “They didn’t break any rules at all”
                And yet they did .

                “What the GOP wanted to argue as well as you do is that the law should be followed as literally as possible. We both know that’s never truly the case.” Incorrect. The law requires observers and it requires them to be allowed to object.
                Following the spirit of the law requires that observers must be able to observe, and that they must be able to see enough to be able to object. The pandemic does not change that. I can think of atleast a dozen ways that the requiremets of the law could be met with no greater risk than the option that the Philly election officials took that did not comply with the law.

                The burden of following the law is on the election officials.

                “If it were everyone violating the speed limits by just 1mph would be getting a ticket every hour of the day.”
                This is an entirely different issue but I have no problem with that.
                When you allow violations of the law you undermine trust in government – whether we are talking election laws or speed limits.
                You also make the laws appear to be arbitrary – which sometimes they are.
                And finally it is the enforcement of bad laws that results in their repeal.
                So yes I want all laws enforced litterally.
                I expect the legislature to draft laws with that expectation.

                We do not expect that the laws prohibiting murder are going to be enforce figuratively do we ?

                “The Pennsylvania legislature didn’t object to the changes either.”
                They did object to many of these changes. Though most were not made until election day.

                “If it was as you say it should have been they would have made an argument in court.”
                They did – before and after.

                “They didn’t. That leaves the impression that they recognize the unique circumstances the pandemic presents.”
                Given that you are wrong on the facts – your impressions are meaningless.

                Regardless, even if you were correct. The law is the law. It is the job of the legislature to create it and the executive to enforce it – not the other way arround. It is the job of the courts to compel both to follow the constitution (state and federal) and the job of the courts to require the executive to follow the law.

                You are very deluded about the roles of different branches of government.

                Regardless, the police are not free to allow murders just because the legislature does not go to court to force them to.

                “All ballots that were post marked before the Election Day deadline but not counted are still valid due do meeting the law’s stipulation that all ballots be submitted before or at the deadline. Once a voter mails in their vote and it’s dated before the deadline it is legally considered cast.”

                False – please read PA Act 77. That is NOT what it says.

                “If the USPS had reduced capacity due to malfeasance by the Trump picked post master. All votes still in the system are considered cast. Letting the USPS deliver cast ballots three days after the deadline is perfectly within the law’s intent.”
                Nope the law EXPLICITLY stated all ballots not received by 8PM on election day will not be counted.

                “This is why the GOP keeps losing these cases because they seek to change the rules after the previous rules were followed and claim the new rules were not followed. The courts saw thru that charade and correctly determined the rules were indeed followed.”
                Nope – again read PA Act 77 – it was passed in 2019. Read the PA Constitution on elections – those sections are 100 years old.
                These are not some new changes.

                The actual facts are the OPPOSITE of what you claim – not only that this is well documented.

                The changes were made by the executive. Not merely that, but they were not even made consistently.
                PA Dept State provided different instructions to different counties. Resulting in completely different handling of mailin ballots in different parts of the state.

                The election observer issue is unique to Philadelphia country – throughout the rest of PA observers were able to meaningfully observe counting. In Philadelphia the Trump campaign went to court over it. lost on election day, won, the day after, and then Philadelphia country ignored the court.

                The decision to ignore Voter ID laws was also unique to Philadelphia county.
                The ballot dates issue went through state courts, federal courts SCOTUS, back to state courts resulted in an Order by Alito, that was ignored on election day and then back to SCOTUS after election day.

                “Mail in voting itself has ample safeguards against the level of fraud being claimed.”
                Nope, there is not a single other developed country that allows mailin voting.
                The fraud rate for mailin voting is more than 200 times higher than in parson voting. Up until a few months before the eleciton – just about every politician in the country as well as the media knew that. There are myriads of news stories about the problems with mailin voting – including many during the 2020 primary were over 500,000 democratic primary votes were rejecting – that is 25% of all mailin votes rejected by democrats.

                There is even video out there from Biden from several years ago criticising mailin voting.

                “The GOP could not present credible evidence of their claims.’
                They have – the law was not followed. The State constitutions were not followed. This is all well documented.
                Despite idiots like you pretending violations away.

                “Theories about possible fraud is not evidence of fraud.”
                That is correct – that is why there are affadavits – those are evidence and why we conduct investigations.

                “This is why no court, even Trump appointed judges don’t buy the argument presented.”

                The courts are doing what courts do – ducking the issue. SCOTUS bailed on the issue in a 4:4 tie before the election punting the issue until after. That was all the democrats needed. that was permission to cheat.
                Thus far very few judges have had the balls to enforce the law when that would result in hundreds of thousands of valid votes being rejected – to get rid of tens of thousands of illegitimate ones.
                But the court fail to realize in doing so they are discounting the hundreds of thousands of people who did vote legitimately.,
                and they are undermining trust in government.

                There is a reason that you are getting nowhere on this.

                You are not trustworthy.
                Democrats are not trustworthy.
                The media is not trustworthy,
                and the courts are not trustworthy.

                That is not a claim – it is an observation of fact.

                1. John say, there are TWO versions of PA act 77. The original one and the amended one.

                  “ Voters who wish to vote absentee or by mail must still apply for a ballot, which may be done electronically through the Department of State’s website or by paper application. Applications for mail-in or absentee ballots must still be received by the county no later than 5 p.m. on the Tuesday before the election, but the time frame for ballot return has been extended. The deadline for a county to receive a mail-in ballot or regular civilian absentee ballot has been extended to 8 p.m. on Election Day. Mail-in ballots or civilian absentee ballots received after this time will not be counted unless a court has extended the deadline.”

                  Note the last line. “…unless a court has extended the deadline.”

                  The legislature itself explicitly states the court could extend the deadline. Because the constitution, as you say, only authorizes the legislature to dictate how elections are carried out. The legislature allowed the court to determine flexibility accordingly. No rules were broken.

                  The legislature did not expressly assert its sole authority and it allowed the court to make narrow changes.

                  1. Svelaz – you are citing from the PA Dept State Web site NOT the law.
                    Please cite the actual law.

                    This was quite obvious just be the language used.

                    Do you think after running a lawless election that anyone trusts the PA Dept of state ?

                    Regardless, you can read the actual PA SCOTUS case on this.
                    While PA SCOTUS decided the case wrongly, They cite ACT 77 with no provision for extending the deadline.
                    PA Scotus admits they created that extension magically on their own.
                    It is not in the law – amended or otherwise.

                    Though they use other language.

                    In fact the PA SCOTUS decision is quite illuminating from end to end.

                    PA SCOTUS makes it crystal clear from start to end that their goal is to make voting as easy as possible with absolutely no consideration that their decisions to change the law will have the consequence of increasing the oportunity for election fraud.

                    Repeat – PA SCOTUS did not give a damn that they were going to create more election fraud.
                    The presumed that the single objective or all election laws – regardless of their provisions was to make voting easier – not to make voting trustworthy.

                    They made ludicrously stupid choices – ACT 77 requires mailin ballots be delivered to the OFFICE of the county board of elections

                    PA SCOTUS transformed that language from OFFICE to OFFICES – without any statutory justification, and jumped from their to allowing the local election boards to place unattended drop boxes wherever they pleased.

                    PA SCOTUS pretty much rewrote the election law as they pleased. Demonstrating exactly what conservatives loath about left wing nut judges. An OFFICE – singular is not OFFICES plural and there is no way in the world it is unattended dropboxes.

                    Unattended drop boxes are an enormous invitation for fraud – they destroy any chain of custody for the ballots, they allow tampering with ballots – and they make this worse and more likely later in their decsion. They make adding fraudulent ballots easy, they make ballot harvesting possible, the make removing valid ballots easy.

                    1. John say, you’re quite confused. The LEGISLATURE changed the deadline for mail in voting.

                      The original deadline was the Friday BEFORE the Election Day at 5 pm. The LEGISLATURE changed the deadline to 8pm on Election Day.

                      “ (8) No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than [eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election] the deadline for its receipt as provided in section 1308(g).”

                      https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77&mobile_choice=suppress

                      Furthermore, the court didn’t just decide to take things upon itself. They cited the legislature’s own changes making voting easier in PA.

                      The changes you claim the court made are actually IN the amended law which is why the court ruled as it did.

                      You say fraudulent ballots were included and made harvesting ballots possible, but here’s the big problem. You or the PA GOP have no proof that is actually what transpired.

                      You say the court ruled wrong. Evidence does not back up your assertions.

                      The PA GOP provided no evidence that fraudulent ballots were submitted. The basic requirements according to the law simply stated an elector only needed do supply a DL number or the last four digits of their SS no. The state can easily verify the voter’s ID with that information.

                      Can you provide proof that mail in ballots did not include that information?

                      The PA department of state read the amended law and given that they are a bunch of lawyers I’m sure they got the meaning of the amended sections. The court concurred.

                      The legislature itself is complaining about a law THEY changed was not followed without proof that it wasn’t.

                      When you start spouting nonsense about “left wing nut judges” clearly you have lost all objectivity in the case. What YOU think it means is not in any sense what the PA Supreme Court, which is far more qualified then you, to opine what the law means.

                      You’re simply upset that YOUR interpretation was not accepted. Like many conservatives, any ruling they do not like is reason to accuse a court of judicial activism. It’s a poor excuse.

                    2. “John say, you’re quite confused. ”

                      Please read the LAW – Act 77 and the PA State Supreme court oppinion.

                      You have botched every point. Nearly every fact you claim is either incorrect or sufficiently different from your claims that your arguments have no merit.

                      Courts do not get to use some part of the rationale a legislature gives for a law and try to act independently on that.
                      Legislatures change laws. Courts reject them when they are unconstitutional or apply them as written.
                      Not as they wish they were written, not as they would have written them had they been legislators.

                      Absolutely making voting easier was a goal of the legislature – one of MANY goals.
                      Security, finality, trust, and fraud prevention are other expressed goals. Short deadlines and narrow windows for counting votes are other trust and fraud prevention measures.

                      Neither the courts nor the executive get to act for the legislature.

                      Through the election the PA legislature existed and was in session. If the executive wished to extend the deadlines – it could have asked the legislature to do so.

                      Courts do not change laws as they wish.

                    3. There is no “my interpretation” – the law is what it is. Laws are made by the legislature – not the courts not the executive.

                      That neither the PA executive nor the courts followed the law as written – damns them – and you, not me.

                      The text of the law is available to all of us. Nor are we debating arcane previsions.

                      The law says the deadline is 8PM election day. You claim that was changed by the legislature from an earlier date – fine, that proves the legislature is capable of acting if it sees the need. The legislature did not change the deadline again.

                      Equally important the legislature made the deadline and several other violated provisions of the law non-severable – that means the courts must accept those provisions as written or reject the law as a whole. There is no provision for the courts to reject the law peicemeal. No provision for the executive to follow it peicemeal.

                      This is not about my oppinion – it is about the actual law.

                      A law that is inarguably unconstitutional, which only makes your problems worse.

                      PA constitutionally requires secret ballots – every contested state except NV has a secret ballot requirement.

                      Mailin ballots are not secret ballots and are unconstitutional in 28 states – including 5 of the 6 contested states.

                      If you do not like the law – change the law.
                      If you do not like the state constitution – change the state constitution.
                      If you do not like the federal constitution – change the federal constitution.

                      If you can not conform your conduct to those constraints – whether you are president, govenor, or judge – YOU are lawless.

                      No moral person should trust you or give you power.

                    4. John say, you keep saying the court rewrote the law. That’s false.

                      The legislature made the changes. Not the court. All the court did was affirm those changes and ruled on the merits of those changes. That’s it. Nothing nefarious or sinister.

                      You’re just projecting onto the court your own illusions of what is not there.

                    5. “John say, you keep saying the court rewrote the law. That’s false.”

                      Again read the law, read the courts opinion. You are WRONG.

                      Not even PA SCOTUS agrees with you.

                    6. John say, “ PA SCOTUS transformed that language from OFFICE to OFFICES – without any statutory justification, and jumped from their to allowing the local election boards to place unattended drop boxes wherever they pleased.”

                      That is incorrect.

                      The court did provide statutory justification.

                      The court points out that the term “office of county elections of county election board” does not mean a fixed structure. It means an entire county’s board. Just like the “office of the president” doesn’t necessarily mean the physical room.

                      The state law allows for the office of county elections board to establish multiple locations within the county. To make voting accessible to all electors as they see necessary. Ballots boxes are considered official locations of the office of county elections board.

                      Here’s the justifying statute the court pointed out

                      “ Section 3151 of the Election Code states, in full, as follows:
                      Each county board of elections shall cause its office to remain open, in charge of one or more members of the board, during the entire duration of each primary and election, and after the close of the polls, until all the ballot boxes and returns have been received in the office of the county elections board, or received in such other place as has been designated by the board.
                      25 P.S. § 3151.”

                      Note the last line, “…or received in such other place as has been designed by the board”

                      The court didn’t change anything. It interpreted the phrase “ office of county elections board” correctly.

                    7. Svelaz the “office of the president” is 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

                      This is not some esoteric discussion about the power.

                      The law is about the mailing address. The law makes clear that it is mailing address SINGLULAR.
                      One location. I doubt the legislature gave a dam precisely what physical address that was – so long as there was a single location, and that people were present to preserve the chain of custody.

                      The requirement for a single address is also a requirement for a very narrow chain of custody.

                      The courts faux decision vitiates the ability to identify and prosecute those responsible when there is fraud.

                      If is nearly impossible to conduct an election where fraud is not possible. But it is quite easy to conduct an election where nearly all fraud will eventually be detected and can be punished. Fail to do that and fraud will be rampant – and worse near impossible to prove.

                      You rant that it is not possible to prove fraud in this election – I would not bet on that. Regardless in PA both the courts, the local county election boards and the state have done most everything in their power to make fraud easy and unproveable.

                      You fail to grasp that the obligation to prove the election was conducted in a manner we trust rests with government.
                      You further fail to grasp that personal convenience is subordinate to trust.

                    8. John say, here’s the actual conclusion of the court.

                      “ In reaching this conclusion, we observe that Section 3150.16(a) of the Election Code explicitly allows an elector to deliver in person her securely sealed envelope containing her mail-in ballot “to said county board of election.” 25 P.S. § 3150.16(a). The Election Code simply defines “county board” or “board” to mean “the county board of elections of any county herein provided for.” 25 P.S. § 2602(c). Thus, the language used by the Legislature regarding where a mail-in ballot may be delivered in person is not solely limited to the official central office of the county board of election, and other sections of the Election Code permit a board of election to operate outside of its principal office. See, e.g., 25 P.S. § 2645(b) (stating, inter alia, that the “county commissioners or other appropriating authorities of the county shall provide the county board with suitable and adequate offices at the county seat, property furnished for keeping its records, holding its public sessions and otherwise performing its public duties, and shall also provide, such
                      [J-96-2020] – 17

                      branch offices for the board in cities other than the county seat, as may be necessary”). Therefore, on the one hand, these provisions tend to favor the view of Petitioner and the Secretary that the General Assembly did not intend to limit voters to delivering personally their mail-in ballots solely to the established office addresses of their county boards of election. Rather, as these parties rationally contend, when this definition is utilized for purposes of construing Section 3150.16(a), that exercise suggests that a voter can hand deliver her mail-in ballot to any location designated by the county board of election as a place where the board will accept these ballots”

                      Clearly the argument that “office” did not mean a single physical location in the phrase describing county election boards. The GOP wanted it to mean that, but the court correctly and with proof provided their reasoning to be sound. Even the GOP conceded that the statute allows for multiple locations.

                    9. There is a pretty trivial way to disprove your and the courts claim.

                      It is simple – the courts argument is not falsifiable.

                      There is no language that the legislature could have used that the court could not have found meant unattended ballot boxes everywhere.

                      Anything unfalsifiable has no place in law.

                      If the legislature has no means of specifying that the court is unable to re-imagine, then the court is wrong in its interpretation – because the outcome is predetermined by the court, not the legislature.

                  2. The court changes were not narrow, and contra your language from the PA Department of State – they were NOT part of the law.

                    All you are succeeding in doing is demonstrating once again – why the democrats who ran these elections can not be trusted.

                    They will not follow the law, and they will actually LIE about what the law says.

                    Again i would strongly suggest reading the PA SCOTUS decsion – not only because it directly contradicts your and the PA department of states idiotic claim about ACT 77, but because the court notes Trump’s arguments at the time – this is months before the election. that changing the date at which ballots could be accepted would trigger the nonseverability clause of ACT 77 causing the entire act to be invalid and invalidating all mailin voting in PA.

                    I want to address the nonseverability provision further – as it has direct bearing on your other idiotic claims.

                    The nonseverability clause specifically prohibits anyone – the courts or the department of state from modifying any of the provisions of several sections of ACT 77 – including the date at which all ballots must be received.

                    This directly refutes your claim that the legislature delegated the authority to make changes to the election laws.
                    Not only is that nonsense, but the nonseverability clause is a legal mechanism with the specific purpose of PREVENTING the courts and the executive from making changes., Substantial portions of Act 77 are ALL OR NOTHING.

                    They were not as you claim a grant to the state to change the law as they wished.

                    Yet PA SCOTUS went ahead anyway. Arguably invalidating the entire election law in the process.

                    Yes, the PA election was lawless.

                    Yes, read the PA SCOTUS decision – it is a beautiful example of the courts saying – we do not give a shit what the legislators says, we get to make up the law as we please.

                    1. John you fool, the votes received and accepted after Nov 3 equaled 10k ballots, and of course not all would be for Biden. Trump lost Pennsylvania by 40k votes.

                      Want to talk about Dominion or Antrim Mich or Georgia again? Would you please read a newspaper 1st because you are embarrassing yourself by how uninformed you are regarding the facts of The Loser’s claim about voter fraud, and it is tedious having to correct you on the same thing over and over again.

                      Next.

                    2. Why should I trust anything coming from you ?

                      75% of Mailin ballots were fro Biden – 2/3 of in person ballots were for Trump.

                      Which is odd as Trump voters are mostly older and Biden voters mostly younger.

                      So those most at risk from C19 voted in person. And those with no risk voted by mail.

                      Regardless. I do not recall claiming that ballots received lawlessly would ALONE tip the election – though I would note there is plenty of evidence that Ballot receipt dates in PA were altered – so how do we trust the 10,000 claim

                      BTW the 10,000 votes claim is by Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar

                      You know the same person who lied on the PA web site about PA Act 77

                      So again why should I trust you or her ?

                      You do not seem to grasp the consequences of lying.

                    3. “Want to talk about Dominion or Antrim Mich or Georgia again? Would you please read a newspaper 1st because you are embarrassing yourself by how uninformed you are regarding the facts of The Loser’s claim about voter fraud, and it is tedious having to correct you on the same thing over and over again.”

                      There is zero doubt I am 10 times more familiar with the facts than you.

                      You have been wrong by the numbers so far.

                      You are not correcting me you are repeating the same lies over and over.

                    4. John say, you don’t really understand how the judicial system works. You just think all they do is interpret law according to the constitution and that’s it. It involves much more than that.

                      Courts have the power to determine definitions of words and determine the intent of legislation when explicit intents are not clear.

                      “ However, when the words of a statute are not explicit, the General Assembly’s intent is to be ascertained by consulting a comprehensive list of specific factors set forth in 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)”

                      https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1589ec07-66e0-485c-b9be-9f7a03e99643-1.pdf

                      “ See also Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 932 A.2d 1271, 1278 (Pa. 2007) (recognizing that when the “words of the statute are not explicit, the General Assembly’s intent is to be ascertained by considering matters other than statutory language, like the occasion and necessity for the statute; the circumstances of its enactment; the object it seeks to attain; the mischief to be remedied; former laws; consequences of a particular interpretation; contemporaneous legislative history; and legislative and administrative interpretations”).
                      Moreover, we recognize that in this Commonwealth, “[e]lections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” PA. CONST. art. I, § 5 (hereinafter referred to as the “Free and
                      Equal Elections Clause”). The broad text of this specific provision “mandates clearly and unambiguously, and in the broadest possible terms, that all elections conducted in this Commonwealth must be ‘free and equal.’” League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth,”

                      This is why your claim that the court HAS to rule narrowly on the case is flawed. They cite specific cases setting precedent. They didn’t make up laws on their own. They explained in detail exactly why they arrived at their conclusion. It’s their job. It’s not simply to mindlessly interpret law with every literal word. Words can change meaning over time and courts recognize that. This is why the idea originalism is flawed.

                    5. “John say, you don’t really understand how the judicial system works.”

                      I both know how it works, how it is supposed to work – which is the only way that preserves the rule of law.

                      “Courts have the power to determine definitions of words and determine the intent of legislation when explicit intents are not clear.”
                      Nope.

                      BTW PA SCOTUS explicitly said the deadline was absolutely clear – I posted a cite from their oppinion.

                      You “interpretation” of your constitutional citations is garbage – as was the courts oppinion.

                      We can provide the most free and equal access to voting by just dumping ballots on the street and counting any filled in ballots we find.

                      Every single election law in someway limits the freedom, equal access and convenience of voters.

                      You can pretty much be sure that any argument ever made – by a court or anywhere else that refers to “equal” is with near certainty WRONG.

                      AGAIN – we are not equal. You can not provide equal access to people with different levels of IQ and different levels of physcial ability.
                      It is not possible.

                      All freedom inherently favors the favored – those with more ability, fewer handicaps.
                      That is life – GET OVER IT.

                      “This is why your claim that the court HAS to rule narrowly on the case is flawed.”
                      Nope it is absolute.

                      To the extent there is the slightest merit to any of your arguments – those are duties of the legislature – not the courts.

                      It is not the courts duty to decide what the law should be, only what it is and whether it is constitutional.

                      The constraint on the power of courts is because:
                      They are frequently unelected.
                      They – particularly appelate and supreme courts are unappealable.

                      The broader the domain of power you give the courts the more lawless you will make us.

                      This is not an esoteric claim – it is reality. We have seen these types of failures in other countries. and in the US.

                      I am not specifically arguing originalism – but since you wish to go there,

                      ultimately whatever system you use for establishing the role of courts MUST result in clear bright lines that not only can ordinary people understand but that they intuitively understand.

                      Any system you concoct that does not result in as near as possible the same decision from every single court on the same case every single time is inherently lawless.

                      You made an equal protection claim – that is what equal protection means.

                      Court A will come to the same conclusion regarding the laws that apply to you as court B.

                      The same result will occur on Tuesday as thursday.

                      The same result will occur if you are black or white.

                      This is what is meant by justice is blind.

                      You remark on precident and stare decis.

                      In a perfect world – neither should exist.

                      Courts shoudl automatically follow the same process and arrive at the same results every time.

                      To be clear I am not pissing on precident.
                      Precident is supposed to be a check that the process that assures equal protection is being followed.

                      I will be happy to consider any theory of legal interpretation that you can offer than given the same inputs – the law, the constitution and cases and controversies consistently produces the same results, and is such that the output can relyably be changed by amending the constitution or writing new law.

                      When the courts do not follow the law and constitution as written – we are lawless and that flaw is irreparable.

                      I am not interested in any argument regarding the job of the courts that does not meet those criteria – near perfectly consistent results that do not vary from judge to judge or day to day orr case to case or year to year so long as the inputs are the same.
                      AND where the output can reliably be changed by amending theconstitution of the law.

                    6. John say the PA decision was not lawless at all. You’re simply projecting onto the court your own flawed reasoning that is itself without factual evidence.

                      They didn’t invalidate anything. All they did was correctly interpret the law and they provided ample examples for their justifications. You’re just upset that you can’t produce a rational argument against the court’s reasoning without going making irrational claims such as the court making up their own law of ignoring the legislature. They did discus thrower merits of the GOP’s objections in detail and provided justifications for why their objections were not reasonable.

                      That’s why your argument on this issue end up with irrational claims that do not have any evidence to support them.

                    7. The court failed to follow the plain language of the law.

                      The decision was lawless.
                      PERIOD.

                      There is no “reasoning” needed.

                      The court failed 3rd grade english comprehension.

                      Worse its “reasoning” will always come to the same results regardless of the language of the law.
                      That is proof that it is not “reasoning” is the legislating from the bench.

                  3. “The legislature did not expressly assert its sole authority and it allowed the court to make narrow changes.”

                    False – the nonseverablility clause in Act 77 is an explict assertion of sole authority.
                    Non-severability means – if you try to change anything the whole law disappears.

                    It did not allow the courts or anyone else to make changes.

                    You claim that it amended Act 77 to allow courts to change the deadline is bogus.
                    That is not part of Act 77 – and even PA Scotus recognized that.

                    The website saying otherwise – a PA dept. state website is lying – again a reason that no one should be trusting the state executives.

                    1. John, helllooo! It would change 10k votes max – if everyone was a Biden ballot . Biden won Pennsylvania by 40k.

                      Get it? 40k is more than 10k. Do the math.

                    2. 10K here, 10K there – pretty soon you have 100K+

                      Regardless – do you think anyone beleives Boockvar ?

                    3. I am arguing with you about PA – because it is where I live and I am much more familiar with the details.
                      Not because it is the easiest for Trump to win.

                      That said – are you atleast now agreeing that the laws says no votes after 8PM election day ?
                      That the PA State Web site is lying ?

                      That this part of the law was violated ?

                    4. Typical John Say: Ignorant of the facts and when given them says it must be a lie. You tell us how many votes those received in the grace period represent you stupid MFer. Why do you think it is significant for the election result if you don’t know?

                    5. JF the facts are trivially ascertainable – read PA Act 77.

                      And/OR read the PA SCOTUS oppinion.

                      “Unlike other provisions of Act 77 currently before this Court, we are not asked to
                      interpret the statutory language establishing the received-by deadline for mail-in ballots.
                      Indeed, there is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly:

                      Deadline.–Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. § 3511[24]
                      (relating to receipt of voted ballot), a completed mail-in ballot
                      must be received in the office of the county board of elections
                      no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or
                      election.

                      25 P.S. § 3150.16(c).

                      Moreover, we are not asked to declare the language facially
                      unconstitutional as there is nothing constitutionally infirm about a deadline of 8:00 p.m.
                      on Election Day for the receipt of ballots.”

                      Direct from the PA SCOTUS oppinion.

                    6. John say, you obviously are confused. Here’s one argument from PA SCOTUS pointing out why the assembly’s argument is flawed. They cite a specific statute and clearly explain why the argument against it is wrong.

                      “ Contrary to the contentions of the Secretary and Petitioner, Respondent submits that the Election Code prohibits county boards of election from designating locations other than their established county offices for hand delivery of mail-in ballots. Rather, according to Respondent, Section 3150.16(a) of the Election Code unambiguously mandates that an elector must either mail her mail-in ballot to the office address of the county board of
                      [J-96-2020] – 14

                      election or deliver that ballot in person to the same office address. Stated differently, Respondent takes the position that the Election Code requires electors either to place their mail-in ballots, addressed to their county boards of election, into the United States Postal Service’s [“USPS”] system or personally to deliver their mail-in ballot to that office.
                      In further support of this position, Respondent highlights the Election Code’s use of the word “office” in the “deadline” provision for mail-in votes, Section 3150.16(c), which states that “a completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” 25 P.S. § 3150.16(c). Respondent also points out that the Election Code requires that a secure envelope containing a mail-in ballot have printed upon it “the address of the elector’s county board of election,” so that “the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election.” 25 P.S. § 3150.16(a). Thus, Respondent believes that, in sum, these statutory directives clearly indicate that the General Assembly intended that electors either mail or personally deliver mail-in ballots to the established office addresses of the county boards of election.
                      Next, Respondent reminds us that the Secretary and Petitioner are asking this Court to interpret the Election Code to allow voters to deliver their mail-in ballots to locations that will include unmanned drop-boxes. Respondent contends that Petitioner and the Secretary fail to articulate where the Election Code mentions “drop-boxes” or “satellite locations.” Respondent then asserts that, if this Court were to interpret the Election Code as Petitioner and the Secretary propose, the Court would invalidate an alleged requirement of Act 77, i.e., the need to deliver mail-in ballots to the established offices of county boards of election.”

                      https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1589ec07-66e0-485c-b9be-9f7a03e99643-1.pdf

                    7. “Here’s one argument from PA SCOTUS pointing out why the assembly’s argument is flawed. ”
                      The assembly (legislature) was not a party to this case – three other groups were.

                      Then you get into the weeds in another area that PA scotus got wrong.

                      The law – Act 77 specified exactly where ballots had to be delivered.
                      We know what the law says. There is no question of what the law says.
                      The court was obligated to follow it.

                      If the legislature wanted the law to say something different it could change the law.

                      I can tell you WHY the legislature had narrow language – they were concerned about trust in elections.
                      As I have noted before nearly all freedom and convenience in an election comes at the expense of trust, security and opportunities from Fraud.

                      The legislature said ballots must be mailed to one place in each county. Just as the IRS typically has tax returned mailed to only 4 specific locations in the entire country – and for much the same reasons.

                      Regardless if you want the law to be different – elect legislators that will write the law as you want it.

                      PA SCOTUS completely gutted the law. They changed a specific requirement of the law – mailing ballots to a single address per county, to mailing ballots willy nilly almost anywhere and worse still to unattended locations and specifically to unattended ballot drop boxes which are found nowhere in the law.

                      The combination of mailin voting and unattended drop boxes is a recipe for fraud.

                2. John say, the PA act 77 states that mail in ballots require the same requirements as absentee ballots.

                  The ID requirements per the statute give several options. Their driver’s license number and if they don’t have a license their last four digits of their SS number.

                  You say that rule was not followed can you provide proof that PA mail in ballots did not have that information included?

                  1. “John say, the PA act 77 states that mail in ballots require the same requirements as absentee ballots.”
                    Absentee ballots require voter ID verified by the county when you go in to vote.

                    “The ID requirements per the statute give several options. Their driver’s license number and if they don’t have a license their last four digits of their SS number.”
                    Correct.

                    The signature is ALSO part of the ID requirements – as it is for inperson voting.

                    “You say that rule was not followed”
                    Correct

                    “can you provide proof that PA mail in ballots did not have that information included?”
                    Read the news, read the affadavits – BTW that would be direct evidence – no one was properly validating mailin ballots.
                    We also know this because of the incredibly low rejection rate.
                    There is absolutely no possibility that PA first time mailin voters had an accuracy rate of providing signatures, ID, properly placing their ballots in the required nested envelopes etc. The normal failure rate for first time mailin voters is 25%. The normal failure rate for Absentee ballots – where you must go to the courthouse and you typically get help sealing the ballot correctly and providing ID – on an absentee ballot you also get your photo checked – that failure rate is 6%. PA’s mailin voting failure rate was 0.25%
                    There is no possibility that the rate was that low if Signatures, DL #’s, and envelope nesting was properly verified.

                3. John say, “ The. PA legislature gave the power to make necessary accommodations in such circumstances.”
                  False

                  “That’s why the courts deemed such changes legal.”
                  False.

                  The PA legislature did indeed give courts authority to make changes. Here’s the relevant statute.

                  “ In support of its as-applied challenge in regard to the upcoming General Election, Petitioner recounts this Commonwealth’s recent experience during the June Primary. It emphasizes that, during the Primary, the Boards were inundated with over 1.8 million requests for mail-in ballots, rather than the expected 80,000 – 100,000, due in large part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused many voters to be wary of congregating in polling places. Petitioner’s Brief at 2, 51. Petitioner asserts that “[t]his crush of applications created massive disparities in the distribution and return of mail-in ballots.” Petition at 24, ¶ 70.
                  It explains that, while some Boards were able to process the requests within the statutory requirements established by Act 77,16 other boards, especially those in areas hard-hit by the pandemic, were unable to provide electors with ballots in time for the electors to return their ballot in accord with the statutory deadline. Petition at 23, ¶ 66. Indeed, it avers that in Delaware County, thousands of ballots were “not mailed out until the night” of the Primary, making timely return impossible. Petition at 26, ¶ 77. Bucks County apparently experienced similar delays.
                  To remedy this situation, the Election Boards of Bucks and Delaware Counties sought relief in their county courts.17 Recognizing that the Election Code “implicitly
                  16 Act 77, inter alia, requires Boards to verify an applicant’s submitted information to determine whether the applicant is “qualified to receive an official mail-in ballot.” 25 P.S. § 3150.12b(a). After approving an application, the Election Code, as amended by Act 77, instructs that “the board shall deliver or mail official mail-in ballots to the additional electors within 48 hours.” 25 P.S. § 3150.15.
                  17 The Election Code grants courts of common pleas the authority to address situations which arise on the day of a primary or general election, 25 P.S. § 3046. Section 3046 entitled “Duties of common pleas court on days of primaries and elections,” provides:
                  [J-96-2020] – 21

                  granted [the courts the] authority to provide relief when there is a natural disaster or emergency” that threatens to deprive electors of the opportunity to participate in the electoral process, the Courts of Common Pleas of Bucks and Delaware Counties extended the deadline for the return of mail-in ballots for seven days, so long as the ballot was postmarked by the date of the Primary. In re: Extension of Time for Absentee and Mail-In Ballots to be Received By Mail and Counted in the 2020 Primary Election, No. 2020-02322-37 (C.P. Bucks) (McMaster, J.); see also In re: Extension of Time for Absentee and Mail-In Ballots to be Received By Mail and Counted in the 2020 Primary Election, No.-CV 2020-003416 (C.P. Delaware).”

                  Each county board had the ability to petition their local courts for relief due to the pandemic which is considered an emergency. It was perfectly legal AND authorized by law.

                  1. Does the PA law allow for more votes to be counted than they have a record of being cast?

                    A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

                    The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States. On November 24, 2020, Boockvar certified election results, and Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, stating that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.
                    http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error

                  2. You do understand that the PA Legislature is NOT a party to the lawsuit ?

                    On multiple occuasions you have attributed arguments made by the petitioner (the PA department of State), the Respondent (Trump campaighn) and the Caucus – Pennsylvania democratic party

                    To the legislature.

                    The text you keep citing is from either the PA DNC – those challenging the law,
                    The PA Sec state – those bending over backwards to accomidate that challenge
                    or the Trump campaign .

                    The PA legislature was not a party to this cause. They did not make arguments.
                    The passed a law. Only that law represents the actions of the PA legislature.

                    All arguments cited by the court are made by the parties. Not the legislature.
                    Those argumets are NOT the law.

                    They have merit only to the extent they conform to the law.

              2. Svelaz – I have demonstrated both by law and by fact that nearly every claim you have made with respect to PA is FALSE.

                If you were an honest person you would check out the claims you made – which clearly you did not, before you made them.

                You would know what the PA constitution says.
                You would know when those changes were made
                You would know what PA Act 77 says
                You would know when it was passed.
                You would know what court cases actually occured – before and after the election.
                You would know that just about every thing you claim as fact is false.

                You still have the opportunity to do so.
                That is what someone with integrity would do.

                1. John say, what you are arguing is what many call a literary sleight of hand.

                  The constitution does give the legislature the power to dictate how elections are held. If the legislature itself gives authority to other state authorities to manage elections as circumstances require they are indeed constitutional because they legislature delegated their authority on a temporary basis due to the pandemic. Courts recognized this and the legislature is essentially complaining about their own authorization they themselves granted.

                  The constitution was not suspended because of the pandemic. Accommodation was provided AND authorized by the legislature itself.

                  The courts rightly questioned why the legislature waited until Election Day to lodge a complaint when the rules THEY changed were applied.

                  There was no lawlessness, there was no fraud significantly excessive to produce a meaningful outcome. These issues were debated before the courts in detail and it’s the reason why courts have dismissed or shot down lawsuits making the arguments you make.

                  The constitution is not absolute. It’s never been. In a pandemic certain rights or rules CAN be temporarily limited.

                  What is curious is that these arguments are being made as if the changes are permanent. They are only temporary and even conservative courts recognize this. Scalia himself has made that point.

                  1. “The constitution does give the legislature the power to dictate how elections are held. If the legislature itself gives authority to other state authorities to manage elections as circumstances require they are indeed constitutional because they legislature delegated their authority on a temporary basis due to the pandemic. Courts recognized this and the legislature is essentially complaining about their own authorization they themselves granted.”
                    False.

                    The constitution assigned the authority to the state legislatures and congress.

                    Constitutional powers are not inherently delegatable – that too is nonsense created by the courts.
                    The legislature makes laws, the exective enforces them.

                    Further this temporary pandemic delegation you claim – did not occur.
                    You can not rewrite past history to suit what you wish.

                    Next – why is it that you beleive that the legislature can not act in a pandemic but the executive can ?
                    That is just ludicrous nonsense.
                    The executive is far larger than the legislature – if legislators can not meet safely – then neither can the executive.

                    Next, courts do not get to create facts out of whole cloth.

                    Next, lets assume you are correct, and the legislature legitimate delegated their exclusive authority.
                    They can legitimately retract that authority which they did when these state legislatures appointed their own slates of delegates.

                    You have so many logic problems.

                    But I am going to return to delegation.

                    There is another reason that you can not assume the ability to delegate – when the constitution does not provide for it.
                    And this is a pretty perfect example of why. Because delegation becomes an infinite rathole with no means of deciphering.

                    If the legislature can delegate its authority to the executive – can the executive delegate it to say the local mcdonalds ?
                    And if the legislature can delegate – can’t it undelegate ?

                    And if the legislature delegates but the executive acts outside the election laws – how is that to be sorted out ?
                    What if the legislature delegates and the executive violates the state or federal constitution ?
                    And that is not the limit to the messes that arrise.

                    In fact we have seen most of those messes in this election.

                  2. The Wisonsin constitution allows for Absentee voting and in person voting – but not mailin voting.

                    The Wisconsin constitution requires secret ballots. Mailin voting is not a secret ballot.

                    Regardless of whether the legislature authorized it or delegated it, mailin voting is unconstitutional in Wisconsin.

                    So whatever else you may think of the assorted courts decsions, we have alteast two states so far that were required to have secret ballots – and mailin ballots are not secret ballots. Those two states did not have secret ballots.

                    So why didn;t the courts – both before and after the election reject mailin voting ?

                  3. “The constitution was not suspended because of the pandemic. Accommodation was provided AND authorized by the legislature itself.”

                    This is a ludicrously stupid argument. First it did not occur. Second it can not occur.
                    The legislature can not unilaterally change the state constitution – nor can the executive – with authority delegated or not.
                    Nor can the courts.

                    I noted that The Wisconsin Constitution contains two provisions that effectively bar mailin voting.

                    The first authorizes the legislature to ONLY enable absentee and in person elections.
                    The 2nd requires secret ballots.

                    Mailin voting runs afoul of both of these.

                    “The courts rightly questioned why the legislature waited until Election Day to lodge a complaint when the rules THEY changed were applied.”

                    Irrelevant, it is not the role of the courts to question the motives of the legislature.

                    “There was no lawlessness”
                    Of course there was – there was massive lawlessness.
                    You keep trying to sell this tripe.

                    I have cited a list of laws and constitutional provisions that were violated in WI and PA

                    BTW the Georgia constitution explicitly requires Secret ballots.
                    Arizona constitution requires secret ballots.
                    Michigan Constitution requires secret ballots.

                    As Best as I can tell the Nevada constitution does not require secret ballots.

                    So we have the constitutions of 5 swing states explicitly being violated.
                    We can debate whether they were violated by the legislature or the executive or by delegation.
                    But in all instances the respective state constitutions required secret ballots and mailin voting is not secret ballots.

                    “there was no fraud significantly excessive to produce a meaningful outcome.”
                    At best that is unkown. A mere 40,000 votes would have flipped enough states to give the election to Trump.
                    There is not a single contested state where there are not more than 40,000 allegedly invailid votes.
                    I do not beleive there is a single state where the number of out of state voters did not exceed the margin of victory.

                    “These issues were debated before the courts in detail”
                    Nope – please read the actual oppinions. No court yet has looked at the actual allegations of election fraud.

                    “it’s the reason why courts have dismissed or shot down lawsuits making the arguments you make.”
                    Again please read the actual oppinions – I would note that many of these oppinions are contradictory.

                    As an example SCOTUS found that TX did not have standing to raise exactly the same claims that the WI Federal court found Trump did., The WI court went through a long standing test – every single component of which not only did Trump meet – but so Would TX.

                    Either SCOTUS got it wrong or the WI Federal court got it wrong.

                    You have also claimed that the courts looked at the merits – though their decisions often say they did – they did not.
                    The primary reasons used by the courts was “Latches” – another court created doctrine that is not in the constitution anywhere.
                    Latches is just a way that courts get rid of lawsuits that they do not wish to decide.
                    Latches means – the matter is too big the remedy you are asking is to big, and you should have asked sooner.
                    In nearly all cases – these matters were brought to court sooner.
                    Both the courts and the left and the media and democrats are conveniently ignoring the fact that nearly all the assorted illegalities of these elections were challenged before the election – in some instance all the way to the US supreme court.
                    Before the election the courts said it was too early. No;w they are saying it is too late.

                    Grow up – people are not idiots. What the courts are actually saying is we are scared to touch this with a ten foot pole.
                    If we rule for Trump as the law requires we will see out cities burn as left wing nuts whig out.

                    “The constitution is not absolute.”
                    The constitution is required to be followed in every state and in the US.
                    Just as at the federal level – if you do not like a states constitution – you are free to amend it.
                    If you do not like the fact that the state constitution requires secret ballots – you are free to try to change it.
                    You are not free to ignore it.

                    “In a pandemic certain rights or rules CAN be temporarily limited.”
                    Nope. You do not seem to grasp the defintion of right.
                    A right is something that you CAN NOT infringe for your convenience.

                    Regardless, addressing your argument – there is no legal provision for pandemics.
                    There are provisions for emergencies. An emergency is a short duration event where the legislature can not act.

                    You can argue that such a situation might have existed in May. But not in November.

                    When a states executive rules without oversight for 9 months – that is not an emergency – that is totalitarianism.

                    Governors were not free to shout “covid” and make themselves dictators.

                    “What is curious is that these arguments are being made as if the changes are permanent. They are only temporary and even conservative courts recognize this.”

                    9 months is not temporary,

                    ” Scalia himself has made that point.”
                    Scalia is dead – have you been conducting seances ?

                  4. Do you read your own posts ?

                    According to you:

                    The law was not violated.

                    Well yes it was – but that is OK because COVID,

                    The state constitutions were not violated

                    Well yes it was – but that is OK because COVID,

                    75M people voted in person in the US.
                    Clearly there was no need for mailin voting.
                    Interestingly mailin voting was primarily used by YOUNG people
                    While older people mostly voted in person.

                    In otherwords those with the least to fear were the most afraid.

                  5. I would further note that if you are prepared to use Covid as the excuse to give governors unreviewable powers that enable them to ignore their states constitution.

                    Then by the same argument the President has the same powers.

                    If a States governor can declare that there is no need for a constitutionally required secret ballot because “Covid”
                    Then the president can declare that there is no need for a constitutionally required election because “Covid”.

                    Contra your idiocy constitutions do not become inoperative during emergencies – and to be clear a “pandemic” is only an emergency for a few weeks. After that it is just an ordinary problem that government faces.

                    We did not suspend state constitutions during the vietnam War, or the korean war or WWII.
                    Why would we need to do so during Covid ?

                    And finally I would ask – how well have governers done excercising emergency powers ?

                    New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts ar the top 3 states in deaths per million.

                    Michigan. Pennsylvania, and Arizona are not far behind.

                    If there is any difference between the states that did nothing and those that locked down it is that those with lockdowns faired worse.

                    So what is the purpose of empowering governors in a pandemic – to enable them to kill more people ? To enable them to destory their own economies without justification ? Or just to rig elections ?

                    All grants of extraordinary power come with the responsibility to accomplish some good.
                    These governors have all failed.

                    1. John Say, the constitution does not have to be suspended at all. The constitution GIVES the legislature the ability to delegate certain powers to courts or any state organization to exercise changes in cases of emergency. The pandemic IS considered an emergency situation.

                      “Section 13(2) of Act 77 provides that “[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of a provision referred to in paragraph (1). The Supreme Court may take action it deems appropriate, consistent with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over the matter, to find facts or to expedite a final judgment in connection with such a challenge or request for declaratory relief.” Section 13(3) indicates that “[a]n action under paragraph (2) must be commenced within 180 days of the effective date of this section.” Petitioners’ petition for review was filed within this 180-day limit. ”

                      http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-97-2020pco%20-%20104548480113068412.pdf?cb=1

                      PA law which is created by the legislature the ability to provide relief in matters of natural disasters or emergencies. Covid qualifies as a natural disaster situation. Local election boards in PA CAN petition their local courts for relief if circumstances prevent a fair and equal election process. The law explicitly states that the local court SHALL have the ability to offer temporary relief in order to not disenfranchise voters during said natural disaster.

                      Laws were followed.

                    2. Still waiting on your legal expertise to weigh in on the following question:

                      Does the PA law allow for more votes to be counted than they have a record of being cast?

                      A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

                      The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States. On November 24, 2020, Boockvar certified election results, and Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, stating that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.
                      http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error

                    3. “John Say, the constitution does not have to be suspended at all. The constitution GIVES the legislature the ability to delegate certain powers to courts or any state organization to exercise changes in cases of emergency. The pandemic IS considered an emergency situation.”

                      Nope.

                      The constitution alone specifies the powers of each branch of government.

                      Absolutely the PA SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the law.

                      It does not have the power to change the law.

                      It can find the law constitutional – if it is, or not. Jurisdiction is not carte Blanche the rewrite the law.

                      “PA law which is created by the legislature the ability to provide relief in matters of natural disasters or emergencies.”
                      You are making a broad claim that is false.
                      Try citing the actual law.
                      Regardless, this is already a decided issue. Emergency grants of power are temporary and last only so long as the legislature can not act. The legislature does not have the constitutional power to cede power to the executive so long as it is capable of excercising it.
                      Anything else is tyranny.

                      “Covid qualifies as a natural disaster situation.”
                      Independent issue and you are probably wrong there.

                      I would note that by your interpretation of the power of the courts – should Republicans gain control fo the PA SCOTUS they would be perfectly free to reach the opposite conclusions on every issue by your logic – which is why your logic is wrong.

                      A conservative PA SCOTUS using the reasoning that you endorse could decide that an election was not safe and dictate that the legislature must just select electors.

                      You are unable to distinguish between following the law and constitution and getting the outcome you desire.

                      Decisions of courts are not legitimate, lawfull or constitutional based on whther you like the outcome.
                      They are legitimate lawful, or constitutional based on whether they follow the law and the constitition

                    4. Anonymous we see your ‘copy machine’ is working again.

                      Did you read your own link? Maybe, maybe not.
                      Did you comprehend what the link said. No.

                      It’s obvious you didn’t recognize what it really said which is something most people are likely to agree with no matter what side they are on. You act the part of a fool once again.

                    5. The DOS statement does not address the actual claim.

                      Of course “undervotes” occur downballot all the time – their are not typically 200,000 of them – but ignoring that.

                      The issue that Representatives raised is that almost 200K more votes were recored for president than the DOS’s system says total ballots were received.

                      The DOD response evades this with true but irrelevant assertions of undervotes.

                      Further No court has actually adjudicated ANY of these fraud claims.

                      The decisions against Trump fall on a variety of grounds – all legal, not on the merits.

                      Ultimately these claims will all be scrutinized – and some may well prove incorrect.
                      But they have not been scrutinized yet.

                      What is certain at this time is that the election – especially in PA was lawless, and that as a result some fraud occured and was not corrected. The scale of that fraud is indetermininate. The scale of the lawlessness is not – it was egregious.

                      I would note that DOJ statistician John Lott with a lifetime record of accuracy has found that EACH of the swing states has very serious voting pattern anomalies atleast 2-3 times larger than needed to flip the election.

                      In each of the 6 swing states a SINGLE county completely defied all trends in the rest of the country, in the rest of the state, and even adjacent counties.

                      As an example the Counties surrounding Philadelphia County (Or Fulton county in GA) all went for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020,
                      Each of those counties had changes from 2016 to 2020 that are consistent with changes in the rest of the country and the rest of the state. But Philadelphia county had an increase in votes for Biden over Trump that was significantly greater than patterns seen elsewhere.

                      All big cities voted for Biden. All or nearly all their surrounding counties voted for Biden. But these 6 specific counties did so by margins that are well outside the patterns withint the state or the rest of the country.

                      That is not proof of fraud – their could be some specific reason for this – but these are large trends and the reasons for bucking those trends would be things that everyone would know.

                      Lott estimates that in the 6 counties that voted differently from the rest of the country – including differently from other Blue cities that there are 300-400K additional votes for Biden than would have occured had they followed the same trends as other parts of the state or country or the adjacent counties.

                      This is one of the reasons that5 the lawlessness of this election matters.

                      We do not know – though we have good clues, whether these counties injected hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes.

                      We have multiple affadavits asserting that observers saw identified election workers feeding the same stacks of ballots into a scanner over and over and over.

                      Beyond testimony of observers or a confession, or getting caught on video this is not likely proveable. But it is possible to forensically determine whether this is possible or even likely.

                      Voting machines are required by federal law to keep scans of every ballot they process for 24months = we already know in Antrim CO as an example that the records for 2020 were deleted on Nov. 4, while those from prior years back to 2014 still remain.

                      It is possible to determine if the same ballots were scanned repeatedly with those records.

                      It is also possible to determine whether the claim is likely true – more indirectly – we can look for repeating patterns in vote counts.
                      The same pattern repeating 50 times is not random chance, it is fraud.
                      But almost no effort has been made to do the proper forensic analysis.

                      BTW checks such as these should not occur because Trump demands them. They should occur ALWAYS.

                      We should always be reviewing voting data looking for patterns that are clues to fraud and prosecuting where those patterns are found.

                      We should Always have third parties conduct random audits of all counting systems.

                      It is not hard at all to make fraud difficult and the odds of not getting caught miniscule.

                      But the most important step is getting past the hurdle of blind trust.

                      You will never find election fraud if you do not beleive it can occur and at unwilling to look for it.

                    6. Allan, you again resort to some of your go-to strategies for trolling:
                      Insult.
                      Pretend to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of your made up attribution.
                      Attribute your own failings to others.

                    7. In one of his interminable posts below John Say claims that Philadelphia was what put Biden over Trump when Hillary lost the state. That’s false. Hillary did better in Philly than Biden but worse in the suburbs and red counties across the state. If the Democrats were going to rig the election – as is claimed – they would have done it in Philly, not the suburbs or red counties and that’s what John Say ignorantly claims happened. It didn’t.

                      ” Biden’s margin over Trump in the city is on track to be over 450,000 or even 460,000. That’s a huge advantage, and crucial in a state he won by what’s likely to be around 100,000 votes. But it would still be smaller than Hillary Clinton’s 475,000-vote edge in Philadelphia in 2016.

                      https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/philadelphia-2020-election-turnout-biden-trump-20201115.html

                    8. You need to get actual data – not garbage from reporters.

                      Biden won 30% LESS counties than Hillary.
                      Biden did LESS well overall in the suburbs than Hillary.

                      In each of these 6 swing states Biden did WORSE in the counties surrouding the core city County than Hillary and much better in that one city.

                      I produced the data for Fulton country in GA – where Biden votes in surrounding counties increased from Clinton based on GA’s population growth. But Fulton County swung to Biden by almost tripple the population gains

                      Here is an SSRN paper BY a DOJ statistician.
                      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

      2. Committed to Dishonesty, the Rubicon has been crossed.

        The eventual end result of that crossing will be the same as it was for Julius Caesar as he stood at the podium in the Roman Senate.

        Everyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills knows that the election was stolen. People who have nothing to hide don’t throw poll watchers out of the polls.

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        Your owners should be very worried about the “new Guards”.

          1. “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables”

            John 2:15

            1. Jesus was driving corrupt businessmen from the temple, scolding them for turning a sacred place into a market place. Do you compare yourself to Jesus? Do you consider this blog a temple?

              1. Jesus did not have a warm place in his heart for the Sanhedrin either – the jewish government in palestine at the time.

                Alas alas for you
                Lawyers and Pharisees
                Hypocrites that you be
                Searching for souls and fools to forsake them
                You travel the land you scour the sea
                After you’ve got your converts you make them
                Twice as fit for hell!
                As you are yourselves!
                Alas, alas for you
                Lawyers and Pharisees
                Hypocrites that you are
                Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
                You will not venture half so far
                Other men that might enter the gates you
                Keep from passing through!
                Drag them down with you!
                You snakes, you viper’s brood
                You cannot escape being Devil’s food!
                I send you prophets, I send you preachers
                Sages and rages and ages of teachers
                Nothing can bar your mood

                (Broadway only, next verse)
                Alas, alas for you
                Lawyers and Pharisees
                Hypocrites to a man
                Sons of the dogs who murdered the prophets
                Finishing off what your fathers began
                You don’t have time to scorn and to scoff
                It’s getting very late!
                Vengeance doesn’t wait!
                You snakes, you viper’s brood
                You cannot escape being Devil’s food!
                I send you prophets, I send you preachers
                Sages and rages and ages of teachers
                Nothing can bar your mood
                Blind guides, blind fools
                The blood you spilt
                On you will fall!
                This nation, this generation
                Will bear the guilt of it all!
                Alas, alas alas for you!
                Blind fools!!

                1. “Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth’s vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. … Then say to him, `This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood–yes, yours!’ ”

                  1 kings 21

          2. More meaningless comments while wrapping himself around Christ. I’ll hold off more right now.

        1. Rhodes – I beleive the election was stolen.

          But I do not accept that has been proven.

          I fully agree that democrats digging in their heels, and refusing to allow any scrutiny – whether it is poll watchers or even blocking subpoenas and failing to let any sunlight in are all clues to massive fraud.

          But they are not proof of it.

          The more compelling argument is that the election was lawless – which it clearly was.
          Therefore we can not know the extent of the fraud.
          And regardless a lawless election is invalid.

          If governor Wolf in PA decided that the election would be run by asking people to wear red and blue hats on election day and using computers to count the number of each type of hat being worn.
          Even if we were pretty sure that the number of blue hats on Election day was greater than the number of red ones – the election would still be invalid – because Gov. Wolf does not get to decide how the election is conducted unilaterally.

          He is required to implement the law as written, not make it up as he pleases.

          Many of these lawsuits allege that the electors clause requires the legislature to solely determine the method of election.
          I think that argument is constitutionally correct.
          But in PA atleast the legislature and the govenor came to an agreement – and then Gov. Wolf refused to follow it.

          That has consequences beyond the election.

          I beleive we have much the same in nearly all contested states.

          Why should we expect republican legislators to cooperate with democrats in the future when they lie and ignore whatever parts of any deal they do not like.

          Gov. Wolf did not follow the terms of pa Act 77 – a law his helped craft and sign.

          He can not be trusted in the future.

          1. John say, “ I fully agree that democrats digging in their heels, and refusing to allow any scrutiny – whether it is poll watchers or even blocking subpoenas and failing to let any sunlight in are all clues to massive fraud.”

            That’s false. The courts have scrutinized every aspect of the allegations the GOP has claimed. Judges themselves questioned GOP lawyers about their evidence and claims and many have not provided satisfactory answers that support their claims. One famously asked a GOP lawyer if there were Republican observers in the room and it was answered that yes there were. Their claim was that they were not allowed to be in the room.

            It was an admission of truth that their claims were mere exaggeration and bluster instead. These claims of not being allowed to scrutinize evidence are simply false. This is why the vast majority of lawsuits claiming fraud or misconduct have not been successful.

            1. “That’s false. The courts have scrutinized every aspect of the allegations the GOP has claimed. ”
              Nope. You continuously seem to think saying something makes it true.

              There have been several legislatures that have held hearings. Actual evidence has been provided in those hearing.
              The courts have not heard any of that evidence. They have read briefs, that is all.
              That is not hearing evidence.

              It is worse than that legislatures have subpeoned assorted voting records – those subpeona;’s have been ignored – even for public record information.

              “Judges themselves questioned GOP lawyers about their evidence and claims and many have not provided satisfactory answers that support their claims.”

              The burden of conducting the election properly rests with the state – not Trump’s lawyers.
              These states violated their own election laws. That alone is sufficient basis for scrutiny that has thus far not been permitted.

              “One famously asked a GOP lawyer if there were Republican observers in the room and it was answered that yes there were. Their claim was that they were not allowed to be in the room.”
              Yes, I am aware of this. What you are not aware of is that it was NOT a question about the county where observers were denied access.

              In PA as an example nearly every county DID properly allow observers.

              I would further note that there is actual security camera video in GA demonstrating that the Observers were lied to and told to go home, and that the press was lied to. And yet counting continued without observers..

              In PA there was a court order to allow Observers in Philadelphia – after they had been chased out.
              And then the court order was ignored.

              These things are facts. The court orders are on the records. There is security camera footage in GA,
              There is cellphone video in some instances in PA.

              “It was an admission of truth that their claims were mere exaggeration and bluster instead. These claims of not being allowed to scrutinize evidence are simply false. This is why the vast majority of lawsuits claiming fraud or misconduct have not been successful.”

              Absolutely the courts are terrified of following the law.

              Svelaz – nearly all your claims are trivially disproven.
              The only thing you are correct about is that the courts are fairly uniformly ducking this.
              On just about every other factual claim you are wrong.

    2. “using charity donations to pay for personal expenses at McDonalds”
      ***
      Nothing says cheating on your expense account like enjoying haute cuisine at McDonslds.

      Possibly you are insane.

    3. CTDHD – an affadavit is sworn. If it is false, it can be punished with improsonment.

      That is far more important to me that your and WaPo’s efforts to defame the Whistleblower.

      Besdes didn;t the left tell us that it was a crime to Dox Whistleblowers ?

      Regardless, what I care about is the truth. False affadvits have consequences, that increases the probability they are true.

      1. Lawyers who continue to introduce false affidavits risk losing their license to practice law. Especially when those affidavits are totally reliant on hearsay which has been the majority of the affidavits claimed. False affidavits in court cannot be true. Not in any court.

        1. “Lawyers who continue to introduce false affidavits risk losing their license to practice law.”

          I must have missed that. Did you see a groundswell of affidavits that were made up by the lawyers or otherwise known not to be credible in their eyes? Perhaps you can show us a few.

          “affidavits are totally reliant on hearsay ”

          Again some of those witnesses are not necessarily testifying on what occurred rather what they heard. That may not be considered evidence but there are exceptions to the hearsay rule so they may have heard an excited utterance or something else that can be considered evidence.

          “Lawyers who continue to introduce false affidavits risk losing their license to practice law.”

          Did any lawyers do that or are you stretching a point to use innuendo instead of fact? Did any lawyer lose his license or put it in serious jeopardy? Your statement sounds like it should be placed in the same box as those “false affidavits”.

          1. S.Meyer, “ Again some of those witnesses are not necessarily testifying on what occurred rather what they heard. That may not be considered evidence but there are exceptions to the hearsay rule so they may have heard an excited utterance or something else that can be considered evidence.”

            Hearsay is not admissible in any form. Direct evidence is required in order for the court or allow an affidavit to be valid.

            The majority of affidavits filed were hearsay upon hearsay. Many were rescinded by “witnesses” when they discovered that they could go to jail for providing false testimony.

            The exceptions to hearsay being allowed are extremely narrow and rare. The affidavits presented did not meet the criteria.

            1. “Hearsay is not admissible in any form. Direct evidence is required in order for the court or allow an affidavit to be valid.”

              Below is the federal list of exceptions to the prohibition of hearsay.
              There are MANY exceptions.

              Please do not tell me that you are practicing law anywhere.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

              “The majority of affidavits filed were hearsay upon hearsay.”
              Still evidence.

              “Many were rescinded by “witnesses” when they discovered that they could go to jail for providing false testimony.”
              None that I am aware of.

              “The exceptions to hearsay being allowed are extremely narrow and rare. ”
              Actually they are quite common.

              Lets just look at the first two:

              (1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

              (2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

              Both of these would apply to anything that an observer heard an election official say.

              “The affidavits presented did not meet the criteria.”

              No one beleives that you have read any of the affadavits.

              You have been just making things up as you go.
              You are obviously completely clueless as to the facts and the law.

              You do not even get correct the decisions that courts have made or why.

              You seem to think that saying something makes it true.

        2. “Lawyers who continue to introduce false affidavits risk losing their license to practice law.”
          That would be correct – that has ALWAYS been true – it is why we treat affadavits as evidence. Because if they are demonstrably false, there are consequences to those associated with them.

          “Especially when those affidavits are totally reliant on hearsay which has been the majority of the affidavits claimed. ”
          That is false. A substantial portion of evidence presented in court is hearsay. There are myriads of exceptions to the hearsay rule.

          “False affidavits in court cannot be true. Not in any court.”
          Tautologically correct. A = A.

          Now – specifically which of the hundreds of affadavits presented can you demonstrate are false ?

          1. John say, “ There are myriads of exceptions to the hearsay rule.” that is true, but none of those exceptions applied to the affidavits presented. That’s why courts keep throwing out these cases.

            1. Again start with the first two.

              Both apply to pretty much anything said in the counting rooms.

              There is an exception for statements made by public officials – that would also apply.

              There is an exception for statements against interests (confessions).

              Hearsay is admissible as evidence of bias or intent.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

Leave a Reply