The Prime 10 WTF Issues In Texas Election Swimsuit … So Far

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an absurd lawsuit asserting Texas’ right to invalidate millions of ballots in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia based on the theory that the four Accused states had not conducted clean elections, which somehow watered down the election in Texas.

The theory has already been rejected by dozens of federal and state judges, and the court has never recognized the right of one state to challenge another’s electoral process. But that’s hardly the point – the Supreme Court is originally responsible for interstate lawsuits, so the President and his allies are all betting their chips on SCOTUS stepping in and granting Trump a second term after Ken Paxton found a secret shortcut to Chief Justice Roberts has’ front door.

And wherever Trump goes, BS litigation will follow. The docket is now packed full of amicus panties, each crazier than the other. The truth is, these aren’t the very smart guys, and things have gotten out of hand.

In no particular order, the top 10 WTF articles are listed here. The day is still young, however, so Yeezy still has time to top them all!

1. Pennsylvania lawmakers accuse their Secretary of State of conspiring with the Pennsylvania Justice Department to commit an “extrajudicial assault”.

Do not think this word means what you think it means.

This extrajudicial assault on the Commonwealth of Nations election mechanism came from all sides: well-funded national groups using COVID-19 as an excuse to bring a litany of lawsuits that seemingly challenged every facet of the Pennsylvania election; Then the executive shied away from its obligations to defend Commonwealth laws and offered extrajudicial guidance to the Commonwealth electoral boards. Eventually, these efforts were condoned and encouraged by the over-fulfillment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is clearly against the requirements of the US Constitution.

2. Cabal and Oligarchy? REALLY?

Some of these Alaska, Idaho, and Arizona lawmakers will have to switch to decaf. Maybe you use it like washing off half a Xanax because that plea is a little smidge … overheated.

The applicants first cite “credible allegations by the cabal and oligarchy in the four defendant states” and then move on to many other pages in the thesaurus.

For fortunate historical reasons, complex, multidimensional, systemic problems that undermine the entire Federal Constitution have never before been examined under Article IV, paragraph 4. Today this problem appeared for the first time. The questions concern the life and death of the republic without a single scintilla or the slightest hint of exaggeration.

The entire federal constitution!

Where an oligarchy has taken power in certain states to interfere with both legal voting and majority rule, that oligarchy has put itself above all others, and the “deceitful” states rule like the House of Lords in medieval and early modern England.

Ummmmm…. You know what, it doesn’t matter.

3. If a vote is invalid for Presidential Race purposes, isn’t it invalid?

Law & Crime’s Adam Klasfield has compiled a helpful list of the seventeen members of the Republican House who joined an amicus letter asking the Supreme Court to invalidate their own elections.

4. Lousy-ana

How the hell do you manage to misspell the plaintiff’s name, especially if that plaintiff is one of the fifty states?

I don’t know, but Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt made it.

5. Riots?

Sure, Ken Paxton’s awkward apology masquerading as a lawsuit is unforgivable crap. But Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro may be exaggerating when he describes it as a “seditious abuse of legal process.” Words have meaning!

We forgive him, however, as the rest of this opposition motion is such a well-written rebuttal of Paxton’s case.

6. Someone should be arrested for the serious murder of MATH

Since White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany is sent to Fox every night to wave around a pile of papers and reiterate Ken Paxton’s claim that Biden has a “one in a quadrillion” chance of winning in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin would have.

This is where PA AG Josh Shapiro is supposed to redeem.

Texas initially claims that “[t]The likelihood that former Vice President Biden will * * * win the referendum in the four accused states, regardless of President Trump taking the early lead in these states at 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than a quadrillion. “Bill of Complaint at ¶ 10. She bases this amazing claim on Dr. Cicchetti’s assessment for each of the states that the probability that the votes before 3:00 am and the votes counted afterwards were drawn “by chance from the same population” is extremely small for each of the states. App. 4a-6a ¶¶ 15-19. 3 The votes counted later, however, undeniably were not drawn “randomly” from the same population, since the votes counted earlier were predominantly personal votes, while the votes counted later were predominantly postal votes. And Texas’s own complaint shows why the votes counted later led to such a large shift in favor of President-elect Biden: “Significantly, in the defendant states, a Democrat [sic] Voters voted by mail at two to three times the rate of Republicans. “Bill of Complaint at ¶ 39. Both this fact and the expectation that it would result in a shift in the favor of President Elect Biden if mail-in votes were counted were well reported months before the election.

Texas further claims, again based on Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis that “[t]The same statistical improbability of less than a quadrillion “can be determined” when Mr Biden’s performance in each of these accused states is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election. “Bill of Complaint at ¶ 11. For this claim, Dr. Cicchetti simply assumes that the likelihood that a particular Pennsylvania voter will vote for Biden in 2020 is the same as that of a Pennsylvania voter in 2016 who for Hillary Clinton – and then concludes under the assumption that the results were rather unlikely for 2020. App.6a ¶¶ 18–20, but it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that the 2016 and 2020 elections will indeed were separate events, and any analysis based on the assumption that voters in a given state would behave the same way in two consecutive presidential elections is worthless.

6. Vote counting after election night is illegal?

The Christian Family Association is of the opinion that no vote took place in these states because the tabulation of the votes took too long and therefore “it is undisputed that every defendant state did not vote on election day” right. ‘”

Has Alaska Counted?

7. Lin Wood

The tireless lawyer represents himself per se in a combination of certiorari / amicus brief, in which he describes himself as “amici” and manages to misspell his own name. So … what is there to say anyway?

I’m serious that he misspelled his own damn name.

Also, he apparently thinks he is plural. Either that or Latin is another item on his long list of incompetence.

– Mike Dunford (@questauthority) December 11, 2020

8. You can’t just do shit. This is the Supreme Court!

As we discovered yesterday, his lawyer John Eastman wrote in Trump’s request for intervention: “President Trump has prevailed in almost all historical success indicators in the presidential election. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; No candidate in history – Republican or Democrat – has ever lost the election after winning both states. “

This remains false as John F. Kennedy lost Ohio and Florida and still defeated Richard Nixon in 1960. It also remains unchanged in the file.

9. Special mention: Rudy Giuliani

Okay, that’s actually not up to date. However, this is the presidential lawyer referring to the same alleged fraud in Georgia on an inflammatory basis.


10. Would you like some fake states with your fake lawsuit?

Of course you would! Please meet New California and New Nevada who have filed an amicus letter in this suit.

One reason the New California State and New Nevada State were founded is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome, California and Sisolak, Nevada. A Court of Justice opinion affirming a national unified rule of law that will restore the supremacy of the electoral clause of Article II.1 of the United States Constitution will resolve some of the complaints that lead to the creation of these new states.

No, that’s not how Gavin Newsom spells his name. And yes, the error is repeated throughout the filing process.

Dear God, when will this be over?

Take your time, Chief Justice Roberts. We haven’t heard from Freedonia yet.

Elizabeth Dye (@ 5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore, where she writes about law and politics.

Comments are closed.