2020 US Presidential Election

[najaB]

The 2000 election suffered much litigation of course, but this is nothing like as close and the actual conduct of the election didn't suffer the same issues if anything other than unfounded allegations of voting fraud it probably went as smoothly as ever really.

There's no real comparison between the 2000 and 2020 elections. For one thing, the litigation was limited to one state (Florida) and there was no question as if if the election process itself was fairly conducted.

As I recall it, the crux of the matter was that there was a small number of ballots where it wasn't possible to clearly determine the voter's intention. Gore's side wanted to continue the forensic examination of the ballots, Bush's side argued that if it wasn't clear then they should be considered to be spoiled votes.

In 2020 the Trump team are attempting to throw out legally cast ballots where the voter's intention is clear simply because they voted for Biden instead of Trump.

 

[hexagon789]

There's no real comparison between the 2000 and 2020 elections. For one thing, the litigation was limited to one state (Florida) and there was no question as if

That's exactly what I was trying to get at.

As I recall it, the crux of the matter was that there was a small number of ballots where it wasn't possible to clearly determine the voter's intention. Gore's side wanted to continue the forensic examination of the ballots, Bush's side argued that if it wasn't clear then they should be considered to be spoiled votes.

In 2020 the Trump team are attempting to throw out legally cast ballots where the voter's intention is clear simply because they voted for Biden instead of Trump.

Again that's what I was saying, that it's much clearer cut this time and Trump is trying to change the outcome for no legitimate reason.

 

[DerekC]

We have to remember that more than anything Trump appears to be driven by the need to be the centre of attention, and he is currently achieving that by challenging the election result. He also wants Biden to fail and is doing his best to ensure the transition is as difficult as possible, which handily goes with the challenge. His challenge will fail for sure - but what is he going to do then? Working behind the scenes to frustrate Biden isn't his way. Keep his supporters fired up, yes - but how will he to continue to grab the headlines? A "will-he, won't he" on standing in 2024 doesn't seem enough, at least for the next couple of years.

 

[Gloster]

As I recall it, the crux of the matter was that there was a small number of ballots where it wasn't possible to clearly determine the voter's intention. Gore's side wanted to continue the forensic examination of the ballots, Bush's side argued that if it wasn't clear then they should be considered to be spoiled votes.

Hanging chads, if I remember correctly. (WOT! No result?)

 

[edwin_m]

There's no real comparison between the 2000 and 2020 elections. For one thing, the litigation was limited to one state (Florida) and there was no question as if if the election process itself was fairly conducted.

As I recall it, the crux of the matter was that there was a small number of ballots where it wasn't possible to clearly determine the voter's intention. Gore's side wanted to continue the forensic examination of the ballots, Bush's side argued that if it wasn't clear then they should be considered to be spoiled votes.

In 2020 the Trump team are attempting to throw out legally cast ballots where the voter's intention is clear simply because they voted for Biden instead of Trump.

As I understand it, even if every single one of the alleged fraudulent or otherwise incorrect votes had been thrown out, Biden would still be winning. So this is really more about building support in the "base", who are likely to believe anything the Trump side says rather than checking the actual facts (or not believing them), not a genuine attempt to change the result. So we end up with a big proportion of the electorate believing the conspiracy theory that Trump was robbed, and ready to make trouble for Biden. And that appears to be the intention, not an unintended consequence.

The reported efforts to persuade the Republicans in Michigan to appoint electors in contravention of the popular vote, if replicated in other states, could change the result. As noted above the Michigan people appear to have refused to do that.

We have to remember that more than anything Trump appears to be driven by the need to be the centre of attention, and he is currently achieving that by challenging the election result. He also wants Biden to fail and is doing his best to ensure the transition is as difficult as possible, which handily goes with the challenge. His challenge will fail for sure - but what is he going to do then? Working behind the scenes to frustrate Biden isn't his way. Keep his supporters fired up, yes - but how will he to continue to grab the headlines? A "will-he, won't he" on standing in 2024 doesn't seem enough, at least for the next couple of years.

He's also facing a large number of criminal investigations (including federal which he might believe he can pardon himself for, but also state level where I believe a presidential pardon doesn't apply), civil suits and allegedly debts due for repayment. Wouldn't surprise me if he commands Air Force One to fly him somewhere on January 19 that has no extradition treaty.

 

[Gloster]

He's also facing a large number of criminal investigations (including federal which he might believe he can pardon himself for, but also state level where I believe a presidential pardon doesn't apply), civil suits and allegedly debts due for repayment. Wouldn't surprise me if he commands Air Force One to fly him somewhere on January 19 that has no extradition treaty.

Can he pardon himself? I am sure that somewhere in the enormous amount written over recent weeks, I read that he cannot pardon himself, but could resign. This would put Mike Pence in power and allow him to pardon Trump.

 

[edwin_m]

Can he pardon himself? I am sure that somewhere in the enormous amount written over recent weeks, I read that he cannot pardon himself, but could resign. This would put Mike Pence in power and allow him to pardon Trump.

Opinions seem to differ on that question, so it would no doubt trigger a huge legal battle that could go on for years, and probably have the effect of staving off any action on federal charges until it was resolved. Some of those charges are also subject to statutes of limitations.

Getting Pence to pardon him would appear to be legal - it's what Ford did for Nixon, although I believe some say it cost him the next election.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also worth nothing that even if he did wangle he way to a pardon and it did stick that that would just protect him from federal charges. State charges, most likely from New York to begin with, would still stand.

 

[Cowley]

Also worth nothing that even if he did wangle he way to a pardon and it did stick that that would just protect him from federal charges. State charges, most likely from New York to begin with, would still stand.

Re the State charges - Would they have gone through anyway even if he had won a second term? Or would he have also been able to still keep them at bay if he was still president?

 

[najaB]

Or would he have also been able to still keep them at bay if he was still president?

The consensus in legal circles is that state prosecutors wouldn't be able to bring a prosecution since it defending it would distract him from his role as President.

 

[Cowley]

The consensus in legal circles is that state prosecutors wouldn't be able to bring a prosecution since it defending it would distract him from his role as President.

Thanks @najaB. Very interesting.

 

[najaB]

Thanks @najaB. Very interesting.

A similar argument was used by Bill Clinton to try and avoid testifying in the Whitewater investigation. In the end they reached an agreement where he provided answers to the questions but didn't get deposed live.

 

[overthewater]

I think the final total for the pair will be Biden 80 million and Trump: 74 Million. However I just can't see how trump will be able to do anything once the Electoral college take place in December. They must surely have to go to court next week if not this is turning into a Pantomime.

I just can't see Trump ask biden for a photoshoot at the white house.

 

[najaB]

However I just can't see how trump will be able to do anything once the Electoral college take place in December. They must surely have to go to court next week if not this is turning into a Pantomime.

By "they" do you mean the Biden team?

 

[RichT54]

I think the final total for the pair will be Biden 80 million and Trump: 74 Million. However I just can't see how trump will be able to do anything once the Electoral college take place in December. They must surely have to go to court next week if not this is turning into a Pantomime.

I just can't see Trump ask biden for a photoshoot at the white house.

It's been a pantomime ever since Trump became president.

 

[overthewater]

By "they" do you mean the Biden team?

They is Trump's team. This can't carry on, having press conference etc saying it rigged or x y or Z there either going to have to start a proper court case.

Biden just has to sit back and watch this Pantomime unfold and carrying on recruiting people and on 13th dec? he will get the transfer money to help the formal process. I just wonder if this is all for the up coming run offs in Georgia

 

[nlogax]

I just can't see Trump ask biden for a photoshoot at the white house.

No-one expects that to happen anyway. No concession, no cosy December chat between Trump and Biden at the WH, no Mr & Mrs Trump at the inauguration and then being waved off by Mr & Mrs Biden as they leave in the helicopter, no traditional transition stuff whatsoever.

I imagine the inauguration in January will resemble Gerald Ford's post-Nixon resignation. Smallish, low key, brief and possibly indoors.

 

[najaB]

This can't carry on, having press conference etc saying it rigged or x y or Z there either going to have to start a proper court case.

Where have you been? They've brought over 30 court cases already.

All but one have been withdrawn or dismissed.

 

[overthewater]

30? 30? I've been busy living life I know there has been some talk and some clips but what is Rudy Giuliani waiting for? He says he has all this proof yet its not getting him anywhere.

That's not to say there not been any minor issues, which have been sorted and made no real difference, Re counts are not going to solve the problems Trump claims will it? Also many states have on the day registration, which also explains how 130% turn out in certain areas.

How do you actually prove that machine changed votes?

 

[najaB]

He says he has all this proof yet its not getting him anywhere.

Exactly. He *says* he has proof but none has been forthcoming.

How do you actually prove that machine changed votes?

By getting hold of the physical audit trail. Which the States have done and been able to say that there is zero evidence that any votes were changed.

 

[Gloster]

Getting Pence to pardon him would appear to be legal - it's what Ford did for Nixon, although I believe some say it cost him the next election.

Ford himself appears to have felt that pardoning Nixon was a major factor in his defeat by Jimmy Carter. However, in this case a lot depends on whether Pence is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2024 or beyond. He might judge that he would gain more support from Trump loyalists than he would lose by swing voters not voting for him.

 

[bspahh]

30? 30? I've been busy living life I know there has been some talk and some clips but what is Rudy Giuliani waiting for? He says he has all this proof yet its not getting him anywhere.

The Trump team have lost the case in Pennsylvania, and they can't appeal or resubmit.
There is a 37 page judgement

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

which includes these quotes.

... this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
[snip]
This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent

 

[edwin_m]

The Trump team have lost the case in Pennsylvania, and they can't appeal or resubmit.
There is a 37 page judgement

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

which includes these quotes.

I assume there is some mechanism, as in the UK, where they can ask a higher court to hear an appeal even if the lower court denies that. Their game is clearly to take this to the Supreme Court and hope the Trump nominees will swing the vote in his favour. However if they have even a shred of integrity they would have to recuse themselves or reject that choice, and if they don't then the Court becomes an object of ridicule rather than respect.

 

[bspahh]

I assume there is some mechanism, as in the UK, where they can ask a higher court to hear an appeal even if the lower court denies that. Their game is clearly to take this to the Supreme Court and hope the Trump nominees will swing the vote in his favour. However if they have even a shred of integrity they would have to recuse themselves or reject that choice, and if they don't then the Court becomes an object of ridicule rather than respect.

I was wrong. The case has been dismissed, and they can appeal against that.There is a discussion here

Thread by @Teri_Kanefield on Thread Reader App

Thread by @Teri_Kanefield: The problem here is that Trump lost on a motion to dismiss, not on the merits. So what goes up on appeal is whether the case should have been dismissed. If the Third...

threadreaderapp.com

The problem here is that Trump lost on a motion to dismiss, not on the merits.

So what goes up on appeal is whether the case should have been dismissed.

[snip]

The other problem for Trump is that the court ruled against them on several grounds: Standing, no cause of action, etc. etc. In other words, the judge gave multiple (good) reasons for dismissing the case.

To "win" Team Trump has to overcome each reason . . .
. . . they have to argue that they have standing (they don't) that they had a valid cause of action (they didn't) etc. etc.

One thing people don't understand about appeals is that you don't get a new trial on appeal. In fact, you don't get a trial on appeal . . .
The appellate court looks at what the lower court did to see if they applied the correct law.

The district court found the case so weak they wouldn't even allow an amended complaint.

(I'm not a lawyer, but the argument sounds plausible)

 

[edwin_m]

I was wrong. The case has been dismissed, and they can appeal against that.There is a discussion here

Thread by @Teri_Kanefield on Thread Reader App

Thread by @Teri_Kanefield: The problem here is that Trump lost on a motion to dismiss, not on the merits. So what goes up on appeal is whether the case should have been dismissed. If the Third...

threadreaderapp.com

(I'm not a lawyer, but the argument sounds plausible)

So if the appeal did overturn the dismissal, they'd have to go back to the lower court to hear the actual merits of the case. And if that was rejected they'd have to appeal again.

Not a lawyer either, but I believe (and the above implies) an appeal can only consider the evidence that the original decision was based on. So if they find more allegedly dubious votes they can't just chuck them into any case being heard by a higher court.

 

[najaB]

Their game is clearly to take this to the Supreme Court and hope the Trump nominees will swing the vote in his favour.

The issue being that even if the Supreme Court held that the election was illegitimate, the correct redress would be to order that it be re-run, not to just award victory to one side over the other.

 

[birchesgreen]

The SC already ruled against Trump before the election in some matters, i suspect they will be the same afterwards. After all a SC judge could be in office for 2-3 decades, long after Trump has long gone and they won't want this drivel hanging over them for all that time.

 

[edwin_m]

The issue being that even if the Supreme Court held that the election was illegitimate, the correct redress would be to order that it be re-run, not to just award victory to one side over the other.

That may be the correct redress but it's not what happened in 2000.

 

[najaB]

That may be the correct redress but it's not what happened in 2000.

As noted above though, the 2000 litigation wasn't claiming that the election was illegitimate. In that election the question that the court was being asked to rule on if the multiple recounts should continue after the initial results had been announced.

 

[edwin_m]

As noted above though, the 2000 litigation wasn't claiming that the election was illegitimate. In that election the question that the court was being asked to rule on if the multiple recounts should continue after the initial results had been announced.

In effect that awarded victory to the side that was ahead at the time, whereas the recounts might have resulted in the other side winning. The reason for the recount was an argument relating to the legitimacy of some of the votes (the hanging chads etc). So it doesn't strike me as much different to the current situation, except that in 2000 it could and possibly did affect who ultimately won.

But it involves lawyers so I guess there is some subtlety I'm missing here.