Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Georgia And Michigan Federal Courts Dismiss Sidney Powell Election Lawsuits

Georgia And Michigan Federal Courts Dismiss Sidney Powell Election Lawsuits

In each case the dismissal was based on jurisdiction and pleading standards, but the judges issued dramatic made-for-media declarations such as “The People have spoken” (Michigan) and “They want this court to substitute its judgment for the 2.5 million voters who voted for Biden” (Georgia).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anduXwcSIrc

Sidney Powell filed two federal court lawsuits, the so-called Kraken, in Michigan and Georgia. We covered the filing, Sidney Powell Releases “The Kraken” in Georgia and Michigan Federal Lawsuits.

Both lawsuits were dismissed today. In each case, the judges issued dramatic soundbites made for media quotation — a now all-too-common federal practice that predates the election disputes. We saw similar drama in the various travel and immigrations cases, where district courts acted like they were auditioning for cable news.

The Judge in Georgia has not released a written opinion yet, but according to reports of the hearing, ruled that the federal court had no jurisiction in the case:

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten dismissed the lawsuit, which was bought by former Trump attorney Sidney Powell in an attempt to decertify Georgia’s election.

“They want this court to substitute its judgment for the 2.5 million voters who voted for Biden,” Batten said in court in Atlanta. “This I’m unwilling to do.” ….

Batten dismissed the case based on similar reasoning as the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided Saturday that a Trump supporter, L. Lin Wood, lacked standing to sue, and that federal courts have limited jurisdiction in cases contesting election results. Those kinds of cases should be filed in state courts, Batten said.

So it was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The dramatic statements were gratuitous. A formal opinion will issue, so expect more quotable language.

In Michigan, the court issued similarly dramatic statements in a 36-page Opinion:

The right to vote is among the most sacred rights of our democracy and, in turn, uniquely defines us as Americans. The struggle to achieve the right to vote is one that has been both hard fought and cherished throughout our country’s history.

Local, state, and federal elections give voice to this right through the ballot. And elections that count each vote celebrate and secure this cherished right. These principles are the bedrock of American democracy and are widely revered as being woven into the fabric of this country. In Michigan, more than 5.5 million citizens exercised the franchise either in person or by absentee ballot during the 2020 General Election. Those votes were counted and, as of November 23, 2020, certified by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers (also “State Board”). The Governor has sent the slate of Presidential Electors to the Archivist of the United States to confirm the votes for the successful candidate.

Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, bringing forth claims of widespread voter irregularities and fraud in the processing and tabulation of votes and absentee ballots. They seek relief that is stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach. If granted, the relief would disenfranchise the votes of the more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise of a voice, participated in the 2020 General Election. The Court declines to grant Plaintiffs this relief.

* * *

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are far from likely to succeed in this matter. In fact, this lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court— and more about the impact of their allegations on People’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government. Plaintiffs ask this Court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters. This, the Court cannot, and will not, do.

The People have spoken.

How dramatic! Fits so nicely in a tweet.

But the basis for the ruling was more mundane, that the federal court could not order a state election result change under the doctrine of sovereign immunity: “For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants”; the case was moot because certification was complete so there was nothing to enjoin, and plaintiffs failed to use state procedures to challenge the certification; “laches,” the plaintiffs waited too long and could have brought the lawsuit prior to certification; and lack of “standing” to sue. Because the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of succeeding because of these legal problems, the request for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Beyond that, the judge volunteered (it was unnecessary) that the plaintiffs had no substantive case:

“The closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that election machines and software changed votes for President Trump to Vice President Biden in Wayne County is an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible….

With nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim fails.1″

That’s a legitimate criticism, similar to my evaluation:

What is lacking is the who/what/when/where that would show (1) a clearly identifiable group of ballots for Biden that were unlawfully counted, or for Trump that were not counted, as opposed to some unspecified number anecdotally demonstrated through affidavits, and (2) the software actually was manipulated in this instance, as opposed to being vulnerable to manipulation.

This problem highlights the overarching problem that the courts want challengers to come into court with all the evidence buttoned-up, but much of the evidence is in the hands of the states, not the plaintiffs. In a normal lawsuit there would be discovery and evidence gathering. But on the quick timeline of the presidential election process, courts are not going to permit it.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Absent a stunning Supreme Court decision, I am afraid this battle is lost. The burden of proof is too burdensome for any Republican to carry. If it were a Democrat ….

    Concise in reply to dystopia. | December 7, 2020 at 4:16 pm

    Nonsense. State legislatures have the power and duty to act. There’s no heavy burden there and the legislatures are the proper constitutional body to resolve this. Republicans fail there out of choice not evidentiary burden.

      dystopia in reply to Concise. | December 7, 2020 at 4:19 pm

      There is the burden of proof for Republicans — beyond all Reasonable Doubt and the Burden of Proof for Democrats, Reasonable Suspicion.

      Sadly I don’t see any State Legislatures lining up to act before the Electors Vote in a few days.

      Olinser in reply to Concise. | December 7, 2020 at 4:19 pm

      Yeah except for the fact that the Georgia legislature IS NOT IN SESSION, and Kemp has now EXPLICITLY refused to call them back into session.

      The GOP gimps want Trump to lose, and they don’t care if the Democrats cheat to do it.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Olinser. | December 7, 2020 at 4:25 pm

        No more ballots for any of them, but now only the immediacy of …….

        The GOPe is reprising the role once played by Franz von Papen. Establishment Republicans are convinced the Communists will overplay their hand and the GOP will come roaring back in 2022 – with open borders pro-gun control pro-Obamacare leadership back in control. You can see the pure joy in the eyes of the NeverTrump cabel.

        Establishment Republicans are far too stupid and arrogant to realize it, but our constitutional republic no longer exists since November 3. Von Papen is rightfully reviled in history as a sleazy schemer who delivered Germany to a genocidal maniac in a dirty deal to one day make himself Chancellor (which didn’t exactly work out, to put it mildly). The Republican Party will likewise be remembered for helping the Communists gain power, and they will be equally liable for the poverty, injustice, death and destruction that are now sure to come.

        The GOPe is in for the shock of their lives. Not only will they NOT gain control of House and Senate in 2022, they will likely get blown out at every single level of government as millions of votes are mysteriously “found” to turn what is left of the country into a corrupt Third World hellhole. The runoff elections in Georgia may very well be the first stunning blow to the GOPe’s smug belief in its own cleverness in colluding against Trump.

        ILoveLamp in reply to Olinser. | December 7, 2020 at 6:23 pm

        The US constitution doesn’t say anything about a Governor’s permission being needed for a state legislature to act.

          Milhouse in reply to ILoveLamp. | December 7, 2020 at 7:38 pm

          If it’s not in session it can’t do anything. And how it gets in session is a matter for the state constitution.

          Even if it were in session, if its state constitution is anything like the US one it can’t pass anything without the governor’s assent, and that would include a law changing the method for choosing electors.

          Another snag: The US constitution says that although each state’s legislature decides how that state will choose its electors, Congress decides when that choice will be made. And Congress decided that the electors had to be chosen on Nov 3. The choice was made then; everything that’s happening now is simply figuring out what that choice was. So it would be too late for a state legislature to change its mind and pick a different method for choosing, because whatever that new method might be it would not be usable until Nov-5-2024.

          felixrigidus in reply to ILoveLamp. | December 7, 2020 at 8:46 pm

          Once again Milhouse displays a curious lack of understanding and inconsistent standards.

          “If it’s not in session it can’t do anything. And how it gets in session is a matter for the state constitution.”

          Who decides that? The other day Milhouse lectured everyone about how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania could disregard the Pennsylvanian constitution and its own precent because of reasons. One must assume those are whatever allows the steal to succeed.

          “Even if it were in session, if its state constitution is anything like the US one it can’t pass anything without the governor’s assent, and that would include a law changing the method for choosing electors.”

          The governor might be able to veto legislation but that is not the same as being able to veto every act of the legislature. The US constitution is quite specific which branch of government in the states is to act. Hint: it is not the executive or the judicial branch.

          “Another snag: The US constitution says that although each state’s legislature decides how that state will choose its electors, Congress decides when that choice will be made. And Congress decided that the electors had to be chosen on Nov 3.”

          So Milhouse, are you saying that accepting mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania a week after the 3rd – as the rogue PA Supreme Court majority decreed – was, gasp, unconstitutional? If I remember correctly, you lectured us that whatever the state supreme court says binds SCOTUS?

          Now, if the state legislature were to authoritatively interpret the meaning of whatever language is in their prior pronouncements, surely you, Milhouse, the defender of the state’s absolute power to disregard its own rules without that being in any way subject to review by SCOTUS, would not suddenly tell us that their actions now can be reviewed after all?

          Milhouse in reply to ILoveLamp. | December 7, 2020 at 10:08 pm

          Wow. What a display of idiocy, all in one package.

          1. A state legislature’s entire operation is under its constitution. It is a creation of its constitution, and only exists because its constitution says so. That is obvious. The state constitution dictates when it’s in session, and how it can act.

          2. The final word on what a state constitution, or any state law means belongs to its highest court. No federal court gets a say in the matter. So yes, the PA Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore its constitution just as the US Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore the US constitution, and in both cases nobody can do anything about it.

          3. “The governor might be able to veto legislation but that is not the same as being able to veto every act of the legislature.” If it has the same provision as the US constitution does, then yes it is the same. The US constitution says very plainly that every single thing that requires a vote in both chambers must be presented to the president. That means every single thing congress does.

          Things that don’t need a vote of both chambers are not actions of the congress but only of one chamber. For instance congress does not ratify treaties or nominations; those are acts of the senate, not of the congress. So they don’t need the president’s assent. But for something to be an action of the congress it needs either the president’s assent or a veto override.

          So if a state constitution has the same provision and both chambers of the state legislature vote on some proposed action but the governor refuses then the legislature has not acted. At least that’s a solid argument that can be made, and will be if they try it. And if it goes to SCOTUS it will have to ask the PA Supreme Court to interpret this provision, and accept its answer as authoritative. And we know what the PA court will say.

          4. No, you idiot, I am not saying that accepting mail-in ballots a week after the 3rd was unconstitutional. At least not for violating the date for choosing the electors that congress set. The choice happened on Nov 3. We are now in the process of determining what choice was made on that day. And federal law makes no objection to a state choosing to let ballots cast on or before that day come in late.

          Of course any ballots cast after Nov 3 are fraudulent — everyone agrees on that. Nobody openly admits to wanting to count votes cast after the 3rd. The Dems don’t say otherwise. They just say that if you don’t know when a ballot was cast they will give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it was cast on time. And the PA court agrees.

          The only possible constitutional objection to that is that the legislature didn’t agree to that; that’s a valid argument that SCOTUS may well take up. But the argument that merely accepting the ballots after the 3rd violates the national date for choosing electors is untenable. Making a new choice, though, would definitely violate it.

          5. Finally, no legislature has the right to interpret laws, including ones it made itself. It can change a law, but it can’t say what the existing law means. That’s fundamental, as SCOTUS has bluntly reminded congress several times. Interpreting laws is the judicial function, and belongs to the judicial branch. The legislative branch can scream and yell that that’s not what it meant, but the judicial branch is the one that decides.

          countrylaw in reply to ILoveLamp. | December 8, 2020 at 9:38 am

          The final word on what a state constitution, or any state law means belongs to its highest court. No federal court gets a say in the matter. So yes, the PA Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore its constitution just as the US Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore the US constitution, and in both cases nobody can do anything about it.

          @Milhouse You may have missed the legal imbroglio concerning California’s Proposition 187 or Proposition 8 in Federal Court.

          felixrigidus in reply to ILoveLamp. | December 8, 2020 at 10:47 am

          Milhouse, thank you for being as civil as you know to be.
          Let me ask you a few questions, if I may?

          1.) Since you now say that the constitution of a state actually has a meaning, does that have any consequences for your assertion that the open disregard for the procedure of changing the constitution of, say, Pennsylvania? Is there any point where you would think the disregard for the constitution is so egregious that a court cannot successfully claim to “interpret” the constitution?
          And speaking of that, if your theory of judicial supremacy is accurate, the sovereign of Pennsylvania, for example, would be the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as opposed to its people. Is that a violation of the Constitution that mandates a republican form of government for each state?
          Wow. What a display of idiocy, all in one package.

          2.) According to your theory of the court as sovereign “yes, the PA Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore its constitution just as the US Supreme Court can unlawfully ignore the US constitution, and in both cases nobody can do anything about it” – how did that work out for King George and why would a bunch of black robes fare better?

          3.) You assume the words in the constitution have any meaning. But we have established that they don’t, according to your theory of judicial supremacy: they can be disregarded and “nobody can do anything about it” (so sayeth Milhouse).

          4.) Ah, wise teacher, so you say accepting ballots after November 3 is acceptable as long as you “presume” they have been “cast” before November 3? Although your “presumtion” may not be overcome under any circumstance, except direct witness of the election judge that, of course, may not witness the action of an “absentee voter”? Makes sense.
          I guess for the next election all participants will have to order a lot of paper and find those ballots and whoever manages to produce more fraudulent but “presumably legal” ballots wins. Clearly, wise teacher Milhouse, the way to keep the republic.

          5.) Clearly, you are wrong. If only the judiciary can “interpret” the law, neither executive nor legislature could know what the law is. How could they execute what they cannot understand. And if we’re getting cute, the courts cannot interpret their decisions, can they?
          Now, if you want to say that in a case or controversy about the meaning of the law the courts adjudicate and decide – within the bounds of reason and what the people are willing to accept as an expression of judicial power as opposed of legislative power – nobody would take issue with your assertion. However, you overstate your case by saying that the court can act openly and utterly unlawful. So if the executive branch then reads the decision and interprets it with the same faithfulness as the court interpreted the constitution and the laws, what then? Enlighten us, please, oh Wise One.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Concise. | December 7, 2020 at 4:26 pm

      No state legislature is going to do squat. They should but they won’t.

    Even your screen name screams that there is no hope. But many things are yet possible. Wait and see.

    2smartforlibs in reply to dystopia. | December 7, 2020 at 5:16 pm

    Don’t be so dramatic. This opens the door to the SCOUTS.

Proof of signature matching isn’t there.

The courts won’t act. The legislature went home to hide. The investigators are looking for more donuts and coffee. The People involved in these elections need to be asked questions under oath.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to r2468. | December 7, 2020 at 4:33 pm

    As they are being ridden out of the country tarred and feathered on a very knotty pine log rail?????

The rules need to be changed to that election challenges can go straight to the Supreme Court.

Paul In Sweden | December 7, 2020 at 4:29 pm

It really does not seem there are any legal remedies in the increasingly corrupt elections, no-standing prior to the elections because you have not yet been injured & not enough time to go through appeals and federal court after the elections. The law in America is what the establishment says it is. How long until we hear PRESS-Elect Biden say the US Constitution is just an “idea”, looks like we are well on our way.

There are few resources left to Americans when facing government tyranny and corruption.

This is the outgrowth of Bush v Gore. Yes, there can be state-conducted recounts, but the US Supreme Court cut that process short because of an overall federal time frame. The man who is ahead in the count when the judicial curtain falls, is the winner. In this case it is Joe Biden.

There are a bunch of state and federal laws covering these topics. Basically, they say, all the valid votes are counted, there is a limited opportunity to challenge votes, the vote totals are certified, the statute then says the party with the most votes has its slate of electors submitted to the Electoral College. There was some last-minute tweaking before the election to address COVID, but clear laws were in place and carried out. If Trump wanted a broad-based challenge, he should have hired a group of election law experts before Nov. 3, and not back fill with less-than-expert lawyers weeks after election day.

    Mac45 in reply to lawgrad. | December 7, 2020 at 5:27 pm

    A couple of things here.

    In the 2000 Florida Presidential election, two recounts were conducted, one mechanical and one hand. Both confirmed that Bush won the state. A third audit was conducted in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, both Democrat strongholds. In those actions, dimpled chads, hanging chads and virtually any other mark on the ballot was counted in an effort to find enough votes to declare Gore the winner. It failed. The Dem wanted to continue searching for votes. The SCOTUS looked t the situation and said that the Dems had had four bites if the apple and had still failed to produce any evidence, actual or circumstantial, that Gore won the race in Florida. So, time had run out.

    Now, this election is substantially different. Here we have substantial evidence that fraud was likely to have occurred. As this evidence is presented to various courts, we see those courts simply ignoring this evidence. Their justification for taking no action has been, “Nothing to see here, move along”. Or, possibly, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”.

    My favorite position, that courts have taken here, is to refuse to take any action to protect the vote of legal Trump voters while claiming they are doing it to protect the votes of Biden voters. Once again, some people and their rights are me important than others, in the eyes of the government.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to lawgrad. | December 7, 2020 at 8:22 pm

    Thanks Mac.

    In other words, no comparison!

    artichoke in reply to lawgrad. | December 8, 2020 at 2:06 pm

    So to avoid being cheated you have to lawyer up *before* the event? Sure they’ll teach that in law school, it maximizes legal employment and influence. I’ve seen so many normal people twisted by law school.

    The intent of allowing months between the election and inauguration must be to double and triple check the results and resolve discrepancies. Well we’ve got big honking discrepancies, and better law grads can find legal ways to resolve them according to the original intention of the voting laws.

Can you imagine the response if the aggrieved parties were black?

They did the same thing to Jackson (albeit differently) and he came back and cleaned shop the next time around. Democrats have, in a large sense, shown the way. For good to prevail it’s always been a small group willing to stand their ground on the green. Sadly, the dems have more guts to win dirty than conservatives. We fight fire with fire or we’re doomed.

We need to hold every state legislator accountable for spinelessness, start at the ground level and work up. This battle must be fought on every level, in every election.

Convention of states – a constitutional amendment to abolish mail-in-ballots, same day registration, and other things. We need a slate of candidates in 38 states who will pass it, and primary out anyone who refuses.

    JDmyrm in reply to JDmyrm. | December 7, 2020 at 4:43 pm

    And before y’all yell that there is no security in the law – if that is true we have much more serious problems and the remedies are extreme.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to JDmyrm. | December 7, 2020 at 4:55 pm

      Those extreme remedies are on my mind a lot these days.

      mailman in reply to JDmyrm. | December 8, 2020 at 2:25 am

      No remedy is as extreme as disenfranchised over 160 million LEGAL Americans who voted (regardless of whether it was for a D,R or I). By allowing fraud on this scale to go unchallenged and unchecked makes every single LEGAL vote utterly pointless because its now being shown that a single political party can decide on its own who wins and who loses elections.

      That should concern everyone regardless of their [sane] political beliefs

    artichoke in reply to JDmyrm. | December 8, 2020 at 2:02 pm

    I don’t think there’s a 2nd go-round. I am not on board with Q which said in its penultimate post that “nobody can stop what’s happening” and what’s happening is a great big postmortem audit, but “it had to be this way” regarding POTUS. It doesn’t have to be that way.

“…the judges issued dramatic made-for-media declarations…”

Translation: The fix is in; has been in; and will always be in ’cause Orange Man Bad, see? So bend over and take it hard up the poop chute ’cause your masters have perfected Goebbels’ THE BIG LIE.

Besides, you rubes wouldn’t dare shoot us the face. Right? Right??

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to locomotivebreath1901. | December 7, 2020 at 8:28 pm

    The made-for-television over the top melodramatics only points out they have zero confidence just like all bullies.

    Time to take them out of society.

      SCOTUS can use them to cast doubt on the veracity of the stated legal reason for reaching the decision. Most of these ideologues have to shout it from the rooftops but we’re supposed to ignore it … suppose we don’t.

“They want this court to substitute its judgment for the 2.5 million voters who voted for Biden.” That’s the point of the lawsuit, mush brains. We don’t know how many people voted for Joe Pedo.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Judges are just lawyers with black gowns and big egos, never forget that.

    henrybowman in reply to CrustyB. | December 7, 2020 at 7:07 pm

    “They want this court to substitute its judgment for the 2.5 million voters who voted for Biden”

    But when some robed weasel in Hawaii repeatedly does the same to the voters who voted for Donald, that’s OK.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to CrustyB. | December 7, 2020 at 8:39 pm

    You mean professional criminals.

All of this is Catch-22 writ large.

“Mister, can I have a job?”
“Do you have any experience?”
“No.”
“Well, come back when you have some experience.”
“How can I get some experience?”
“Get a job.”

“The Democrats cheated.”
“Do you have any evidence?”
“The Democrats control the equipment that contains the evidence we need. And they’ve been destroying much if not all of that evidence.”
“Well, come back when you find the evidence the Democrats destroyed. Until then, case dismissed.”

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten was appointed by George W Bush in 2005. Another Roberts wannabe.

Part of exposing widespread government corruption includes a stress test for the judicial branch. If we see political decisions versus legal decisions, we will know real and critical reforms are needed in that branch as well. Was it part of the overall plan? Probably. Seems as if the PDJT legal team and those assisting the legal team had everything pretty much ready to go prior to the election, all they needed was for the dems to cheat. I refuse to believe PDJT did not plan for all of this, in fact he has all but said so.

2smartforlibs | December 7, 2020 at 5:17 pm

We have a long way to go the issue is Tomorrow the State has to either pick or get off the pot.

I feel like the rules are set for Joe to win regardless of the evidence. That seems unfair to me.
So I say let’s play by the new rules. After the courts and legislatures give us the brush off, bring on the military justice system. Set some New rules. Refuse to abide by the BS election and see what happens. What can Congress or Supreme Court do if DJT stays put? It’s called a Constitution crisis and the Dems started it by breaking the norms.

I see it going to SCOTUS
Fraud in a federal election whether the evidence is circumstantial or otherwise altering the results to not align with the will of the people MUST be addressed in a way that makes perpetrators and other willing participants not want to engage in such acts

“They want this court to substitute its judgment for the 2.5 million voters who voted for Biden”

No, they want the court to reverse the fraud and recognize reality, that being that 2.5 million people did not and could not have voted for Bite – Me.

This might be one of the few times in history that the Federals have voluntarily said that this is up to the states. They don’t do such power-shifting (aka blame-shifting) actions without a reason and that reason is the lack of a spine and the presence of an ulterior motive.

I’m afraid Yeats was right 100 years ago:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

He foresaw the Republican legislatures when he wrote “The best lack all conviction”.

The GA legislature should meet anyway and do what needs to be done.

When Kemp or anyone else says it’s illegal the response should be that under the Constitution the state legislature has authority over the electoral process for the state and it doesn’t need the governors permission to exercise this constitutional right.

    Milhouse in reply to TheOldZombie. | December 7, 2020 at 7:44 pm

    If it’s not in session then it can’t act. Anything its members do would not be an act of the legislature.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2020 at 8:55 pm

      How do you, Milhouse, know they are not in session? If a quorum is actually there and says they are in session, I’m quite sure their declaration is much more reliable than your musings they are not in session, wouldn’t you agree?

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 7, 2020 at 10:13 pm

        It depends what the state constitution says. If the state constitution says that the governor summons the legislature, then if he hasn’t done so it’s not in session.

        The Georgia constitution allows for the legislature to call itself into session when 3/5’s of the members request it. The Gov “shall” call the legislature into session upon receipt of this and if the gov does not, then after 3 days the legislature calls itself into session.

        Milhouse does his usual, gives an opinion about law while not reading the actual law.

        Article V
        Section 2
        Paragraph VII

        (b) The Governor shall convene the General Assembly in special session for all purposes whenever three-fifths of the members to which each house is entitled certify to the Governor in writing, with a copy to the Secretary of State, that in their opinion an emergency exists in the affairs of the state. The General Assembly may convene itself if, after receiving such certification, the Governor fails to do so within three days, excluding Sundays.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 7, 2020 at 11:57 pm

          Did I ever deny that, or imply otherwise? On the contrary, this backs me up entirely. If the legislature is not in session it can’t convene itself. It must be called into session by the governor. If he doesn’t anything it does is a nullity.

          And he doesn’t have to do it unless 3/5 of members want him to; do Republicans have a 3/5 majority?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2020 at 1:46 am

          You never mention the Georgia constitution allows what you imply it does not,

          “The General Assembly may convene itself if, after receiving such certification, the Governor fails to do so within three days, excluding Sundays.”

          It is not necessary for the Gov to approve.

          You didn’t make a judgement about the likelihood of it happening, you say it can’t without the governors approval, and that is flat out wrong.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2020 at 5:26 pm

          Barry, you’re a f*cking liar. I did not say anything about what the GA constitution says. All I said was that if the legislature is not in session it can’t act, and that how it gets in session is up to the state constitution. If it says that the governor summons the legislature, then if he hasn’t done so it’s not in session. Obviously if it provides other means for it to get into session then that can happen.

          But as it happens, now that you’ve cited the relevant clauses, we see that the legislature can’t call itself into session, and that the claim that “If a quorum is actually there and says they are in session, I’m quite sure their declaration is much more reliable” is wrong. Two thirds may demand a session, and call it if the governor refuses; not the legislature, but a super-majority of it. Now, do the Reps have such a super-majority? If not then how is that clause relevant? We are discussing a proposal that “The GA legislature should meet anyway and do what needs to be done”. That cannot happen if it’s not in session.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2020 at 7:11 pm

          Once again you make up shit. Here are your words:

          “It must be called into session by the governor. If he doesn’t anything it does is a nullity.”

          That is flat out wrong. You’re not lying, you’re just too lazy to look up the relevant data.

          Whenever you’re wrong you resort to calling people names and claiming they are liars. Which is frequently.

Sydney Powell knew her case lacked any evidence before going into court, she shouldn’t have tried to make us look bad.

Besides deliberately trying to depress turnout in January to give Biden the senate what has she achieved?

Her “Democrats only win due to voter fraud” declaration is unfalsifiable and has no statute of limitation; even a republican winning doesn’t break her claim (she has claimed republicans cheated in Iowa also without a scrap of evidence).

It is unfair because no matter how much the democrats do the same they are unaccountable due to support from media and big tech so they never hold their side accountable but we really have to hold Sydney Powell accountable for this bs.

We simply don’t have the luxury of going insane without consequences.

    henrybowman in reply to Danny. | December 7, 2020 at 7:09 pm

    Winners bring the consequences.

    alaskabob in reply to Danny. | December 7, 2020 at 7:13 pm

    Oh Danny boy… no “evidence” … really.. so everything “electronic” is hearsay… I mean … we can’t interview the bits and bytes can we? We have new requirements for evidence…. signed affidavits are hearsay. The corruption is just so deep.

    Elections have consequences and illegally won ones have really bad consequences.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Danny. | December 7, 2020 at 7:56 pm

    Her cases were each filed with a large stack of sworn affidavits, which are evidence. One court (WI?) ignored such a stack of affidavits on the grounds that they were hearsay, but didn’t address that they were very likely within well established exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I always knew the Democrats would go all out to steal the election, but I didn’t anticipate the treachery of the GOPe in being complicit in the theft. I should’ve known when the Bushies famously voted for Hillary in ’16.

When this fraudulent election finally blows up and we have a false President, we could impeach Biden if proof of culpability was found and congress was willing, but then we’d have another false President in Harris. Impeaching Harris would leave us with Pelosi, which is another disaster.

So here we sit, with a false President, no way to remove the chain of false Presidents while these traitors destroy our nation and its place in the world.

We all will know it was due to a fraudulent election…

Texas just filed a suit against GA PA and MI… I am not sure if it included WI…

This should be interesting…

    Paul in reply to amwick. | December 8, 2020 at 8:14 am

    I can’t find anything about this anywhere (reputable) other than Breitbart, and they don’t include a case number. Where all have you seen this?

Whatsamatter? Don’t these people deserve to make their wishes known through the vote counts?
1. The dead
2. The unregistered
3. The multiply registered
4. The fictitious
5. The multiply counted
6. The electronic manipulators

The divergent made-for-media quotes undermine the stated reason for dismissal. SCOTUS can be told that the appellate judge was essentially lying and making an ideological decision.

You mean we DON’T select presidents based on “The Gateway Pundit’s” latest conspiracy theory?!???

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend