Court: Michigan Secretary of State Broke The Law On Absentee Ballot Guidelines In The 2020 Election

The litigation over the 2020 election seem to be continuing with a ruling this week from Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law in issuing new rules on absentee balloting before the 2020 election. The orders concerned instructions on what constitutes a “match” for verification signatures — a core issue raised by the Trump campaign in its election challenges. There is no evidence that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state and the court declined to order a new audit. However, the court found that Murray should not have issued the orders and, in doing so, violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act.

Benson ordered that clerks follow a highly deferential standard in favor of the voter and verification. The court explained:

The stated purpose of the at-issue document was to “provide[ ] standards” for reviewing signatures, verifying signatures, and curing missing or mismatched signatures. Under a heading entitled “Procedures for Signature Verification,” the document stated that signature review “begins with the presumption that” the signature on an absent voter ballot application or envelope is valid. Further, the form instructs clerks to, if there are “any redeeming qualities in the [absent voter]application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file, treat the signature as valid.” (Emphasis in original). “Redeeming qualities” are described as including, but not being limited to, “similar distinctive flourishes,” and “more matching features than nonmatching features.” Signatures “should be considered questionable” the guidance explained, only if they differ “in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file.” (Emphasis in original). “[W]henever possible,” election officials were to resolve “[s]light dissimilarities” in favor of finding that the voter’s signature was valid.

The section on signature-verification procedures goes on to repeat the notion that “clerks should presume that a voter’s [absent voter] application or envelope signature is his or her genuine signature, as there are several acceptable reasons that may cause an apparent mismatch.”

The court found that the orders on the signature-matching requirements amounted to a “rule” and thus should have followed the requirements under the APA. 

Murray states that “The presumption is found nowhere in state law. The mandatory presumption goes beyond the realm of mere advice and direction, and instead is a substantive directive that adds to the pertinent signature-matching standards.”

Trump campaign lawyers argued that state officials were usurping legislative authority in issuing such guidelines or rule changes before the election. This is a ruling supporting those objections. However, the problem has been the nexus between such irregularities or unlawful orders and any determinative impact on the outcome. The court noted that Genetski did not allege that Benson’s directive “caused him to accept a signature that he believed was invalid.”

While celebrating the finding of unlawfulness, Trump supporters are frustrated with the failure to order additional discovery to establish such impacts.  However, Murray  noted that

while the statute allows for an audit that includes ‘reviewing the documents, ballots, and procedures’ used in the election, the statute plainly leaves it to the Secretary of State to ‘prescribe the procedures for election audits’ and mandates that the Secretary of State shall conduct audits ‘as set forth in the prescribed procedures.’ In other words, there is no support in the statute for plaintiffs to demand that an audit cover the subject of their choosing or to dictate the manner in which an audit is conducted.”

That will not sit well with many since it was the Secretary of State who violated the state law in the first place. This would mean that she could violate the law and then dictate how that violation is investigated.

Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Michigan Republican Party filed a complaint the same day that the order was issued, but the delay prevented the ruling from being cited in the ongoing challenges before the certification.

The result is a victory but not in the form of substantive relief of an audit on how these matching rules were applied.

Here is the opinion: Genetski v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM in the Court of Claims for the State of Michigan

311 thoughts on “Court: Michigan Secretary of State Broke The Law On Absentee Ballot Guidelines In The 2020 Election”

    1. Sure, as soon as you pay back the money your state has gotten from the Federal government.

      1. If they’re a southern border state they’d be signing off on a border war certainly to the south. Maybe even to the north with any sort of border incursion. The clear winners would be Mexican cartels, and they’d deserve to be should some state with its head irretrievable wedged in the 1860’s be so idiotic.

        EB

        1. All nations inevitably fail. Better to acknowledge it sooner than later. Call it irreconcilable differences…no hard feelings.

          1. They fail because of nihilistic attitudes and people not shouldering responsibility. Better for people to shoulder responsibility, in general. It improves the individual and the rest of society benefits. Perhaps if more people shouldered responsibility, it wouldn’t have gotten into the frustrating state it is in. This experiment in freedom is too precious to let go.

        2. “The clear winners would be Mexican cartels”

          They’re already winning thanks to Dementia Joe’s handlers.

          ‘Migrant president’: Mexico says Biden asylum policies boost illegals, cartels”

          https://nypost.com/2021/03/10/mexico-says-biden-asylum-policies-boost-illegals-cartels/

          “One Mexican official, who requested anonymity, told Reuters the cartels have been using sophisticated smuggling methods “from the day Biden took office,”

          Those strategies include keeping migrants up to date on the latest immigration rules, using technology to thwart authorities, and disguising smuggling operations as travel agencies, according to the assessments.

          Reuters also reported that plastic wristbands, some labeled “arrivals” or “entries” in Spanish, were seen discarded near Penitas, Texas after illegal immigrants crossed the border.”

          Stick to cutting and pasting talking points, Bugs. As soon as you start trying to think for yourself, you prove your ignorance.

            1. Bug, you can call him an idiot if you wish, but how does that make you look when one looks at some of the things he says?

              Drugs, violence Covid, the sex trade, terrorists, gang members etc. are now crossing the border in increasing numbers and killing our young. That is a problem for all Americans. Stop playing politics and look at the issues.

                1. Bug, you should be careful about setting the standard of who should be considered an idiot. The standard was low before and you fit into it. Raising the standard only puts you further on the bottom.

                  SM

                2. Yet you are obviously incapable of specifically stating what those “things” I say are, Bugs.

                  That’s because you have no cogent response you can make that won’t make you look even more idiotic.

                  BTW, it is a very simple rule of debate that the second anyone responds with an ad hominem attack, they have conceded that they are wrong.

                  So, you are constantly proving yourself wrong. You’d actually be better off sticking to your bogus basketball coach story.

                  I can only assume that you, JF, Natacha, Fishwings, et al, are the single A minor leaguer DNC trolls put here to try to improve your game.

                  It’s not working.

      2. The only “money” the Federal government has is from taxpayers. So that’s a double-edged sword.

        Not that you have the intellectual capacity to figure out why.

    2. No. Quit being divisive it’s not helpful. You’re acting like all the foolish people who just want to divide people into their little grievance groups. It’s a nihilistic, destructive game.

      1. We are already deeply divided. This has nothing to do with petty grievances. The divide is fundamental: freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, federalization, immigration, a sound currency, even how we are to interpret the basic law. The lefties and the establishment want an all powerful central government and the right views that as an evil. Rather than let the chaos grow we should agree to split before a civil war actually begins. It is you that is playing a destructive, foolish game. Nostalgia for a bygone era is no reason to keep the nation together.

        1. Ivan makes some good points but no reform not even a dissolution of the USA is possible without breaking the billionaire tyrants. The government actually needs to be strong to get that done, stronger than it is, not stronger at oppressing the people, but rectifying the abuses of of the billionaires.

          I would consider supporting dissolution into post USA fragments but these days my support will be contingent on cancelling the ability of billionaires to buy off the entire mass media, social media, the financial sector, and all of the government, thus running this country like one of their rackets. I would not lift a finger to be part of a post USA fragment that has the Kroch brothers in charge as opposed to Gates and Zuckerberg.

          Billionaires need to support the nation-state and not try and dismantle it. if they try and dismantle the state, then they should get dismantled. I hate to single out Soros since there are hundreds more evil billionaire schemers besides him, but, he’s an example of the oligarchy trying to divide, demoralize, and subjugate us all.

          it may be in fact that a guy like Soros would LOVE IT if the USA blew up into five or six fragments. Im sure he’s got plenty of billions squared away offshore in diversified assets. he might be even more powerful if the US imploded. Look at how the looters pillaged Russia after the fall of the USSR, in the days of the Yeltsin kleptocracy. It was a disaster for the people. This is a story most people don’t know but people can look it up if they want to know.

          What would be better is a bipartisan coalition that cancels the plutocracy.

          It may be possible. it may be closer than we think. The immense increase in the wealth of the billionaire segment during COVID has not gone unnoticed and a lot of people are pissed. As the Biden administration stumbles along and fails to deliver much besides more stimmies and a lot of rhetoric, people will be increasingly unhappy. I just hope the rage that is coming, which will dwarf what we have seen so far, is channeled into intelligent reform and not just more excuses for the security state to lock us down.

          Probably this hope will be disappointed, but, we have to believe that improvement is possible, eventually, somehow, or we are done, finished.

          Sal Sar

        2. “The lefties and the establishment want an all powerful central government and the right views that as an evil.”

          Nonsense. People on the left and right both want the federal government involved in some things and not in others, but they have different opinions about when the government should be involved.

          1. Interesting question. I think almost all agree some government is necessary, but to what extent. What is the philosophy behind more or less government.

            Do people believe in private property [ life liberty and happiness (property) ] or not. That is a fundamental question.
            Do people believe in freedom of speech or censorship?

            There are more and they represent the principles people stand behind, though to some principles change based on the wind which can also be called a principle by some though others might think more of the word unprincipled.

            That is where discussion should be taking place and that is essentially what Professor Turley posts about on a daily basis.

            1. S. Meyer,
              “Do people believe in private property [ life liberty and happiness (property) ] or not. That is a fundamental question.
              Do people believe in freedom of speech or censorship?”

              I think most regular people believe in these things.

              1. “I think most regular people believe in these things.”

                If that is true, then a lot of people are advocating things they don’t believe in.

                1. S. Meyer,
                  That is probably so. I think people don’t think thoroughly enough about what they advocate. Thinking through the ramifications of ideas is a measured, tricky business. Lots of people just echo what they hear by people they trust or at a gut level they agree with. Wrestling with beliefs requires some respectful opposition. It can be done in your own mind, but that can be especially difficult because of confirmation bias and the difficultly of steel-manning ideas you might not be thoroughly familiar with. I have friends on both sides of the aisle and everyone I talked to was appalled by Dr. Seuss getting cancelled, for instance. Same with the Muppets. They are now seeing the value of free speech and expression, as well as the terrifying extent of the power of Big Tech or other manipulative interests (who knows if the Deep State has its tentacles in on these problems). Hopefully, people will begin to be a little more self-reflective regarding the what and the why of what they advocate and whether or not it really rings true.

                  1. ” I have friends on both sides of the aisle and everyone I talked to was appalled by Dr. Seuss getting cancelled, for instance”

                    To me that is near meaningless. Almost everyone likes Dr. Seuss. Will your friends act the same when someone they hate gets cancelled?

                    ” I think people don’t think thoroughly enough about what they advocate. “

                    Listen to Anonymous the Stupid. Essentially what I am pointing out to him is that he needs to know what he is advocating, his principles. Then he needs to try the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels. He acts blindly but gets rewarded for virtue signaling. But that virtue signaling doesn’t change his life. It’s like a narcotic that one can’t give up.

                    1. S. Meyer,
                      “Will your friends act the same when someone they hate gets cancelled?”

                      Earlier, it was polarizing people who were easy to dislike getting cancelled. And, no, not much was said by some of my friends. But, now, the cancelling has moved further and the reality of the importance of free speech finally hit them. The Martin Niemollar observation of “First they came for…” has become more visceral to the more partisan of my friends and family. A good, hard conversation can be had with a few now that, hopefully, their eyes are finally opening.

                    2. Prairie, did it hit your friends because they finally realized that the process was wrong or because they realized that certain things they believed were open to being cancelled.

                      If the former, the world is safe. If the latter then time is given to today’s Nazi’s to destroy tomorrow’s future.

                    3. S. Meyer,
                      “Prairie, did it hit your friends because they finally realized that the process was wrong or because they realized that certain things they believed were open to being cancelled”

                      That is a good question. I have not ascertained the distinction. It is a fraught topic, so I have not discussed it in depth for some time. I’ve only gotten the recent shocks, but did not probe more deeply about whether it changed their views of conservative speakers getting physically threatened and cancelled.

                    4. “That is a good question. “

                      Prairie, when you talk to your friends keep that in the back of your mind.

            2. Here’s a dollar I own. It has a quantum of “property rights.”

              here is a dollar that a billionaire owns. It has the same quantum of property rights in its 4 corners.
              but the billionaire multiplies his rights by a billion times.

              Hence, he has a billion times more “rights’ than I do. We are not equal.

              Our civil right of free speech is also not “equal.” I have a voice and nobody hears it. Bezos owns the WAPO and will tell his editors what is news according to his pleasure.
              His “free speech” is a billion times more meaningful than mine.

              I am not suggesting that we do away with property rights or some version of the First Amendment. That would be throwing baby out with bathwater.

              But let’s not operate under the fantasy that we are “Equal.”

              We are not even close!

              The billionaires perpetuate the lie of equality under American law because it MASKS their manifest inequal position atop us all.

              Sal Sar

              1. “but the billionaire multiplies his rights by a billion times. Hence, he has a billion times more “rights’ than I do.”

                But a quantum of that property has the same rights as a quantum of the billionaires property and the billionaire has only one vote and only one life. You are equating things that do not equate. You are angry at the wrong things.

                “Our civil right of free speech is also not “equal.” I have a voice and nobody hears it. Bezos owns the WAPO and will tell his editors what is news according to his pleasure.
                His “free speech” is a billion times more meaningful than mine.”

                His rights of free speech are the same. He has the ability to wield more power through his ownership of WAPO. Remember that monk who had no money or power got the world’s attention with a singular act of Self-immolation. In a matter of minutes the monk got the same attention as Jeff Bezos did over a long period of time.

                “But let’s not operate under the fantasy that we are “Equal.””

                Who says we are Equal?

                We are (supposedly) equal under the law.

                “The billionaires perpetuate the lie of equality under American law “

                They do and they don’t and not all billionaires are the same. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think that you go from one extreme to the other.

        3. Ivan,
          “Nostalgia for a bygone era is no reason to keep the nation together.”

          What bygone era? We’ve always had quite a few divisions–fought a civil war over one deep division. One of our problems right now is a lack of interaction and conversation across party lines. I think people have been forgetting the common goals of ensuring our common liberties. Instead, I see a lot of people devolving into myopic tribal alliances or trying to rule from their petty fiefdoms.

          I realize this isn’t about petty grievances. I didn’t say it was. There is an element of ideological possession which I believe can dissipate through constructive conversation, and, a realization that keeping the boat afloat is best for everyone in the long run. A split weakens us as a nation. We become Sparta and Athens, eventually overrun by an opportunistic dictator. Wishing to preserve our nation, founded on the self-evident Truths that all Men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, is NOT a foolish or destructive game.

          Stop trying to swamp the ship of State, so to speak. I have friends and family on both sides of the aisle and everyone is concerned about the manipulation and propaganda seeking to divide us.

          Tulsi Gabbard discussed this very problem with Jocko Willink–that some of our leadership care more for their own power than figuring out what is in the best interest of the country.

          https://youtu.be/Sp3X-tvG7dU
          About an hour to an hour and a half in.

          1. I continue to admire Tulsi Gabbard. I just have to take exception with the idea that Sparta was ruled by a tyrant. The laws of Lycurgus established an aristocracy and a dual monarchy. And Plato distinguished aristocracy and monarchy from what he considered the lesser forms including tyranny. Now Sparta was not democratic, but it had a lot of good laws to commend it even today. Such as the notion that the elite were responsible for proper leadership of society and they would even have to lay their lives down for it if need be and would be the FIRST called on to die for the nation and not the last. Can anybody see our corrupt billionaires ever leading from the front in a moment of danger? Of course not. THEY are the selfish corrupt tyrants, taken as a group. They are no Leonidases, that’s obvious for sure!

            There are a lot of other things like how they used iron ingots for money instead of gold and silver. They believed that precious metals were not needed for money (a true insight proven by history) and that hoarding gold and silver was a despicable habit of the corrupt leadership of other states. Indeed it was and always has been.

            Sparta also had a far wider measure of civil and social autonomy for women. This is the subject of a lot of books and I am no feminist so I wont prattle on about it.

            Anyhow Sparta gets a bad rap. But without Spartan steel, the Athenian democracy would have vanished under the boot of the Persian king. Thats a fact! Sal Sar

              1. I see a closer analogy between ancient Greece and the 13 colonies, versus contemporary America that is more like the Hellenic Empire of 10 or more different nations that existed
                after Alexander died. It’s not consequential to our conversation, but Alexander admired ancient Sparta, and imitated it to some degree in some of his policies, as did the Romans who conquered Alexander’s heirs. They understood that the Spartan Laws of Lycurgus took seriously the problems of wealth inequality and the corruption of native elites.

                One thing you can see in the decline of both the Alexandrite Hellenistic Empire, and the Roman Empire, is a tendency over time to massive wealth inequality and an increasingly corrupt, effete, and decadent social elite. Now if America does not have an overwhelmingly rich, corrupt, effete and decadent elite, on par with either of those long gone empires, then I am Michael Jordan, and not an overweight middle aged nobody of a lawyer pecking at his computer in flyover country

                Sal Sar

                1. Sal, the nature of those leading a movement are completely different from those that follow. The former had a distinct objective that had to be overcome with uniform actions while the latter start to self select leaders based on leaders that can survive the political intrigues that occur after the objective has been won.

                  1. Yes thats true and the ancients believed that every society devolved. the notion of progress in the modern era says every society evolves. I am more with the ancients on that one. from daniels prophecy of the feet of clay, to Hesiod’s cycle of the golden age, silver, iron; to the Hindu notion of the golden age decaying into the iron age.

                    but here we are and maybe we will come up with a new thing that will be the seed of a new golden age as all humanity ages and runs with reckless oblivion towards nihilistic embrace of every conceivable technology all of which has the net effect of making humanity itself, obsolete.

                    we better come up with a new thing or it will be finished within a few decades. the next iteration of humanity will be cybernetic then, if it exists in any form at all

                    the truth is, I think that if we don’t cancel the billionaires and their schemes, and if they don’t find a way to pulverize us with less dramatic means, they will be content to have a nuclear war occur, once they’ve secure themselves in their bunkers in new zealand, of course. then after there will be no national governments, the problem of global warming will be solved with the dust cloud, and a 90% dieoff of humanity, and they will have all the AI and robots and mercenaries to make their remaining lives totally secure and comfortable in a way that’s not quite yet possible for them now.

                    does it sound crazy? read this. Sal Sar

                    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/

                    1. “Yes thats true and the ancients believed that every society devolved. “

                      Yes, Sal, but the question is why? What are the incentives for the initial leaders? What are the incentives for for the leaders to follow? The former joined together with a common objective. The latter game the system to move up the ladder of power while pushing out those whose agenda was what that group initially stood for. With that change the initial agenda is lost. Look at the Democrat Party today.

                      You want to cancel billionaires. That is like the war on poverty… give handouts. It doesn’t work that way. Think in the classical liberal fashion and look at where the incentives were misplaced causing things to go wrong. Stop with your wars against… It is in the incentives not in the billionaires.

                    2. Meyer, I am not an “eat the rich” sort of guy. Relatively speaking I am a nobody, but, among nobodies, my balance sheet looks pretty good. In my mind people under $20 M in assets are not “rich.” There is only so much any system can do to either limit poverty or limit caste and who gets “rich.” I am no utopian.

                      But Billionaires are far BEYOND “rich,” however. The question requires an understanding of the size and immensity of the number we call “billiion.” It is hard to imagine. I’m sure you can find some interesting videos on the subject of how big is a billion, in real terms of relative size to other numbers.

                      When you are talking about billionaires, you are talking about a scale of wealth accumulation and economic and social power that dwarfs many nations. When you get up to the Mikey Bloomberg level of about 100 Billion you are talking about a wealth that dwarfs most nations annual GNP

                      i’ll give an example. Nigeria, a populous nation with much oil and natural resources, has a GNP in 2019 of about $448 billion. Belgium was just above them at $553 billion. they were 24 and 25 on the list of hundreds of nations.

                      Above Mikey you have people like Zuckerberg. One of his underlings brags that they registered 4.5 million voters last year and agrees that “this is why we won” the election in a video taken by an undiscover reporter.

                      This is insufferable! Don’t talk to me about classic liberalism. Adam Smith would be shamed at these globalists and what they are scheming to do to utterly destroy the very concept of the nation state as such.

                      Now even this very same fellow agrees, Facebook should be broken up., they are as big as a country, and Zuxk is like a King. This is unacceptable! Sal Sar

  1. Is Jonathan Turley Esq stupid? The illegal order in an of itself invalidated the election. It makes no difference whether the outcome of the election would have been the same. If the same sort of thing occurred during a trial the appeals court would overturn the verdict (guilty or innocent) and require a new trial.

    1. More of Turley’s paid hyperbole. Here’s the bottom line: the Michigan judge ONLY ruled that the published guidance for inspecting and validating signatures on absentee ballots was required to be promulgated as an administrative law rule, subject to publication and public comment, before being formally implemented. That was the nature of the dispute–whether guidance on conducting signature matches had to follow the administrative law act requirements or whether it didn’t. Even the Republican Clerk who brought the suit admitted that the lack of promulgation of the guidance as an administrative rule DID NOT result in any invalid votes getting counted. THE JUDGE DID NOT RULE THAT THE PROCEDURE ITSELF WAS WRONG, ILLEGAL OR RESULTED IN ANY INVALID VOTE GETTING COUNTED–just that the rule had to be promulgated like other administrative rules. This ruling is grounded in PROCEDURE, not substance, but I know Fox, the fat, failed POTUS, OAN, NEWS MAX and Breitbart will try to spin this as proof that Trump really won Michigan by a landslide, but that’s not the truth.

  2. One thing I’ve noticed about the political left in a historical perspective is their conceit. There is no other way than their way. Even when proven wrong they profess they were right all along. As this blog proves almost daily there is no argument presented that they are or where wrong. This issue is a great example, there is no way to prove or disprove the election was conducted in a fair and honest way, but yet they profess that the election was a complete honest success. Oh to live with such certainty that the elected politicians that you select are honest and those you oppose are not, true naïveté.

    1. There was no “political left” that was “proven wrong” here–there was an election official who knew that Trump was pressuring election officials to find a way to throw out absentee ballots because he was predicted to lose, so her office issued guidance on conducting signature matches. The question was PROCEDURAL only, and everyone involved, including the Republican clerk who brought the suit, admitted that failing to promulgate the guidance as an administrative law rule DID NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME of the vote. Nothing dishonest happened in the 2020 election–Trump just couldn’t force his way back into office by cheating again, but he still tried to bully election officials, bully Pence, he mounted a “stop the steal” campaign and fomented an insurrection. It didn’t work. Democracy prevailed.

      You want to speak of political conceit? How about Mitch McConnell threatening a “scorched earth”? How about announcing that he would do everything in his power to prevent Barak Obama from having a successful presidency? How about his rank hypocrisy in refusing to allow the nomination of Merrick Garland to proceed due to the proximity of the election, but seating Amy Covid-Barrett, whose ultra right wing philosophies are contrary to those of the majority of Americans? Trump has rightfully earned the reputation of being a cheater and liar.

      1. You just proved my point, never wrong or even the possibility you could be. I don’t ware Rose colored glasses regarding either party.

      2. The Democrat party leadership is strictly controlled by financial interests, Silicon Valley, and the military establishment such as Raytheon which put their man into the top seat as SecDef.

        The Republican party is perhaps not backed by these powers, because it is habitually incompetent at the game of American politics.

        IN NO SENSE is the Democrat party a “Leftist” party if by that you mean a worker’s party, focused on the economic interests of the people. It is not. To the extent it is endorsed by corrupt leadership of various unions, that mostly speaks to how much unions still resemble racketeers.

        Sal Sar

        1. The Left has always been plutocratic. You can see this as far back as the Civil War (the real one, in England) if not before.

    2. Many on the left hate faith based religions so they have adopted a faith based religion all of their own, Leftism.

      1. Many on the left are religious. Some on the left are faith leaders (clergy, rabbis, imams, etc.). “Leftism” is not a religion.

  3. I’d rather have, in the absence of proof of large amounts of voter fraud, it being easier to vote during a pandemic rather than harder. Besides, we know the real story today is trump’s own intelligence community finding that Russia, once again, attempted to interfere with the ’20 election on the side of trumpy bear.

    Seems almost painful to see the lengths Turley goes through in order to dodge the elephant in the living room.

    EB

    1. I’d rather have, in the absence of proof of large amounts of voter fraud,

      Perfect. Given the finding by the court, the logical next step would be to conduct a forensic audit to prove the extent, if any, of voter fraud.

      1. For the whole country or just the states you’d like to find a way to flip for trumpy bear?

        EB

        1. You see this as a political calculation, I don’t. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. This is not that difficult to understand.

              1. Newsflash, Olly: When you say someone has a political calculation you are, by definition, making a political point.

                Now back to your deflection: what is my political calculation? I’d love to know, especially since, if there were to be election forensics (which there already has in aligning paper ballots with machine counts) my position I alluded to above would that if one state is forensically examined, all states should be. Much more in the legal/fairness realm than politically motivated spot forensics only in the states that trump lost.

                EB

      2. The blog doesn’t seem to want to share Krebbs’ interview on 60 Minutes but I’d refer you there for a factual reference base. Are you interested in factual reference bases?

        EB

            1. They and the rest of the MSM have been proven wrong on the most important issues. They can have their opinions but they had them during the Steele Dossier and were wrong, the rest of the Russia hoax and they were wrong, the Ukraine hoax and they were wrong. When the news media is wrong so badly and so frequently one should learn a bit of skepticism. Apparently some don’t have that type of ability.

              SM

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are repeating what you said in another post. Why make yourself sound even more stupid?

    2. Get over, it, EB! You had 4+ years to whine and whine about D.J.Trump while loving the falsehoods created and spread by others – or concocting your own. You and others have delivered Slo Jo on the proverbial platter; so just sit back and stop whining; the USA will pay dearly for Slo Jo, his minders and (in a short while) successor harris convincing enough loyal progressive/woke Ds to do what is necessary to make the USA “LAST again.”

      1. Why watch Fox news when people are willing to shill their talking points inside of a paragraph on the Turley blog? Thanks for saving me the time.

        EB

    3. The mendacity is off the charts. Trump never had control of any intelligence agencies, and we know that the agencies actually found evidence of Chinese efforts to interfere but simply lied, as usual, regarding China and Russia.

      1. Actually, you don’t know it. And Trump named the DNI (a couple times), so yeah, you’re wrong.

        EB

  4. There is no evidence that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state and the court declined to order a new audit.

    That statement, while true, would also be true had the SoS directed election officials to shred all the absentee ballot envelopes. The obvious next step would be to order a forensic audit to determine the impact of the unlawful guidance by the SoS. In what other area of the law do we dismiss investigating potential damages resulting from unlawful activity?

    1. how does anyone know the outcome of the election wasn’t altered unless you do a forensic audit. This is just sickening

      1. How do you know that the outcome of the 2016 election wasn’t altered unless you do a forensic audit?

        1. 2016 election. Altered by what? There are no allegations of irregularities or wrongdoing.

    2. “That statement, while true, would also be true had the SoS directed election officials to shred all the absentee ballot envelopes.”

      But she didn’t, and as the judge noted, “Plaintiff Genetski has not, however, alleged that this guidance caused him to accept a signature that he believed was invalid.”

        1. No, of course he wasn’t. But he’s the one who filed suit, and presumably if some other MI election official thought that Benson’s guidance caused him or her to accept a signature that s/he believed was invalid, s/he would have joined the suit.

          Can you name any MI election official who “alleged that this guidance caused him to accept a signature that he believed was invalid”?

    3. NO election official in Michigan ever claimed that unlawful or illegal ballots were cast or counted. There was an audit–it proved Trump lost. Trump’s followers believe everything he says, despite the fact that he constantly lies, so as long as he claims he won by a landslide, that the election was rigged, that votes were switched, or any other outlandish and unproven lie, they’ll fall for it every single time. They overlook lots of other evidence proving he couldn’t have won, like the fact that Trump never even once got a 50% approval rating in 4 years’ time, that all polls predicted he would lose, that he lost the popular vote in 2016, that the economy that was succeeding when he took office went into a free-fall, unemployment numbers went through the roof, and then there’s the lying about the pandemic, the record trade deficit and mounting national debt. What is the likelihood that a majority of Americans would vote for him given these undisputed facts?

      Election officials cannot allow paid outsiders to review election records for privacy reasons. Voter registration information is confidential by law. And, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because Trumpsters still wouldn’t believe that he lost no matter what. Even if he could find people to people to lie and gin up facts, like Giuliani for example, the results wouldn’t be valid either.

  5. Should have been investigated. I suspect it is unlikely to have changed the outcome but election integrity requires far more than suspicion. Once election integrity is in doubt the credibility of a representative government is destroyed. Not following procedure, not vetting these issues to the fullest is more dangerous that China and Russia combined.

  6. That is a bizarre decision.

    MI broke the law in how it checked signatures on mail-in ballots. Yet it’s not necessary to audit those ballots, in a manner prescribed by the law?!

    That’s like telling a company: “Your accounting procedures broke the law. But an audit of your books is unnecessary.” How on earth could you trust the accuracy of the company’s accounting? Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

    “There is no evidence that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election . . .”

    That is completely backward. It is impossible to say whether there is or isn’t evidence, without an audit (again, conducted via what the law actually demands).

    1. Again: “Plaintiff Genetski has not, however, alleged that this guidance caused him to accept a signature that he believed was invalid.”

        1. Like you, I assume that plaintiff Genetski is not omniscient.

          Unlike you (apparently), I also assume that if any election official HAD alleged that the guidance caused him or her to accept a signature that s/he believed was invalid, s/he would have joined the suit or otherwise made a statement about it.

            1. That’s totally nonresponsive to whether any election official in MI alleged that the guidance caused him or her to accept a signature that s/he believed was invalid.

              If you feel that it’s a “tangle” to recognize that some election officials are female, I feel sorry for you.

              1. The “s/he” irrationality is feminist propaganda disguised as grammar. And I refuse to participate in your pretense.

                1. It’s not feminist propaganda, it’s just shorter than typing “he or she.” No one is forcing you to use it.

                  In the meantime, you’re STILL avoiding the issue: I assume that if any election official HAD alleged that the guidance caused her to accept a signature that she believed was invalid, she would have joined the suit or otherwise made a statement about it. AFAIK, no one has alleged this.

                  Do YOU know of any election official in MI alleging that Benson’s guidance resulted in that official accepting a signature that she believed was invalid?

                  1. “Do YOU know of any election official in MI alleging that Benson’s guidance resulted in that official accepting a signature that she believed was invalid?”

                    Anonymous the Stupid, you are asking people to voluntarily stand up and say they were involved in election fraud. You are an idiot. Benson’s actions made the presumption that ALL signatures on absentee ballots were legitimate. She had no right to do that. She could just have easily said that all votes for Trump are illegitimate.

                    This character Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t understand that it is the job of officials to stay within the law. Once they stray everything illegal that they did is open to question.

                    In Wisconsin a similar problem occurred and on one issue 200,000 votes were called into question where Biden only prevailed by 20,000.

                    The courts have already ruled against the illegalities of Biden personal in multiple states leaving huge numbers of votes open to question.

                    1. “You are an idiot,” says Allan, looking in the mirror.

                      Unfortunately, Allan is either unwilling or unable to disagree with people he dislikes without resort to insults.

  7. JT often touts his experience as a defense lawyer. It’s striking that he isn’t commenting on all of the Capitol insurrection cases moving forward.

    “Alleged Rochester, N.Y., Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola ordered jailed pending trial, as U.S. judge calls him “the tip of a spear that pierced the United States Capitol,” leading a mob and breaking a window with a police riot shied.”

    1. That federal judge has just displayed his/her bias with “piercing” the Capitol Building – whose doors were opened by the miniscule number of no-goodniks among the huge number of peaceful people present in Washington DC that day. I’ll bet he/she was nominated by a D president! and that this is not the only matter in which her/his bias was readily apparent.

  8. Another relevant quote from the Judge’s opinion:
    “Plaintiff Genetski has not, however, alleged that this guidance caused him to accept a signature that he believed was invalid.”

    1. And a critical fact from the case: It was *state-wide* edict. Unless Genetski is omniscient, he cannot know how that edict affected other clerks in MI.

      1. If it was a statewide edict, wouldn’t the counties that voted for Trump also need to be audited? What if the fraud was coming from Trump voters?

  9. “Trump campaign lawyers argued that state officials were usurping legislative authority in issuing such guidelines or rule changes before the election”

    The left on this blog denied this and called for the proof which is very difficult to get when the powers that created the illegalities are in power and prevent the illegalities from being found. But now with time, Trump’s claims have been proven in one case and likely will be proven in others..

    “Court: Michigan Secretary of State Broke The Law On Absentee Ballot Guidelines In The 2020 Election”

    We are now dealing with a Secretary of State who violated a law who now wants the ability to cover her actions up. We are also dealing with an establishment that wishes to cover up violations in the law.

    The left is very criminally inclined and those on the blog that have kept their eyes closed are part of the problem..

    1. I’m on the “left,” and I’m not criminally inclined. Yes, she did violate the law, but calling all democrats “criminally inclined” is an over-statement to say the least.

      1. I’m glad Wally. There are people that lean left that are honest, it’s just that in the political left a lot are criminally inclined and a lot won’t stand up for law and order.

        I have no problem with the social ideas you might carry which I might agree or disagree with. I have problems with those that do not believe in the Constitution or the rule of law.

    2. S. Meyer, as much as you want to make this as the big deal that it is not. This is not a real “vindication”. It was a rule that even if it was broken it still wouldn’t change the outcome.

      Trump’s supporters are all about following the law and apparently the law clearly gives the Secretary of State the authority to do an audit. An audit won’t provide any more proof that Trump would have won.

      I would call this more of a consolation prize for trying.

      1. Svelaz, nothing is a big deal to you until you learn what the rule of law means. Your mindset is one that is based on tyranny.

        “still wouldn’t change the outcome.”

        No, one does not expect anyone decision to change the numbers significantly enough but it shows the tip of the iceberg that you have been denying. It demonstrates the left broke the law and has been hiding the rule breaking that went on throughout the voting process.

        Nothing phases you because by the time you learn #2 you already forgot #1.

        1. S. Meyer, “ No, one does not expect anyone decision to change the numbers significantly enough but it shows the tip of the iceberg that you have been denying.”

          Nobody has been denying anything. No proof of laws being “broken” was presented before. Lack of proof is not proof. I couldn’t deny that a law was broken when no proof or evidence shows that it occurred. In this instance it was determined a law was broken. They key is whether it was intentional. Nothing points to that conclusion.

          Nothing is a big deal to me if no proof or evidence that a law was broken was presented. It’s all conjecture until said proof or evidence actually is presented. That’s not a mindset of tyranny. It’s a mindset of logical reasoning.

          “ Michigan law requires clerks to match required signatures on absentee ballot applications and absentee ballot envelopes with the voter signature on file to ensure the person submitting the ballot is the same one registered to vote in Michigan.

          But state law doesn’t define what it means for signatures to “agree sufficiently.”

          The Michigan SoS offered guidance to clerks. Clerks didn’t know what “agree sufficiently” realistically meant.

          Any audit would be a waste of time. The election was already certified by the legislature. Verifying the accuracy of a signature is not an exact science and people’s signatures change slightly over time due to age or illness, or injury. Signature matching is completely arbitrary.

          1. #1 “Nobody has been denying anything. “

            You deny most things that do not please you. You even deny Econ 101

            #2 “Any audit would be a waste of time. “

            Considering all the irregularities whether or not justified we have a nation that will not heal due to irregularities, many created during Covid. Therefore, one should take every avenue possible to satisfy the needs of about half the country.

            #3 “Nothing is a big deal to me”

            That is obvious. Nothing is a big deal to you because as long as things go the way you like you are happy. You are not a believer in the rule of law or even learning about it.

            SM

  10. Then there is Georgia . . . . and the impact of Facebook’s cash in Wisconsin.
    Two links rather a lengthy post, one for Georgia, one for Wisconsin, for anybody interested in something other than denial.
    https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/medias-entire-georgia-narrative-is-fraudulent-not-just-the-fabricated-trump-quotes/
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/11/zuckerberg-grant-allowed-outsider-to-infiltrate-presidential-election-in-wisconsin/

  11. Trumpism like its predecessor Birtherism will be regarded in the fullness of time not unlike McCarthyism. Trump’s day of judgment is coming and soon. And then we shall see which side is ultimately vindicated.

    1. That’s your response to his continued vindication with multiple lawsuits and rulings still pending or already issued, which indicate that swing states shouldn’t have changed their absentee voter laws without the legislature taking a vote? OK then…let’s see how that works out.

      1. Wank, this ruling is not as significant as it seems. It’s very narrow and emphasizes the fact that it wouldn’t have changed the election outcome.

        It’s ironic that the law still is the law and the Secretary of State is the only one with the power to conduct an audit.

        It’s a procedural problem that still doesn’t change the outcome.

            1. People have different opinions about what the rule of law should lead one to conclude. That’s why the Supreme Court rulings aren’t all unanimous, why cases are overturned on appeal, etc.

              Like many people, some of Turley’s base favors the rule of law when they agree with the outcome and opposes the rule of law when they don’t agree with the outcome.

                1. Such foolishness from Anonymous the Stupid. The rule of law permitted Congress to perform two impeachments and a political investigation by the NY AG. The bureaucracy acted against the law and the FBI even spied on Trump before becoming President.

                  Lawsuits are of a civil nature. They are contractural disputes. That is why two parties sign respective contracts voluntarily. My suggestion to leftists is that if they perform shoddy work don’t offer to work for Trump.If they think because he is rich they can take advantage and charge more, don’t. In the end the contract will prevail.

                  You bring nothing but stupidity and links to the table.

                  1. Once again, Allan responds with insults. He gets off on insulting people he disagrees with.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, don’t consider it an insult to be called Stupid. At least I recognize your existence which is more than you deserve.

                    2. Allan, if you want to be called Allan the Stupid, because it “recognizes your existence, which is more than you deserve,” that only says more about you.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, that would demonstrate once again that you have no imagination.

                    4. I have no desire to be good at insulting people, Allan.

                      You appear to revel in insulting people, and we can see how much you practice at it.

                    5. Anonymous the Stupid, you insult other people all the time. My insults are mostly appropriate. Yours are not.

                    6. No, Allan, I barely insult anyone. You may have me confused with a different anonymous commenter. You often confuse the various anonymous commenters, which is admittedly easy to do, though you won’t admit that you do it regularly.

                      You’re one of the few people I insult. I call you a troll because you are one. Beyond that, I mostly only point out that you’re projecting when you insult others. If you find that insulting, you have only yourself to blame.

                    7. “No, Allan, I barely insult anyone.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, It was pointed out on a case by case basis each person you insulted and that led to relatively high numbers. You tapered down since then which means you have at least a reptilian ability to learn.

                      “You may have me confused with a different anonymous commenter.”

                      Not at all. You gave up your identity by choosing an anonymous one. It is not the job of the person responding to sort out if you are Anonymous the Stupid or not. If you don’t carry an identifiable name and then complain about being called Anonymous the Stupid or attacked for things said by Anonymous the Stupid then you are Anonymous the Stupid.

                      I don’t take anything to heart that Stupid people say.

              1. #1 Rule of law means not breaking the law and changing voting rules outside of the legislature when the constitution of the State says otherwise.

                Ensuring rule of law involves morality. Dershowitz’s example of shoe on the other foot explains it best. That is one of many.

                #2 You have just demonstrated why the Supreme court must strictly follow the rules of the Constitution which it doesn’t. If the Supreme Court acted in accordance with what the founders created there wouldn’t be reliance on the Supreme Court to approve legislation and the Supreme Court would not have the prominence it has today.

    2. The closest thing we have to McCarthyism today is “wokism.” It’s the “liberal left” who is hysterically firing academics and “canceling” people for infringements of their totalitarian ideas.

        1. No. Cancel culture involves a coordinated (preferably universal) boycott of someone to deny him the means of survival, or as close to it as possible.

    3. History did vindicate McCarthy. Hollywood was infested with commies. That is now perfectly clear.

  12. “There is no evidence that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state”

    That is quite the leap, Jonathan.

    As you will find out, there’s lots of evidence.

    1. Watcher, You say there’s lots of evidence? Where is this evidence? When will it be presented?

      1. Jeffrey, Good evidence has been supplied all over the place. Not all the evidence will go to court but some of it just did and you didn’t notice?

        1. If you think there’s evidence in the judge’s ruling “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” quote it.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, stop acting Stupid. Good evidence has been provided all over and not just in one location. Court decisions are based on evidence and some other things. Many want the irregularities hidden for political reasons.

            Instead of being Stupid and not accepting significant evidence accept that there were very significant irregularities in the election. Whether Trump actually won or not the results will not change.

            The aim of sensible people will be to focus on irregularities and try to preserve a healthy election process. You are Stupid so you can only think in terms of win or lose not in terms of the nation or the people.

            You are not a person one can respect.

            1. Allan,

              As your pal John has stated, “We establish the truth of claims by evidence. The party making the claim bears the obligation to prove their claim.”
              https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/15/mutual-destruction-how-trumps-trial-became-a-tale-of-constitutional-noir/comment-page-2/#comment-2063046

              Watcher/Walworths (and other sock names) claimed that “there’s lots of evidence [that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state]”

              He provided no evidence.

              You, Allan, doubled down on it, claiming “Good evidence has been supplied all over the place [that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state],” but you haven’t provide evidence either.

              You and Watcher/Walworths bear the obligation to prove your claim. So far, neither of you has done so.

              Again, if you think there’s evidence in the judge’s ruling “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” quote it.

              As for your insults, they only tell us that you’re someone who gets off on insulting others. Frankly, given your comments, I’d rather be someone you don’t respect than someone you do.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, there is no reason to provide evidence over and over again to the same person who can’t remember more than one variable at a time and when he is proven wrong and never accepts the new facts.

                Loads of evidence has been provided and documented. We just saw a court case which proved the validity of some of that evidence.

                You wish to play dumb because you recognize you aren’t smart enough to defend your positions many of which are indefensible. I call you Anonymous the Stupid not just because of your Stupidity but also because you lie, pretend and do everything you can to hinder drawing proper or logical conclusions. I don’t have to deal nicely with such an idiot.

                AS I said before I get off only on insulting you because you so deserve it. You act as if you have never been able to satisfy the normal relationships with one’s parents and that pushes you to be constantly at war. That is just a guess, but a good possibility based on your behavior.

                1. “We just saw a court case which proved the validity of some of that evidence.”

                  No, we didn’t. Again, Watcher/Walworths claimed that “there’s lots of evidence [that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state],” where the bracketed part in bold comes from JT.

                  Judge Murray’s ruling did NOT suggest “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state.”

                  You avoid quoting anything from Murray’s ruling because you cannot quote anything that suggests “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state.”

                  “there is no reason to provide evidence over and over again”

                  You’ve never provided evidence from Judge Murray’s ruling, which is what I asked about. You instead try to move the goalposts to something else and then handwave about that.

                  I’m unsurprised that you double down on the insults.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, try not being more Stupid than you already are.

                    The quote is “We just saw a court case which proved the validity of some of that evidence.” The operative word is SOME. You are dealing with my quote not someone else’s. That is what Stupid people have to be taught not to do.

                    My quote also didn’t say that the result of that decision would change the election. It was evidence that what you have been saying all along is a lie.

                    You are unable to remain on a singular topic. That is a sign of some problems with how your brain cells communicate with one another. You really need to slow down and try to do what you mostly avoid, thinking.

                    1. “You are unable to remain on a singular topic. ”

                      On the contrary, I’ve remained on the same topic the entire time, which is: Watcher/Walworths unsubstantiated claim that “there’s lots of evidence [that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state]”

                      Once again, you accuse others of your own behavior, and then you insult based on your projection.

                      “My quote also didn’t say that the result of that decision would change the election.”

                      Au contraire, I said “If you think there’s evidence in the judge’s ruling “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” quote it,” and you insisted “Good evidence has been provided all over.”

                      You’re trying to change the referent now because you can’t provide the evidence you insisted exists and you can’t bring yourself to admit you weren’t paying attention and are wrong.

                      All of your insults are projection. You must be really anxious about your own intelligence to be projecting beliefs about stupidity all the time.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you wanted me to argue another person’s statements that weren’t the same as mine or the statements that you quoted. You think you are so smart but you are really dumb.

                      You said in this response that you had said earlier:

                      “If you think there’s evidence in the judge’s ruling “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” quote it,” and you insisted “

                      Get your quotes straight along with what was said, when, and to what. Stop trying to manipulate context. We already know you are a chronic liar.

                      My statement doesn’t limit the evidence to one place.

                      “Good evidence has been provided all over and not just in one location.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you are a fool and don’t even know it.

                  2. No, Allan, I didn’t ask you “to argue another person’s statements.” You chose to step into the middle of an exchange, and I simply called you out on your attempt to move the goalposts.

                    Watcher/Walworths quoted JT, “There is no evidence that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” and responded “That is quite the leap, Jonathan. As you will find out, there’s lots of evidence.”

                    Jeffrey Silberman then responded “Watcher, You say there’s lots of evidence? Where is this evidence? When will it be presented?”

                    Jeffrey was clearly asking Watcher to substantiate that “there’s lots of evidence [that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state].”

                    You then told Jeffrey, “Jeffrey, Good evidence has been supplied all over the place.”

                    Again, since Jeffrey was referring to evidence “that the violation of state law altered the outcome of the election in the state,” that’s what YOUR claim also refers to, Allan.

                    You just can’t bring yourself to admit that either you weren’t paying attention to what Jeffrey was asking about in context or you were purposefully trying to move the goalposts.

                    As for your insults, they’re only that, and more projection on your end.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, stop complaining and whining all the time. You are a grown man, aren’t you? I chose to give my opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad. If you don’t want to hear more, don’t respond.

                      If you feel you are being misinterpreted then make sure you write clearly and for goodness sakes, stop lying and twisting everything into a pretzel.

                      I don’t generally move goalposts but I can’t help it if you are stuck downfield and the goalpost looks far away. That is because you haven’t made your point, lacked facts or otherwise made non-credible comments.

                      If you think I am misinterpreting something you can ask me a direct question skipping your typical attempts at gotcha and you can provide the factual material needed for an answer. Stop playing lets LINK to another long drawn out article that isn’t even on point.

                    2. Yet again, Allan, you demonstrate how your insults are projection of your own weaknesses.

                      “I chose to give my opinion.”

                      And I’ve chosen to give mine. As you say, “If you don’t want to hear more, don’t respond.”

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, you are stuck. This blog is your life. For me it is a diversion or a time to think of ideas contrary to my own along with how those ideas arose and their potential validity. Most of our discussions are one or two minute deals not worth even those minutes but the rest has its purpose. When I give this blog up I can still think almost anywhere and I can always read a book.

                      With that in mind you might want to reread what I previously said. Your comment had nothing worthwhile to think about.

                      Anonymous the Stupid, stop complaining and whining all the time. You are a grown man, aren’t you? I chose to give my opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad. If you don’t want to hear more, don’t respond.

                      If you feel you are being misinterpreted then make sure you write clearly and for goodness sakes, stop lying and twisting everything into a pretzel.

                      I don’t generally move goalposts but I can’t help it if you are stuck downfield and the goalpost looks far away. That is because you haven’t made your point, lacked facts or otherwise made non-credible comments.

                      If you think I am misinterpreting something you can ask me a direct question skipping your typical attempts at gotcha and you can provide the factual material needed for an answer. Stop playing lets LINK to another long drawn out article that isn’t even on point.

                2. “you are stuck.”

                  You describe yourself, Allan.

                  “This blog is your life.”

                  You describe yourself, Allan.

                  “stop complaining and whining all the time.”

                  Take your own advice, Allan.

                  “If you don’t want to hear more, don’t respond.”

                  Take your own advice, Allan.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are stuck. This blog is your life. For me it is a diversion or a time to think of ideas contrary to my own along with how those ideas arose and their potential validity. Most of our discussions are one or two minute deals not worth even those minutes but the rest has its purpose. When I give this blog up I can still think almost anywhere and I can always read a book.

                    With that in mind you might want to reread what I previously said. Your comment had nothing worthwhile to think about.

                    Anonymous the Stupid, stop complaining and whining all the time. You are a grown man, aren’t you? I chose to give my opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad. If you don’t want to hear more, don’t respond.

                    If you feel you are being misinterpreted then make sure you write clearly and for goodness sakes, stop lying and twisting everything into a pretzel.

                    I don’t generally move goalposts but I can’t help it if you are stuck downfield and the goalpost looks far away. That is because you haven’t made your point, lacked facts or otherwise made non-credible comments.

                    If you think I am misinterpreting something you can ask me a direct question skipping your typical attempts at gotcha and you can provide the factual material needed for an answer. Stop playing lets LINK to another long drawn out article that isn’t even on point.

    2. I think we can agree that absolutely vast majority of voters who use an absentee ballot are not attempting to commit voting fraud. That would require a conspiracy.

  13. @Turley,
    What no commentary?
    You’ve pretty much outlined two court rulings in Michigan (This article and another) where the Executive branch (SoS) gave illegal orders.
    While there is no evidence that the orders impacted the election… this is due simply to the fact that no audit or research was done to determine if they impacted the outcome of the election.

    And here’s the problem… all one could do is find ballots envelopes where there was a question over the signature. You don’t know how they voted, however we could extrapolate an estimate.

    What the courts are finding now could have been done back in November and December of last year, giving more time to find a cure.

    Since you’re the law professor, if the courts had to toss the election results, what’s the proscribed cure? Does it go back to the state’s legislature?

    And Turley… There is now finding in VA, MI, WI with other cases yet to be heard.
    Also why are you not up in arms about the rejection from the courts over SCOTUS’s rejection of the PA cases?

    As it stands… applying laches to a constitutional challenge means that any law passed, if not addressed in time (no time limit given) can overturn a portion of the state’s constitution.

  14. How many of President Trump’s claims about election irregularities, illegal activities of election officials, and fraud have been proven correct now?

    How many of the Washington Posts’ and other media outlets lies and false propaganda about President Trump’s actions over the last four years have been or will have to be retracted? Propaganda Is Destroying Trust In The Fourth Estate and Wreaking Havoc On Society

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s hate.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s bigotry.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s irrational aversion to truth and facts.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-American and anti-Constitution ideological leanings.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s leaning towards totalitarianism.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s b a s t a r d i z a t i o n of words and symbols.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-history stance.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-social behaviors.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-respect, anti-logic, anti-critical thinking, and anti-civility.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s Pravda like propaganda media machine.

    If the last four years has shown us anything, it’s shown us how unethical, immoral and corrupt the political left has become. Their ends justifies the means, scorched earth anti-Trump, anti-Conservative and anti-Republican campaigns have reveled that many in the political left have become the evil that they profess to be against to destroy their ideological opposition and gain power. The political left has made its bed, I have no sympathy for them.

    1. The left are fighting the game using the logic that all is fair in love and war. Meaning that they believe that the ends justify the means.

      Trump has been vindicated, yet its too little too late.

    2. “How many of President Trump’s claims about election irregularities, illegal activities of election officials, and fraud have been proven correct now?”

      I’m unaware of anything that Trump himself alleged that has proved true. Maybe I missed something he said. Or maybe you’re attributing something to him that he didn’t say. If you quote whatever you have in mind, we’ll find out.

      As for your rant against the left, RME.

  15. How many of President Trump’s claims about election irregularities, illegal activities of election officials, and fraud have been proven correct now?

    How many of the Washington Posts’ and other media outlets lies and false propaganda about President Trump’s actions over the last four years have been or will have to be retracted? Propaganda Is Destroying Trust In The Fourth Estate and Wreaking Havoc On Society

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s hate.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s bigotry.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s irrational aversion to truth and facts.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-American and anti-Constitution ideological leanings.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s leaning towards totalitarianism.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s bastardization of words and symbols.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-history stance.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-social behaviors.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s anti-respect, anti-logic, anti-critical thinking, and anti-civility.

    President Trump didn’t create the left’s Pravda like propaganda media machine.

    If the last four years has shown us anything, it’s shown us how unethical, immoral and corrupt the political left has become. Their ends justifies the means, scorched earth anti-Trump, anti-Conservative and anti-Republican campaigns have reveled that many in the political left have become the evil that they profess to be against to destroy their ideological opposition and gain power. The political left has made its bed, I have no sympathy for them.

Leave a Reply