Well the mainstream outlets from CNN to the BBC won’t tell you but in Pennsylvania a judge has upheld an injunction preventing election certification. It is now passing to State legislators to select electors for the Electoral College in a Republican dominated State Senate. They have that Constitutional power....... The same may well be brewing in other contested States......with alleged electoral malpractices.
The entire Commonwealth of the State of Pennsylvania. Wikipedia will tell you the Gateway Pundit is a far right site of wall to wall fake news but it has millions more hits than CNN etc., combined. Make your own mind up and separate fact from comment. CNN happily reports allegations as ‘baseless’ with zero rebuttal. The injunction? Oh that’s a fact. It’s all lies of course https://twpundit.com/2020/11/25/twi...-after-he-leads-pa-hearing-on-election-fraud/
Different cases in a twin track attack. The BBC case gets to the Supreme Court whereas the injuncted case gets to Harrisburg Senate . Selective reporting? Just a bit. Wonder why?
And if Trump survives it’s commercial suicide. Most big media is a vanity project because so few make any money. Fox are in a tailspin and CNN are not much better for lack of viewers. Prime time they struggle to get 2.5m viewers in a country of 330m. Fox were well ahead until they dumped Trump. The pre-election highs for CNN were still only 7.5m......about the same as Strictly.
The process grinds on with CNN output in an apparent parallel universe to what is happening with Pennsylvania and Arizona legislators v. State officials. The whip hand appears to lie with the former not the latter. Meanwhile, the conspiracies being put out about gun battles between renegade CIA and US SF on German airbases just make me shake my head.
I saw Arizona Electoral College votes have been submitted for Biden - how can Trump challenge them now? Still no evidence of widespread fraud, some control weaknesses yes but no smoking gun... I think I hear a large soprano in the background
It’s all inter-related. The same people seeking to certify are the same State officials alleged to have exceeded their authority in varying State electoral law to facilitate a fraud in which they participated. The State legislature has the power to overturn and recall. The ball remains in play. There are widespread allegations and significant individual testimony but, hey, no evidence or smoking gun. I am not so sure. You seriously can’t trust BBC or Sky on this. Suffice to say, until the Electoral College convenes and rules there IS no President Elect.
It’s a difficult one to call but there does seem to be a major discrepancy between what Guiliani et as are prepared to allege before the press or in GOP/MAGA gatherings and what they are prepared or able to evidence in courts. As to whom to trust, we all have our own personal views and prejudices. Personally I think the BBC is more worthy of that trust than some give it credit for, but sadly I know that view isn’t always shared. From the other side of the pond this summary from yesterday from the Washington Post seems pretty good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elec...tion-deadlines-ga-mi-wi-nv-az-pa/?arc404=true
The Washington Post is Bezos’ organ. I say no more on that! The Beeb has just been seriously downgraded in popular estimation of its bias. Sadly! The problem with much of the mainstream reporting is its focus on Republican ‘failures’ rather than an appreciation of how this expedites a move to the Supreme Court where the game changes gear. Assuming your opposition is stupid is itself very stupid. It’s a bit like only hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest......* *wash mouth out! Inadvertent reference to Boxer!
It’s The Boxer actually, but nonetheless well done! Re the legal challenges it will be interesting if and when it arrives at the Supreme Court. So far the ‘failures’ have often (maybe largely but I have no knowledge of quantum) been in front of Trump-appointed judges who have nonetheless thrown the cases out on the basis of lack of evidence. This is what you would hope would happen (in terms of integrity of the legal system) where there is no - or nowhere near sufficient - evidence presented to them. So at SCOTUS, assuming that (despite the “conservative” majority) the integrity point is not in question, it all comes down to evidence. Given that the cases so far seem to have been extremely thinly supported by meaningful evidence, then either there is no or nowhere near sufficient evidence OR new evidence is presented. Now I’m no legal expert but I thought the only basis for challenging court decisions at the next level upwards (and ultimately therefore to the Supreme Court) had to be about a flawed decision in a lower court, rather than new evidence? In other words if there is new evidence it should be presented at the appropriate lower court, otherwise SCOTUS wouldn’t hear it...?
A boxer, any boxer indefinite article or otherwise! Mine was a 1982 R100RS but I digress.... Firstly evidence. Quantity can often make up for quality. These cases are so far all civil actions that turn on a far lower standard (balance of probabilities) than criminal (beyond reasonable doubt). However, that is not to say that civil evidence of possible criminality is not matched by unseen investigation. We just don’t know. Were there to be ‘revelations’, their timing would need careful management to avoid mutual prejudice to civil and criminal actions. The statutory timetable for electoral certainty makes this a bit different too because crime normally goes first but investigators need time whereas the complaint merely needs to show material irregularity for the election to be passed into the hands of legislators as provided for in the Constitution.