US Election Week 2020

[Razgovory]

I kind of want to see what happens if Giuliani comes into court claiming to have evidence of massive fraud and using some 4chan posts as evidence.

[The Minsky Moment]

The man hasn't represented a client in a courtroom in about 30 years.  And recent behavior gives reason to suspect he hasn't carefully maintained his skills in the meantime.

[The Brain]

How likely is a court to agree to an alternative location for the proceedings anyway?

[The Minsky Moment]

No transcript yet so based on second hand reports:

Rudy gives a long and florid opening statement filled with crazy accusations about massive fraud and Democratic Party conspiracies, quoting Rahm Emanuel and Mayor Daley.  Maybe he thinks he's in Illinois?

Defendants then give their opening statement and make the point that none of the stuff Rudy talked about is in the amended complaint anymore.

Rudy gets back up and something resembling the following colloquy occurs:

Judge Brann: You are asking for millions of votes to be invalidated across the state. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?
Rudy: You need a sweeping remedy because there is sweeping injury.  Fraud fraud fraud there was massive election fraud blah blah blah (goes on)
Judge Brann: Under Federal Rule of Procedure 9(b) fraud has to be pled with particularity. Your amended complaint doesn't do that.
Rudy:  Oh no we aren't trying to plead fraud in our complaint.  Did I say "fraud"   I meant er oh "lord" what long hearing this is . . .
Judge Brann: If the problem is that voters in some [GOP lean] counties weren't allowed to fix those ballots, isn't the remedy for those people to sue to have their votes counted, not throw out the entire election?
Kerns (rudy's co-counsel):  But that would mean that would have to sue their counties!   [NOTE Kerns' client is suing multiple counties in this suit]
Judge Brann:  Right. Nu?
Kerns: well the Trump campaign sued to vindicate everyone's rights.
Judge Brann: But the affected voters can sue themselves if they believe themselves injured.  How does the Trump campaign have standing to sue on their behalf?
Rudy: the counties that allowed cures are bad Democrat counties like *gasp* PHILADELPHIA!
Judge Brann: Ok but what's the answer to my standing question?
Rudy:  Because the end result was good for Biden and bad for Trump
Judge Brann: what standard of review should apply?  Strict scrutiny?
Rudy:  Oh no not that.  Because "this is not a fraud case"
Judge Brann:  Well then it's rational basis.  Doesn't the Penn conduct here qualify as "rational"?
Rudy: We believe "normal scrutiny" should apply
[Every other America lawyer: WTF is "normal scrutiny"?]
Rudy: "Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny."
[Every other America lawyer: Yeah no kidding - you are confusing it with the clear and convincing evidence standard for fraud]
Rudy: We don't think Penn acted rationally because different counties applied different rules for curing ballots
[Every other America lawyer: OK - isn't that why Judge Brann spent the last 10 minutes saying the remedy is for affected voters to sue the counties . . .]

[The Minsky Moment]

So for normal people.

Fraud cases are tricky to bring.  Normally when you bring a case in federal court you just need a very basic pleading and your case can't be dismissed on the pleading if there is any dispute of fact.  Fraud is an exception - it has to be explained in much more detail in the pleading to survive an initial motion to dismiss.  It is also typical at trial there is a higher standard of proof for fraud.
The rule is there precisely to deter people coming into court with crazy generalized accusations of FRAUD! without any proof.

"Strict scrutiny" vs "rational basis" is different - it is the standard of deference the judge gives to the state (here Penn) in reviewing their actions.  Strict scrutiny means the judge will be tough on the state, rational basis means the state just has to come up with some decent reason to explain its conduct.

Rudy wanted to say his complaint should be reviewed according to the regular "non-fraud" standard but that the state's conduct should be subject to strict scrutiny.  But he botched it because he hasn't been a real lawyer for 30 years.

[katmai]

So on election night here in Alaska the GOP ticket took a commanding lead as well as a ballot initiative trying to introduce ranked voting which was losing overwhelming 60-40% in votes.  After the  156,000 absentee ballots were counted the GOP candidates all held on and won their races but...

- An election reform initiative is set to become law in Alaska after the latest count of outstanding ballots.

With less than 1% of ballots still to be counted across Alaska, the "yes" vote for Ballot Measure 2 now leads by 3,756 votes or 50.5%.

The initiative will implement ranked-choice voting in Alaska, create an open primary system where the top four vote-getters move ahead to the general election, and make additional reporting requirements for some political campaigns.

[Sheilbh]

Also relevant to the Giuliani side of things:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/giuliani-trump-election-pay.html

[The Larch]

So apparently Republicans tried to pull some shenanigan in the certification process of Michigan's results, but quickly backtracked.

In abrupt reversal, Michigan's largest county certifies election results
Allies of President Donald Trump had celebrated the initial deadlock in Wayne County, even though the dispute was highly unlikely to alter the outcome of the election.

Election officials in Michigan's largest county abruptly reversed course on Tuesday night and certified the presidential election results, with Republican members of the board backtracking after initially blocking the decision.

The two Republicans on the four-member Wayne County board of canvassers — charged with validating the vote count — initially opposed certification and raised questions about mismatches between the totals submitted by local precincts and the final canvass. Less than two hours later, the Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues to unanimously certify the tally from the county, which includes Detroit, and called for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to audit the mismatched precincts.

The board's reversal quickly undercut celebrations among Trump allies who called the board's initial 2-2 deadlock against certifying the results the beginning of a potential chain reaction that could flip the state into the president's column — even though Joe Biden leads by more than 145,000 votes.

The board's certification vote occurred just moments after Trump himself celebrated the initial vote with a tweet that praised the Republican canvassers' "courage" for halting the certification.

"Wow! Michigan just refused to certify the election results! Having courage is a beautiful thing. The USA stands proud!" Trump tweeted, erroneously saying the whole state had not certified results. Trump continued to celebrate, even after the board had voted to certify.

Other Republicans had embraced the board's initial ruling, as well, with state GOP officials saying they were "proud" of the delay in certification and Trump's campaign describing it as an opportunity to overturn the state's election results.

Democrats had lashed out at the two Republican canvassers, Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, for what they described as a purely political decision to delay Wayne County's certification. Top Democrats in Michigan noted that the decision would have had the effect of upending the votes in Michigan's largest African-American communities, and others said it was simply a partisan effort to shore up the Trump campaign's false claims of widespread fraud.

"In refusing to approve the results of the election in Wayne County, the two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers have placed partisan politics above their legal duty to certify the election results," Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement.

Even before the board made its about-face, Michigan election authorities downplayed the significance of the deadlock, noting that the matter would simply move to the state canvassing board.

Benson, the secretary of state, added that similar circumstances had arisen in previous elections, with disputed canvassing results sent to the state level for recanvassing.

"It is common for some precincts in Michigan and across the country to be out of balance by a small number of votes, especially when turnout is high," Benson, a Democrat, said in a statement.

She stressed that the county board's decision "is not an indication that any votes were improperly cast or counted."

Yet Trump allies had characterized the county-level dispute as a significant victory for the president's effort to throw out results in states poised to send Biden to the White House, and they said the development could trigger a spate of draconian, highly unlikely maneuvers to put the state's 16 electoral votes in Trump's column.

For example, Trump campaign counsel Jenna Ellis said that if the vote wasn't certified at the state-level later this month, Republican state lawmakers would instead select which slate of electors — Trump's or Biden's — would cast Michigan's votes for president.

But this far-fetched scenario, which Trump allies have floated for weeks, ran into roadblocks just hours earlier.

Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, a Republican, rejected the premise outright earlier in the day on Tuesday. He told Bridge Michigan "that's not going to happen" when asked about the possibility of the legislature selecting electors.

"We are going to follow the law and follow the process," he said. "I do believe there's reason to go slow and deliberate as we evaluate the allegations that have been raised."

The state board of canvassers is scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon.

[Syt]

Don't worry, they'll be better prepared next time they want to pull this.

[The Brain]

The GOP is already booking landscapers for 2024.

[Maladict]

Dutch IT guy gets swept up in the Dominion/QAnon madness

Somehow today a wave of Trump/QAnon/alt-right/... confused nutjobs want to follow me because they think my opposition to voting machines helps Trump ... or something. Sigh.
Sorry. Life is too short. Timeline full of BS ⟶ block.

I found out what happened with all these QAnon nuts wanting to follow me all of a sudden. It's funny.
It all started with an interview on Fox, where Lou Dobbs speaks to Sidney Powell, attorney for Michael Flynn and now also of Trump.

In the interview, she claims to have lots of damaging information about Dominion, one of the major voting machine companies in the US. At the end of the interview, she claims they will "Release the kraken", and all will be good. (A common right-wing trope these days.)

Now to the QAnon people, nothing is just a figure of speech. Everything has hidden meaning, a message just to them. (Any psychiatrist will tell you this is a common delusional pattern.)

So, what does a good QAnon-sufferer do?

"Research"

Which is Q-speak for wildly Googling about with a manic desire to see obscure connections. And in their state of mind this is way, way too easy.
So they Google "kraken" and "voting systems" or "kraken" and "hackers" or something.

And ... up pops my wikipedia page, which has me appearing (in 1985) in a Dutch book called "Kraken en Computers", (which means "Hacking and computers", computerkraker was a common word for hacker back in the day.)

The same page also talks about my involvement in showing weaknesses in voting machines and has some Wikileaks and Julian Assange thrown in for good measure.
This settles it. They decoded the secret message!1!!
I am Kraken and about to come forward to save Trump.
Sigh...

Now it is well possible that there are all sorts of interesting things to find out about Dominion and other voting machine manufacturers if one digs deep enough; this entire industry is plenty shady.

Do I think there was major fraud or that any of this will save Trump? No.

But what it will do is set the stage for an elaborate long-term alternate reality in which their beloved dictator did win the election but an evil voting machine company swapped the votes. Which will have all sorts of interesting implications going forward.

More broadly: the power-hungry have discovered that inequality, pandemic, climate and general dystopia is driving enough people over the edge psychologically that they become a formidable political force. A few smart ones are seeing that they created a monster, but it's too late.

If you believe that elections should convince the losers they lost, then a mainstream thing going forward will be somehow negotiating assurances regarding election outcomes with obscenely large and well-networked crowds of psychotic people.

[celedhring]

Don't worry, they'll be better prepared next time they want to pull this.

Yeah, I'm not worried about this election, rather about the "boil the frog" effect of progressively undermining trust in the electoral process.

[The Minsky Moment]

The GOP is already booking landscapers for 2024.

They've already nailed down Ritz-Carlton Bail Bonds and the Mandarin Oriental Tannery.

[Syt]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of-republicans-say-biden-won-because-of-a-rigged-election-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ

Half of Republicans say Biden won because of a 'rigged' election: Reuters/Ipsos poll

(Reuters) - About half of all Republicans believe President Donald Trump "rightfully won" the U.S. election but that it was stolen from him by widespread voter fraud that favored Democratic President-elect Joe Biden, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

The Nov. 13-17 opinion poll showed that Trump's open defiance of Biden's victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College appears to be affecting the public's confidence in American democracy, especially among Republicans.

Altogether, 73% of those polled agreed that Biden won the election while 5% thought Trump won. But when asked specifically whether Biden had "rightfully won," Republicans showed they were suspicious about how Biden's victory was obtained.

Fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump "rightfully won," while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won.

Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was "rigged," while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly worried.

Even before winning the 2016 election, Trump kept up a drumbeat of complaints about the process, claiming without evidence that it was unfair to him.

Since Biden amassed enough electoral votes to win the White House on Nov. 7, Trump has ramped up those criticisms, telling his supporters that he is the victim of widespread illegal voting.

Trump has failed to give any proof for his claims and has not been able to back them up in court, however. Republicans announced this week that they were dropping federal election lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The poll showed that more Americans appear to be more suspicious about the U.S. election process than they were four years ago.

Altogether, 55% of adults in the United States said they believed the Nov. 3 presidential election was "legitimate and accurate," which is down 7 points from a similar poll that ran shortly after the 2016 election. The 28% who said they thought the election was "the result of illegal voting or election rigging" is up 12 points from four years ago.

The poll showed Republicans were much more likely to be suspicious of Trump's loss this year than Democrats were when Hillary Clinton lost four years ago.

In 2016, 52% of Democrats said Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump was "legitimate and accurate," even as reports emerged of Russian attempts to influence the outcome. This year, only 26% of Republicans said they thought Trump's loss was similarly legitimate.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,346 respondents, including 598 Democrats and 496 Republicans, and has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 5 percentage points.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, USA is in real trouble with figures like that.