🤦♂️ Wisconsin's response to Sidney Powell's lawsuit points out that the Dominion voting machine she says were part of a big election-rigging plot weren't used in most of the counties she's complaining about, and in the two that did use them, Trump won.
The filing is notable because it engages with the "overwhelming" evidence Powell and others claim to have assembled proving the election was stolen. Although that evidence occupies many pages, it ain't great.
Four of Powell's main exhibits "are 'expert' analyses conducted by anonymous individuals whose credentials - or even existence - cannot be tested or assessed." One is an analysis of election technology by a person claiming to have a degree on physiology.
Including an affidavit from the guy behind QAnon remains a puzzling strategic choice, but seems entirely in keeping with the rest of the Kraken litigation.
This. This is what they are offering up as evidence that the election was rigged and that people were violating Wisconsin's absentee voting laws. This is like what you see on Reddit, only in the guise of expert testimony.
"The Ramsland affidavit claims that it is statistically improbable that a large number of ballots favoring Biden would be reported at one time, but contains virtually every flaw a statistical analysis can have."
Swing and a miss.
Here's the filing, which would make good reading for people who are buying these theories.
The DNC has filed something similar. "Many of the supposed evidentiary sources are 'redacted,' so we have no idea who (or what) is feeding these tales to Mr. Feehan's credulous lawyers."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."
Judge Humetewa says the lawsuit seeking to overturn Arizona's presidential election result is "sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence."
Now President Trump has moved to intervene in Texas' Supreme Court lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election in four states to keep Trump in power.
Trump's motion is to intervene so he can file his own complaint against the various states. This would basically undermine the entire premise of filing at SCOTUS, since he can -- and has -- litigated these issues in the various states. And lost.
Trump's brief argues that many Americans now mistrust the outcome of the presidential election. He has indeed worked hard to undermine that confidence, repeating a boatload of misinformation to persuade Americans he didn't lose the election he actually lost.
Seventeen states filed a brief in the Supreme Court just now in support of Texas' request that the justices throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states that didn't support President Trump.
Here's the amicus brief, which is led by Missouri.
This is the product of a lot Republicans in a lot of states using their offices to try to throw out the votes of millions of people in other states who failed to support President Trump. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…
A lot of this brief is people in glass houses casting stones. It argues that allowing absentee ballots to arrive after Election Day undermines faith in democracy. But Kansas and Mississippi, which both signed on, also count mail-in ballots that arrive late.
This is the Supreme Court order denying the request by Rep. @MikeKellyPA and others to invalidate Pennsylvania's presidential election. That's the whole thing. It was denied by the full court with no public dissents.
Perhaps the justices had not yet seen the glowing-eye meme.
The case Rep. @MikeKellyPA and others filed remains notable for the fact that a U.S. Congressman sought - unsuccessfully - to invalidate the votes of millions of people in his state in the hopes that his preferred candidate would win the presidency.
Judge Sullivan says DOJ's reasons for seeking to dismiss its case against Mike Flynn "appear pretextual, particularly in view of the surrounding circumstances."
Sullivan rejects DOJ's argument that Flynn's false statements weren't "material" to any investigation. He says they plainly were. (It's unusual for a district judge to take a more expansive view of what's illegal than DOJ does, but this is an unusual DOJ argument.)
Sullivan says DOJ doesn't use this standard in other cases, making the point that the government's legal arguments in Flynn's case is "perplexing" and appears to be a rule that applies to his case alone.
A few amici have filed at the Supreme Court today in support of a case seeking to declare that Pennsylvania's mail-in voting scheme violates the state constitution, thereby throwing out the votes of millions of people who voted absentee.
Pennsylvania's response arguing against enjoining its entire election is due to Justice Alito tomorrow.
The PA Republican Party makes the curious argument that the PA Supreme Court's decision was wrong because it failed to follow it's own precedents. State supreme courts are, of course, free to overrule their precedents, just as the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes does.