Trump team wins hearings in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania legislatures on election concerns

[TLK Valentine]

I am starting to get the feeling that Republican Lawmakers don’t keep their word.

I'm starting to get the feeling they're not taking Rudy seriously.

 

[Goonie]

I'm starting to get the feeling they're not taking Rudy seriously.

Given the fact that the Trump campaign previously booked him to speak at the four seasons total landscaping, the trump campaign aren't taking him seriously either.

 

[Albion]

I am starting to get the feeling that Republican Lawmakers don’t keep their word.

If they gave their word on the condition that what they were promised by election officials would be done--but then it was not done--where does the blame belong?

 

[TLK Valentine]

LOL ... at its peak, the GOP was marginally willing to follow Trump.

If that is so, then the GOP has more integrity than I gave them credit for.

In all fairness, that would be easy.

Many have said there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Many are ignorant. They say all sorts of nonsense.

You might remember that's largely why Trump was elected to begin with. Republican voters were fed up with the established Republican party.

And four years of Donald has convinced them that they were better off with the Devil they knew... after all, he lost, but the rest of the GOP racked up wins.

 

[NotreDame]

Trump team wins hearings in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania legislatures on election concerns

"State Legislatures are uniquely qualified and positioned to hold hearings on election irregularities and fraud before electors are chosen," the press release said. "As established in Article 2, Section 1.2 of the United States Constitution, State Legislatures have the sole authority to select their representatives to the Electoral College, providing a critical safeguard against voter fraud and election manipulation."​

Yawn. State legislatures are limited in their remedies by the U.S. Constitution. Just as court remedies are constrained by the Constitutional right to vote, so too are the legislatures. It is very doubtful they will constitutionally be permitted to cast out hundreds of thousands of votes on the basis of some irregularities, fraud, and manipulation.

And I wonder what additional evidence of fraud, manipulation, and irregularities these legislatures will discover that the Trump lawyers didn’t discover to present to a court.

This is, I suspect, a pony show by these legislates to placate the petulant, crying child in the White House and nothing more.

 

[NotreDame]

It appears that weasels at the state level have quickly backed away from commitments to the Trump campaign.
State Legislators In Three Swing States Were Caught Off Guard By the Trump Camp's Latest Announcement

Pennsylvania:

The Pennsylvania Senate Majority, however, tweeted this would be an informal meeting, not a hearing.​

Arizona:

According to the Trump campaign, the Arizona legislature will hear a hearing on Monday, November 30.

Elected officials, however, said there was nothing on the books.​

Michigan:

The campaign stated the Michigan legislature was slated to hold a hearing on Tuesday, December 1.
...
The House was hoping to have Giuliani make a presentation but determined it wouldn't be possible.
...
Instead, the campaign has been invited to submit written testimony for members to review.​

Careful, you’re showing unadulterated bias, and outcome driven point of view, by calling them “weasels.” Maybe the “weasels” are those who advocated for and support the original idea.

 

[Petros2015]

Jimmy’s got the whooping cough,
And Timmy’s got the measles,
That’s the way the story goes,
Pop! goes the weasel...

 

[NotreDame]

‘Weasels’ - ? What are you basing that character assassination on?

They have chosen to do something he personally finds unpalatable. Begin with the unsubstantiated claim of widespread fraud, manipulation, and irregularities, attach that to the unsubstantiated idea hundreds of thousands of votes, a numerical number at least great enough to cost Trump re-election, and one arrives to the notion it is a good idea for the legislatures to investigate the very claims Trump’s lawyers couldn’t provide evidence for in various courts (think about that, a lawyer’s trade is to deal in evidence and courts, shockingly to some, prefer evidence) and triumphantly negate thousands of votes based on this pink unicorns do exist kind of theory and choose electors in the middle of the game for Trump.

That kind of person calls the people under discussion above “weasels.”

 

[NightHawkeye]

Careful, you’re showing unadulterated bias, and outcome driven point of view, by calling them “weasels.” Maybe the “weasels” are those who advocated for and support the original idea.

LOL ... can you point me to where I claimed to lack an opinion?

 

[NightHawkeye]

They have chosen to do something he personally finds unpalatable.

My characterization was 'stinky'.

 

[NotreDame]

LOL ... can you point me to where I claimed to lack an opinion.

Why would I? I never said you lacked an opinion. What I did say was your opinion is the furthest thing from anything that can be considered objective. But hey, do not let anyone be an impediment to your swim in a sea of partisan bias, devoid of any attempt at or appearance of being objective. Partisan group think is your cup of tea, then far be it from me to deter you from making it your only drink, consumed in unhealthy large quantities.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why would I? I never said you lacked an opinion. What I did say was your opinion is the furthest thing from anything that can be considered objective. But hey, do not let anyone be an impediment to your swim in a sea of partisan bias, devoid of any attempt at or appearance of being objective.

Why would I want to appear to be unbiased? I offer my opinion and topics which interest me for the purpose of discussion. I have little interest in disguising what I think.

That said, I am interested in facts and the truth. Feel free to present some.

 

[MIDutch]

This is, I suspect, a pony show by these legislates to placate the petulant, crying child in the White House and nothing more.

Which is really weird given that he's a lame duck president and his relevance is diminishing by the minute.

 

[NotreDame]

Would you have liked the term 'skunk' better?

In regard to Michigan, reading legislators own statements, it seems clear enough that Giuliani was told there would be hearings. Instead, the legislators backed out of that commitment. Kinda stinky. Know what I mean?

Maybe it was rational. Maybe it was wise. After all, there’s no evidence of massive fraud.

 

[Desk trauma]

With how poorly they are doing it court, where they have to substate their claims or they are thrown out, it makes sense to set up in venues where no such requirement is present.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yawn. State legislatures are limited in their remedies by the U.S. Constitution. Just as court remedies are constrained by the Constitutional right to vote, so too are the legislatures. It is very doubtful they will constitutionally be permitted to cast out hundreds of thousands of votes on the basis of some irregularities, fraud, and manipulation.

Even if the aforementioned irregularities, fraud, and manipulation could be proven in court... which, AFAIK, it has not.

And I wonder what additional evidence of fraud, manipulation, and irregularities these legislatures will discover that the Trump lawyers didn’t discover to present to a court.

I've seen some interesting videos... I suppose Team Donald will argue to SCOTUS that a youtube account counts as an affidavit... should be good for a laugh.

This is, I suspect, a pony show by these legislates to placate the petulant, crying child in the White House and nothing more.

Except it might be more... it might be an attempt to rile up his devoted followers... to what end, I cannot say.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That hearing in PA? It's just a bunch of random republicans getting together at a Wyndham hotel in Gettysburg. It is not a hearing in any real sense.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaigns legal dream team is embarrassing themselves in federal court.

A Wyndham by the highway. This is the kind of place I'd stop at if I was passing through Gettysburg. (OK, I'd probably go down a step in the Wyndham portfolio cause I'm cheap.) It's one of those drab mid-scale chain hotels located in a plot of grass and parking adjacent to the limited access highway (US-15) where it meets another highway (US-30). In the same cluster of commercial development on Presidential Circle is a brewpub, the (Supreme) Court-yard by Marriot (a hotel, not an actual law court), and a movie theater that seems to be open.

The best part of the whole story was the "NewsRumor" that was circulating last night (unconfirmed statements to reporters) that Trump himself was planning to attend. Maybe if he likes the facilities he can rent it out for his inaugural ball.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe it was rational. Maybe it was wise. After all, there’s no evidence of massive fraud.

Doesn't seem to be evidence of any fraud, massive or otherwise.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Meanwhile, the Trump campaigns legal dream team is embarrassing themselves in federal court.

Well, after you embarrassed yourself in all the state courts, it's time for bigger and better venues.

The Three Stooges started out on the vaudeville stage before getting into movies.

 

[NotreDame]

That said, I am interested in facts and the truth. Feel free to present some.

You first.

In addition, how logically would that work? I’m supposed to produce facts for something that doesn’t exist? Really? Tell me, how would one provide facts for the non-existent pink unicorn? I logically can’t provide facts for non-existent widespread fraud because no such facts exist by virtue of there isn’t any widespread fraud for the facts to exist.

And you aren’t “interested in facts and truth.” Your admission of being biased in response to my allegation of lacking objectivity isn’t consistent with such an interest. Rather, you are interested in facts and a truth that confirm your beliefs, hence, lack of objectivity.

Why would I want to appear to be unbiased? I offer my opinion and topics which interest me for the purpose of discussion. I have little interest in disguising what I think.

Without venturing into a deep philosophical answer as to the importance of objectivity, even the appearance of it, the notion of being taken seriously is a good reason. Otherwise, people just roll their eyes and chalk it up as one of many unapologetic, partisan threads detached from any objective view of facts and reality.