Election 2022 Results

[HARK!]

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 U.S. ELECTIONS | Federal Bureau of Investigation

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; FALSE REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME; AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MONEY LAUNDERING

www.fbi.gov

Russia's Prigozhin admits interfering in U.S. elections

Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin said on Monday he had interfered in U.S. elections and would continue doing so in future, the first such admission from a figure implicated by Washington in efforts to influence American politics.

www.reuters.com

New Evidence Shows How Russia’s Election Interference Has Gotten More Brazen

The Kremlin-linked operation behind 2016 election meddling is using similar tactics for 2020, plus some new ones.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

Putin-connected businessman admits interference in U.S. elections

Kremlin-connected entrepreneur Yevgeny Prigozhin admitted Monday that he had interfered in U.S. elections and would continue to do so — confirming for the first time the accusations that he has rejected for years.

www.pbs.org

I read the link to the FBI. It doesn't mention Trump.

 

[NxNW]

Unless you can come up with a credible source (leftist propaganda sites don't count) quoting where they didn't question the results, but just didn't like them, and that was supposedly the reason they didn't want to certify, then show it to us.

The court ruling establishes that they had no valid objections.

 

[Vylo]

I read the link to the FBI. It doesn't mention Trump.

It is in regards to the 2016 election, as it is titled.

 

[Aldebaran]

Never debunked I'm afraid. SCOTUS was indeed stolen. A simple vote was denied for a democratic president, citing a reason suspiciously absent for a republican one.

Stealing the SCOTUS sounds even more serious than a SCOTUS employee leaking classified data, which explains why that person still hasn't been found. So why has nobody been even taken to court for stealing the SCOTUS? No evidence? Just a bunch of disinformation perhaps?

 

[Vylo]

Stealing the SCOTUS sounds even more serious than a SCOTUS employee leaking classified data, which explains why that person still hasn't been found. So why has nobody been even taken to court for stealing the SCOTUS? No evidence? Just a bunch of disinformation perhaps?

Oh it isn't illegal, just extremely immoral. But that doesn't seem to matter for the GOP.

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh it isn't illegal, just extremely immoral. But that doesn't seem to matter for the GOP.

Or it simply isn't true, but that doesn't seem to matter to the other side.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is about the 2022 election.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stealing the SCOTUS sounds even more serious than a SCOTUS employee leaking classified data, which explains why that person still hasn't been found. So why has nobody been even taken to court for stealing the SCOTUS? No evidence? Just a bunch of disinformation perhaps?

Is Sam Alito properly described as a "SCOTUS employee"? (And the Supreme Court can't "classify" anything. That's an executive branch designation for documents.)

 

[Vylo]

Or it simply isn't true, but that doesn't seem to matter to the other side.

I mean it's 100% visible. McConnell literally denied the vote, saying it shouldn't happen in the last year of a president's term, and then turned around and confirmed one in Trump's last term, going back on what he said.

 

[Aldebaran]

I mean it's 100% visible. McConnell literally denied the vote, saying it shouldn't happen in the last year of a president's term, and then turned around and confirmed one in Trump's last term, going back on what he said.

IOW, he was doing his constitutional job. Nothing about stealing, even though that was your original accusation..

 

[Vylo]

IOW, he was doing his constitutional job. Nothing about stealing, even though that was your original accusation..

his job would be to vote on justices presented by the president. he did not do that.

 

[Aldebaran]

his job would be to vote on justices presented by the president. he did not do that.

Because the candidate being presented for justice had no grounds for being heard. Mitch had the right to refuse to hear him.

 

[Vylo]

Because the candidate being presented for justice had no grounds for being heard. Mitch had the right to refuse to hear him.

He certainly had grounds for being heard. He was a candidate that both sides approved of. He's the current AG.

He was twice before on the shortlist of possible SCOTUS nominees, and was called "a very fine man" and the best nominee by Orin Hatch.

 

[SimplyMe]

Because the candidate being presented for justice had no grounds for being heard. Mitch had the right to refuse to hear him.

That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution gives the Senate (not a single member of the Senate, even if the Senate Minority Leader) the responsibility to "advise and consent." The President submitted a nominee, so the Senate had the Constitutional obligation to advise and choose if they would consent. To do that requires a hearing, actually advising, not preventing the Senate from "advise and consent" as the Constitution states is their duty.

 

[mark46]

There seems to be little interest here in today's election.

 

[JSRG]

That isn't what the Constitution says. The Constitution gives the Senate (not a single member of the Senate, even if the Senate Minority Leader) the responsibility to "advise and consent." The President submitted a nominee, so the Senate had the Constitutional obligation to advise and choose if they would consent. To do that requires a hearing, actually advising, not preventing the Senate from "advise and consent" as the Constitution states is their duty.

The Constitution does not give the Senate any duty to advise and consent. It's a restriction on the power of the president (he cannot appoint people without the advice and consent (that is, permission) of the Senate), not an obligation to the Senate. The
Senate has no constitutional requirement to take any action on nominees. If the Constitution was actually assigning an obligation, then logically the Senate would have to consent to each and every single nominee (it says advise and consent, not advise and/or consent), making the whole thing pointless.

It's not even a new thing for the Senate to simply take no action and wait around for the next guy to offer someone they like more, though they tend to get a whole lot less attention because they're of less notable positions than that of the Supreme Court. Heck, it's not even unprecedented for the Supreme Court; you do have to go back a bit for that, but it nevertheless did happen, when the Democrat-controlled Senate opted to take no action on Millard Fillmore's Supreme Court nominations (Fillmore was a Whig). Then after the election, when a Democrat won, they promptly confirmed his choice.

 

[wing2000]

Arizona certified the election on Monday: (expect more incoming lawsuits from the losers...including Kari Lake)

Now that the canvass is signed, the winning candidates will receive certificates of election. The completion of the canvass also kicks off a five-day period in which election challenges can be filed and is the "start" signal for three automatic recounts required by state law.

The Secretary of State's Office will go to court Monday to get an order to permit the 15 counties to release the Nov. 8 ballots to begin those recounts, according to Assistant Secretary of State Allie Bones.

Recounts will occur in the race for superintendent of public instruction, between leader Tom Horne, a Republican, and Democratic incumbent Kathy Hoffman; for state attorney general, between leader Kris Mayes, a Democrat, and Republican Abe Hamadeh; and for a state House of Representatives seat in Legislative District 13 in Chandler, between leader Liz Harris and Julie Willoughby, both Republicans.

Katie Hobbs certifies 2022 Arizona election in ceremony at Capitol

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs officially certified the Nov. 8 election results, a routine step that clears the way for lawsuits and recounts to begin.

www.azcentral.com

 

[Aldebaran]

He certainly had grounds for being heard. He was a candidate that both sides approved of. He's the current AG.

He was twice before on the shortlist of possible SCOTUS nominees, and was called "a very fine man" and the best nominee by Orin Hatch.

Mitch was the majority leader, duly elected by the people to represent them. If you don't like the way he voted, then wait until the next election.

 

[Vylo]

Mitch was the majority leader, duly elected by the people to represent them. If you don't like the way he voted, then wait until the next election.

He didn't vote. That was the issue.

 

[Aldebaran]

He didn't vote. That was the issue.

That's his right.