Tweet

Brad Heath

11 Dec, 9 tweets, 4 min read

Texas has filed its reply brief in its Supreme Court lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election in four other states.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

Texas says it "does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States' voters." Rather it argues nobody knows who won those states.

Texas thinks "a few urban centers" manufactured votes to steal the election from President Trump.

Here Texas argues that its' expert's statistical analysis holds up not in spite of his blinding ignorance of how elections work but *because of it.* (The absentee votes that took longest to count absolutely were not randomly distributed across the states.)

Texas further argues that because Michigan didn't understand some of the factual gibberish in its allegations, the allegation must be correct!

Michigan's brief basically said it had no idea what Texas was talking about because the allegation in its complaint didn't make sense. Texas takes this as a concession that it must be true, or needs investigation, which is so totally disingenuous.

Texas continues to regurgitate allegations that were made and rejected repeatedly in other courts. Witnesses said signatures weren't being verified at the TCF Center where absentee ballots were counted in Detroit. True! - they were verified elsewhere first, as state law requires.

Texas - which, again, is literally suing to invalidate voters' choice for president in four states - accuses the states it's suing of a "cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in democracy - the right to vote."

Texas acknowledges that lots of people have sued over this nonsense before and courts have rejected all of it, but that doesn't matter because Texas hasn't had a chance to sue over them yet.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @bradheath

Brad Heath

@bradheath

13 Dec

Sidney Powell - the lawyer behind the fantastical Kraken election lawsuits - has indicated that she will ask the Supreme Court whether it really meant that all of this election-conspiracy stuff should stay off of its lawn.

(It did. The court very clearly indicated that this stuff is not welcome on its lawn.)

Always cool to try to sell the Supreme Court on your anonymous witness even though he was identified in the press yesterday and some of the stuff you're saying about his credentials is demonstrably false and you knew it before you filed this.

Read 4 tweets

Brad Heath

@bradheath

12 Dec

President Trump has now lost his federal lawsuit in Wis. seeking to overturn the election there. A judge appointed by Trump ruled that he "has not proved" that the election was carried out in a way that violated his rights or state law.

Judge: "This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote. ... This Court has allowed the plaintiff to make his case and he has lost on the merits."

Trump actually got farther in this lawsuit than he did in his others. The judge ruled that he had standing to sue under the Electors Clause, isn't barred by the 11th Am., isn't barred by abstention, isn't moot.

Instead, his case just failed on the merits.

Read 4 tweets

Brad Heath

@bradheath

12 Dec

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337565051004317698

"Spider," the secret military-intelligence witness behind Sidney Powell's fantastical election-fraud lawsuits never served in military intelligence, but rather was enrolled in a training program where he "kept washing out of courses," the Army says.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337565051004317698

Spider didn't read his election-fraud declaration before he signed it! I mean, these lawsuits have been a catastrophic heap of exceptionally bad witnesses, but this is really spectacular.

For the record, the substance of Spider's testimony also is utter garbage. medium.com/@micallst/misu…

Read 4 tweets

Brad Heath

@bradheath

11 Dec

Here's the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas' attempt to throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states. The court declines to hear it; the only dispute is a technical one over the manner by which it is killed.

It's over.

supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

The court's decision - that Texas lacks standing to bring this case - means it could not and did not reach the other issues. But these claims have all been rejected for many, many, many other reasons by other state and federal courts. Many.

Justices Alito and Thomas indicated that the court was (in their very consistent view) required to hear the case but that they too "would not grant other relief" - meaning they too wouldn't sign on to Texas' request for an injunction throwing out the election.

Read 9 tweets

Brad Heath

@bradheath

10 Dec

Judge Ludwig says President Trump's request to overturn the election he lost in Wisconsin is "incredibly unique."

Ludwig is asking sharp questions. He suggests that the constitutional "manner" Wis. chose for selecting its presidential electors is having a popular election. The state did that; the features Trump doesn't like aren't "a significant departure from the legislative scheme."

Ludwig says the 7th Cir. doctrine of laches pretty clearly favors Wisconsin and says Trump's reasons for waiting to sue until after the election to challenge procedures he didn't like simply weren't credible.

Read 4 tweets