10

An opinion of a journalist supporter. Poor strategy.

Posted by Lucky 1 year, 4 months ago to Politics
19 comments | Share | Flag

(Summary in my words)
An opinion of a journalist supporter. Poor strategy.
Trump was right to pursue his claims. The question is should he have backed off at some point?

Court after court refused to hear evidence, and, then, the Supreme Court refused to take the Texas case. After that maybe the revised case and others could be heard, but too late -it is possible to imagine the case being accepted but it is not possible at that stage to imagine a remedy being allowed.

The SCOTUS is understood to be conscious that if anything were to occur that would overturn the putative result, all hell would break out, the likes of which would put this year's BLM riots in the shade. Cowardice- yes, abnegation of duty- yes, but there it is.

The opinion given is that at the point when the court refused to hear the Texas case, Trump should have realized it was over. Then without conceding, kept a low profile.

Reader's comments-
A suggestion that is what perhaps he did? Any 'mature and measured' careful dignified behavior would not have been reported.
Another comment, the refusal view has some validity.

My thoughts-
Are there good arguments for lack of standing?
The letter from the military chiefs seems to be over the top, deliberately? It contradicts other opinions about the military. Were those the Obama appointees?
The Italian connection, looks credible to me but it comes too late for a court to do anything (if they would even look at it).
Biden's (or whoever) selections: Janet Yellin, mainstream more of the same, several others are real scary! Not the LBJ, Carter, Bush, Clinton types, beyond Obama. Big business is sucking up big time having made a judgement on that need.

If this were a tragedy from Ancient Greece we now await the Deus ex machina to sort it out.
SOURCE URL: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/01/the-desperate-twilight-of-donald-trump/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 4 months ago
    In the end the FAILURE can be traced to those with “standing” not filing objections BEFORE the election. As soon as the mail in balloting was floated it should have been THE FOCUS. And squashed. I think the administration didn’t think the fraud would be big enough to beat them. They were willing to accept SOME fraud. Which they never should. The blame for this debacle falls squarely on the administration. All they had to do was ENFORCE THE LAW. Once the can of worms was opened in November it was too late. That’s why I say the time to do something was 6 months ago. Then Don threw Pence under the bus January 6th. He left it all up to Pence to do something. Don was President for 4 years. He should have done something in June. Executive Order banning mail in balloting for Federal Elections would have been appropriate. Then let SCOTUS start sorting out the legality. He was too busy falling for the COViD scam. Which was the Democrats plan. It’s never been about the disease. It’s always been about the election. Watch. Biden will have his 100 day “Masquerade” and POOF! COVID will be solved. Even if it isn’t.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 year, 4 months ago
      Good comments thanks, I agree with most. There were obvious things left undone, easy to pick up after the event. If it were me I would have been caught, I did not expect the scale of the operation. But it was not my job.

      Voting by mail - I do it all the time for motor clubs and such, the security is adequate for the purpose. For US states, security varies, I understand. There is often a difference between 'absentee' and 'mail-in' voting with absentee voting rules being quite strict. We have seen how the mail-in rules are malleable to the point of uselessness.
      This kind of vote is necessary for people in hospital, military, remote location workers and such, should be done right. National rules? I'd say at least national standards.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bobsprinkle 1 year, 4 months ago
        There are NO-ZIP-NADA-NONE cotrols on mail in voting. AND the bird is out of the cage now.ALL election efforts in the future are hopeless.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 year, 4 months ago
          Correct, according to what I read, no controls on mail in voting, at least in those key States. But all states have laws. Each State can set any kind of rules for voting, the Texas case was that whatever the rules, they are to be kept. As you say, no supervision, no enforcement, no checks, no audit, no penalty for breaking the rules.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 1 year, 4 months ago
    The Texas case was pretty shaky. It essentially said that one state could have a legitimate right to intervene in another state's election if the outcome had national implications.

    It was rejected on the basis that Texas (and other states) had no standing to challenge the results of another state. It didn't have anything to do with the validity of the underlying concerns

    The battle was really lost when the Court refused to interfere in the changing of the election rules to grease the skids for the flood of absentee ballots. Once ballots get put into the pile, you are pretty much doomed. There are no good answers even if you prove fraud so no one even wanted to look at it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
      One adjustment, however - the Texas vs Pennsylvania case was never heard. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over cases where one State sues another and they turned down the case before even hearing it, which in my opinion was reprehensible. They should have heard the case.

      Best analysis of that case was a political cartoon showing the Supreme Court with three donkeys, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Coney-Barrett, and three chickens.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 1 year, 4 months ago
      The Court could not have intervened then. If states pass bad laws governing federal elections, it is Congress who can and should change them. This is authorized in Article I, Section 4.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 4 months ago
    Received this error message:
    “Your PHP Installation Appears to Be Missing the MySQL Extension Which Is Required by WordPress”

    Comment on your summary:
    The courts are corrupt. The state governments involved are corrupt. The con-gress is corrupt. The Just-Us bureaucracy is corrupt.
    Trump's people had to file all the cases to make that corruption obvious and to get the evidence out to those who care about fair elections.
    It's now obvious and the solution to it has not been implemented ... yet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 year, 4 months ago
      Corruption or fear?
      I take WilliamS point, but in my naive view a sensible court, in view of the importance of the issue, would lean towards hearing the case, few require the use of technicalities, the public mostly would want hearing, discussion, yes or no, and remedy. Refusing to hear is 'too easy'.
      -Do the job you are appointed, and paid, to do.
      So from the view of the article, what should Trump have done?
      I like your "...yet". Work in progress?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 4 months ago
        I think Trump was betrayed by many appointees. They should be prosecuted as traitors along with most of the con-gress, the judges, the FBI, the CIA.
        It won't happen unless Trump takes control via the military, which is the proper action, imo.
        The Democrats made the US into a banana republic. Time to use the military to fix the corruption. Its that or secession for half the population..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 4 months ago
    Cowardice across the board, from the courts, from even those in government with a grain of decency. I believe that somewhere down the line, after everything falls apart, the truth will be documented.

    The question has to be not if, but when a revolution occurs, and what form it will take. Normally, after the voters realize what hell they've brought upon themselves, the miscreants are voted out, but now that fraudulent voting is the norm, I don't think that will happen. The fraud will be even more obvious, but no one will have the cojones to throw the bastards out next election. As our quality of life descends into the gutter, the question will be whether or not there are enough with the courage to right the ship of state. If just the threat of violence (which was what drove the SCOTUS to duck their responsibilities) is sufficient to cow most of us, will there be enough willing to risk the persecution that is obviously coming?

    We see people already being destroyed, with their lives torn apart for their political beliefs. The crazies are in charge, and they smell blood. In the end it may take the actual spilling of their blood to end the coming disaster.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 1 year, 4 months ago
    Trump determined his fate as soon as he took office. He attacked the swamp out in the open with no strategy, no weapons and no allies. His reality show approach gave him a 50-50 split with his audience but all the media and the political world was in the opposition. He showed immense courage and stamina but it did not increase his standing. His lack of a consistent philosophical position, lack of eloquence, cunning and charisma left him with nothing but a victory here and there created with an executive order. Achievements that made an impressive list only earned a "but what have you done for me lately response". Our only hope is that the goons that are taking over will reveal their stupidity early and someone on the side of reason will dare to take up the fight that can lead us to a better place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NilsAndersso 1 year, 4 months ago
    The advance notice of appointments go from scary to crazy to comical.
    My current favorite appointment is the appointee for the civil rights under the justice dept.
    She has written an essay on how blacks are stronger, physically, mentally and spiritually (whatever that means) than whites, who are melanin-deficient.

    Now, if this were true, or, more to the point,
    if she really believes it to be true, then you would expect her to start affirmative action etc. to favor white people who are weaker, no?
    I am looking forward to a nice sinecure for being white...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 1 year, 4 months ago
    I don't see that there is any valid argument for lack of standing, it's a cop out. SCOTUS insisted on placating the barbarian horde at the expense of due process for a blustering president most of them hated anyway -- maybe even the three he appointed.

    I can see several possible reforms to avoid it happening again. One way would be a new Voting Rights Act which would impose uniform federal requirements that ID be required, that all votes be auditable, that absentee voting be restricted and ballot harvesting banned, and most importantly that election day be early enough so that there is time for a full forensic audit of an election before inauguration day, and give every candidate standing to demand enforcement of all these things. (Yes, Congress does have these powers, in Article I, Section 4.) And allow private prosecution so that a successful cheater cannot prevent prosecutions of those who did it.

    But to get these reforms in place we'll need another honest administration first. And I'm not sure we'll ever see one again in my lifetime.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 year, 4 months ago
      Yes. Lack of standing, could be argued, but, seems to me that the SCOTUS was especially powered to adjudicate disputes between states.
      Opposition to ID, I cannot see any explanation for this except a desire for damage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo