[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #906 Exit Trump

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 14:32 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het was toch een hoax? en het virus dat een hoax is, zou al in april wonderwel verdwijnen, als sneeuw in de zon.

Vorige week zag ik op tv een ICU verpleger die vertelde dat ze mensen op hun sterfbed zag liggen met de vraag op de lippen: Dit kan toch niet? Het was allemaal een verzinsel van de democraten!

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:32 schreef 4moreyears het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Solide reply

quote:

They want to undo 231 years of election tradition and norms so their guy, Donald Trump, can have another four years in office. And so the president won’t send out a mean tweet that might torpedo their chances for reelection.

Waltz told the Daytona Beach News Journal, “For those who are saying this is threatening democracy, I think ignoring them (voting irregularities) or sweeping them under the rug is bad for our democracy and restoring the confidence by working through these issues is what’s good for a democracy.”

If Waltz was paying attention, he would understand those alleged irregularities haven’t been ignored by the courts, nor by the states, nor by the Department of Justice. They simply haven’t stood up to scrutiny.

The cowardly betrayal of American ideals by the gang of nine Florida congressmen was preceded on Wednesday by 17 Republican state attorneys general — Florida’s Ashley Moody included, of course — joining in the Texas lawsuit.

Legal experts don’t think the Supreme Court will go along with Texas and its accomplices. We pray it won’t, and hope the court offers a decisive rebuke to this partisan attack on the same U.S. Constitution that Waltz and his fellow Republicans swore to uphold.


...


Every American should be appalled at the attempted usurpation taking place, and at the elected officials taking part in this terrifying fiasco and violating their oath to protect the country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Everyone who supported Michael Waltz for Congress should feel a deep sense of remorse and regret.

We do.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:34 schreef mcmlxiv het volgende:

[..]

57-1 of 58-1 wordt dat dan toch?

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:46 schreef 4moreyears het volgende:

[..]

Je snapt dat de hete aardappel is doorgegeven en dat we nu eindelijk zijn aangekomen waar het thuis hoort?

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:46 schreef 4moreyears het volgende:

[..]

Je snapt dat de hete aardappel is doorgegeven en dat we nu eindelijk zijn aangekomen waar het thuis hoort?

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:56 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Jij snapt echt helemaal niks van hoe de rechtstaat werkt, of wel .

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:58 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Het zou idd geen rechtstaat meer zijn als het zo zou werken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 19:59 schreef 4moreyears het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt ook de uitspraak streams gehoord?

quote:

When Georgia state Rep. Bee Nguyen (D) reviewed a list of voters who President Trump’s campaign claimed cast illegal ballots in the state, three names caught her eye: two friends and a constituent.

For days, Nguyen pored over public records, spoke with voters by phone and even knocked on doors in person to vet the Trump list. She found that it included dozens of voters who were eligible to vote in Georgia — along with their full names and home addresses.

On Thursday, when a data analyst who compiled the list told a panel of state lawmakers that it proved thousands of voters cast ballots in Georgia who should not have, Nguyen was ready.

“I do want to share with you some of the things that I found that appeared to be incorrect to me,” the two-term lawmaker told Matt Braynard, whose research has been cited in numerous suits filed by Trump and his allies, several of which have been tossed out of the courts.

Nguyen’s 10-minute dissection of the data offered a rare real-time fact check of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud that the president’s allies have promoted in state hearings around the country, largely before friendly Republican audiences.

“If you are going to take the names of voters in the state of Georgia and publish their first, middle and last name, their home address, and accuse them of committing a felony, at the very minimum there should have been an attempt to contact these voters,” she said in an interview after the hearing. “There was no such attempt.”

Braynard said in an email to The Washington Post that he “appreciated her feedback and look forward to getting her records that are questionable. I was happy to make a statement and happy to hear feedback and questions.”

The episode shows how quickly the allegations by Trump and his supporters have fallen apart under scrutiny, particularly in the courts, which have consistently rejected assertions that rampant irregularities tainted the vote.

Yet in Georgia and elsewhere, many state Republicans have given Trump a platform to air the claims, holding legislative hearings on election integrity that have largely been used to recycle conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations.

The president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, appeared via video at the Georgia House’s investigative hearing into the election on Thursday, a day after being discharged from the hospital due to a coronavirus infection. During his testimony, Giuliani reiterated several claims that state election officials have repeatedly debunked since Election Day.

Giuliani called out several Black election workers in Fulton County, alleging that they were “passing around USB ports as if they were vials of heroin or cocaine.” He also referred to some election workers by name while questioning their actions — despite repeated pleas from state election officials to protect the safety of election workers.

The president’s legal team also questioned the security of the voting machines used in Georgia, repeating a widely debunked conspiracy theory.

At one point, as the lawyers played a video of an election official in Coffee County, Ga., Giuliani was heard saying off-camera: “This is really good stuff,” adding: “We should try to get this on Newsmax, on OAN,” referring to conservative media outlets.

House Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Shaw Blackmon, a Republican, did not offer an opportunity for lawmakers to question Giuliani.

The forum was sharply criticized by officials with the secretary of state’s office, who have defended the integrity of the election and denounced efforts to undermine public faith in the outcome.

“Giving oxygen to this continued disinformation is leading to a continuing erosion of people’s belief in our elections and our processes,” Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting information systems manager, said during a news conference Thursday afternoon.

Georgia certified its election results for the second time this week after a second recount of presidential ballots reaffirmed Joe Biden’s narrow victory in the state.

But the legal challenges have not abated. The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming that some poll watchers could not observe the vote counting as closely in person as it had hoped, and challenging the use of ballot drop boxes, which were installed at the direction of election officials in Georgia.

In another lawsuit filed in recent days, the Trump campaign and Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer alleged systemic irregularities and requested that the court decertify the election and prevent the state’s electors from casting their votes for Biden when the electoral college meets on Monday.

Legal experts said the court challenges have little hope of success.

“It seems, in any event, to be much ado about nothing,” said John Powers, a Georgia analyst at the voting rights group Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It’s not clear what the end game is here, but it’s never been clear to me that there is a discernible end game.”

The Trump campaign’s 1,585-page lawsuit relies heavily on data analysis by Braynard, who worked on the Trump campaign in 2016 and who has led an outside effort to analyze voter records and other databases in search of signs that ballots may have been cast illegally.

“When just combining my findings alone, the number of ballots that are strongly indicated as illegally cast surpasses the margin of victory in the presidential election, thus making it impossible to know who the deserved winner is in Georgia,” Braynard said during the hearing.

He provided lists of voters’ personal information to back up his claim that there were thousands of individuals who had voted but were registered in another state. He said the lists showed voters who used a post office address to mask their true residences and that others voted in two states.

During the hearing Thursday, Nguyen countered Braynard’s analysis with her own research, based on a sampling of the exhibits included in the lawsuit.

Of the first 10 names on the list that were allegedly out-of-state voters, Nguyen said she found eight who were longtime Georgia residents and property owners by using public records.

Dozens of voters who the campaign suggested used P.O. boxes to vote illegally were actually residents of a single condominium building that had a mail center on the first floor — including Republicans and Democrats, she said.

“I wanted to do the research because these are real-life people and we cannot just be alleging that they are committing voter fraud and that they are committing a felony and not do our due diligence,” Nguyen said later.

Nguyen, who in 2017 filled the state legislative seat vacated by Stacey Abrams when she ran for governor, said the voters she contacted said they were not aware that their names and addresses were made public in the lawsuit.

After she presented her findings during the hearing, Braynard thanked Nguyen for her research.

“I actually want to thank you for helping to raise issues to help better validate data,” he said. “It’s only with strong scrutiny that we’re able to be completely confident in our findings.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:21 schreef Pleun2011 het volgende:
Trump laat nog even snel 5 terdoodveroordeelden executeren. De laatste loodjes zijn het zwaarst maar we zijn bijna van die rat verlost

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:21 schreef Pleun2011 het volgende:
Trump laat nog even snel 5 terdoodveroordeelden executeren. De laatste loodjes zijn het zwaarst maar we zijn bijna van die rat verlost

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:30 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Daarnaast gaat Trump gewoon een nieuwe termijn van nog eens 4 jaar aan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:30 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor!
Die mensen die gedood worden zullen het wel verdiend hebben! Denk ook even aan de slachtoffers en de nabestaanden.
Daarnaast gaat Trump gewoon een nieuwe termijn van nog eens 4 jaar aan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:30 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor!
Die mensen die gedood worden zullen het wel verdiend hebben! Denk ook even aan de slachtoffers en de nabestaanden.
Daarnaast gaat Trump gewoon een nieuwe termijn van nog eens 4 jaar aan.

quote:

Opinion: Don’t just deny Texas’ original action. Decimate it.

Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture, for reasons that many people have already given and that I will not repeat here. The easy thing for the Supreme Court to do is simply deny Texas permission to file the complaint (and deny the motions to intervene as moot) and be done with it. No fuss, no muss.

But the court should do more. It is perfectly ordinary and appropriate for the justices to write an opinion explaining the various reasons why they are rejecting Texas’ request. Indeed, the minority of justices who think that the court is required to accept original actions like Texas’ may well write short opinions of their own or note that they think the case was properly filed. So there is nothing overreaching if a majority of the court explains why the case is meritless.

The justices’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary, dangerous moment for our democracy. President Donald Trump, other supportive Republicans, and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of millions of people that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. If that view continues to take hold, it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public’s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society.

A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:39 schreef Dutch_view het volgende:

[..]

Maar dan wel een termijn als staatsburger

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:39 schreef Korenfok het volgende:
En hij krijgt nooit een meerderheid door middel van eerlijke democratie.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 december 2020 20:47 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ twitter ]
[..]

Mee eens. De SC zou deze actie niet simpelweg moeten afwijzen maar ook duidelijk moeten veroordelen. Het is een ondermijning van het vertrouwen van het volk in de democratie en verkiezingen door ongegrond de uitslag ervan teniet te willen doen.