Biden needs to do something

[Elixir]

The Cubans are to blame for Florida.

That's the same thing as Russians, right? Goddammit!

Anyhow, McTurtle, Chris Christy and many others ... all turning away from Cheato right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ronnie Jackson was in the basement brewing up a lethal injection at Trump's behest.

 

[Gun Nut]

You guys can expect me to be a lunatic for the next 2 weeks.

I am worried, very worried. I still think Trump is going to win because of his shenanigans and I think people should be preventive and proactive, not merely reactive to stop it.

Our country's legal system is one of offense and defense... someone has to be one and someone else has to be the other.
There is nothing one can do except what he (and the media) has been doing.. which is tempering emotions and calling for patience while the legal process by which power is transferred reaches a point where there is something to do.

What are you doing to prevent the rain? DO SOMETHING! Opening an umbrella AFTER it starts raining is REACTIVE!!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Suggesting that Biden do "some thing" suggest that the author has had little or no exposure to the rules of civil procedure in any jurisdiction much less the suggested best practices.

I am not a lawyer but I have had some experience as a claims manager and litigation supervisor so I have some failurity with these issues.

First the plaintiff files the suit against the defendant.
Second the defendant is served with a copy of the petition and a summons to answer the petition.

When the defendant receives the suit with the summons the defense is assigned to defense counsel who refer the suit to determine what answers and procedures are appopiate.

The fist issue is to determine if the service of process is correct. Many times suits are erroniously filed against the wrong defendent or served incorrectly.

If the suit is served incorrectly then the appropriate response to that issue is not file file responsive pleadings with out waiving the right to file responsive pleadings on the plaintiff's pleading.

The next issue is to determine if the court where the suit has been filed has jurisdiction over the defendant and the issues pleaded.

If there are no issues as to jurisdiction on over the defendant and the pleaded issues the responsive pleadings will be filed which may include a coulter claim.

When the Plaintiff receives the counter claims the Plaintiff - defendant on the counter claim will repeat the steps outlined above on the counter claim.

Nhe next issue will be motions rearding various legal issues raised in the pleadings foloowed by discovery.

Discovery consists of filing interrogates (questions in writing that the opponent has to answer in writing followed by depositions of the parties and expert witness.

All of this takes time.

The defendant in this case is the state's where the issue is being litigated so Biden and the democratic party may not have standing to intervene.

BTW: The answerer date on a law suit is often 20 days or more so that is likely to be after the election is completed.

Then there are the issues of appeals all the way up to the state supreme court and then the federal supreme court.

Trump is using lawyers to protect his right to do a recount in Georgia.

Biden should respond with using data analysts to look for irregularities (there are always irregularities) in Georgia precincts and get his lawyers to help him to order recanvasing in Georgia.

As I explained before about irregularities, there are always irregularities.

As I explained before, in Iowa Bernie found some 15 or 20 precincts and got them recanvassed. Other Democratic candidates (such as Biden, Warren, Buttigieg) to also do recanvassing.

If you let your opponent cherry-pick where data quality is to be improved in a close race, you will lose. You have to equalize it by making it fairer by being self-interested, asking for the same thing so that overall quality is improved but also specifically quality in your favor balances out improvements in opponent's favor.

Yes, it takes time. It takes time to do the data analysis, let alone the lawyering.

 

[KeepTalking]

Suggesting that Biden do "some thing" suggest that the author has had little or no exposure to the rules of civil procedure in any jurisdiction much less the suggested best practices.

I am not a lawyer but I have had some experience as a claims manager and litigation supervisor so I have some failurity with these issues.

First the plaintiff files the suit against the defendant.
Second the defendant is served with a copy of the petition and a summons to answer the petition.

When the defendant receives the suit with the summons the defense is assigned to defense counsel who refer the suit to determine what answers and procedures are appopiate.

The fist issue is to determine if the service of process is correct. Many times suits are erroniously filed against the wrong defendent or served incorrectly.

If the suit is served incorrectly then the appropriate response to that issue is not file file responsive pleadings with out waiving the right to file responsive pleadings on the plaintiff's pleading.

The next issue is to determine if the court where the suit has been filed has jurisdiction over the defendant and the issues pleaded.

If there are no issues as to jurisdiction on over the defendant and the pleaded issues the responsive pleadings will be filed which may include a coulter claim.

When the Plaintiff receives the counter claims the Plaintiff - defendant on the counter claim will repeat the steps outlined above on the counter claim.

Nhe next issue will be motions rearding various legal issues raised in the pleadings foloowed by discovery.

Discovery consists of filing interrogates (questions in writing that the opponent has to answer in writing followed by depositions of the parties and expert witness.

All of this takes time.

The defendant in this case is the state's where the issue is being litigated so Biden and the democratic party may not have standing to intervene.

BTW: The answerer date on a law suit is often 20 days or more so that is likely to be after the election is completed.

Then there are the issues of appeals all the way up to the state supreme court and then the federal supreme court.

Trump is using lawyers to protect his right to do a recount in Georgia.

Biden should respond with using data analysts to look for irregularities (there are always irregularities) in Georgia precincts and get his lawyers to help him to order recanvasing in Georgia.

As I explained before about irregularities, there are always irregularities.

As I explained before, in Iowa Bernie found some 15 or 20 precincts and got them recanvassed. Other Democratic candidates (such as Biden, Warren, Buttigieg) to also do recanvassing.

If you let your opponent cherry-pick where data quality is to be improved in a close race, you will lose. You have to equalize it by making it fairer by being self-interested, asking for the same thing so that overall quality is improved but also specifically quality in your favor balances out improvements in opponent's favor.

Yes, it takes time. It takes time to do the data analysis, let alone the lawyering.

Trump doesn't have the right to do a recount in Georgia, however, Georgia recounts are done at the discretion of election officials and the Georgia Sec of State is Republican, so he will get a recount. The good news is that it is unlikely to help Trump, and unlike in 2000 Biden is in the lead, so Biden is the one who would benefit from the SCOTUS stopping a recount.

I don't know how re-canvassing works, but if things end up as close as they look now, I am all for Biden pursuing any effort to do so. He has Buttigieg on his campaign staff, and has already tapped him for the transition team, so you can be assured that the campaign will pursue re-canvassing if it looks to be worth the while.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump doesn't have the right to do a recount in Georgia, however, Georgia recounts are done at the discretion of election officials and the Georgia Sec of State is Republican, so he will get a recount.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 21 - ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2 - ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 12 - RETURNS
§ 21-2-495 - Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes; losing candidate's right to a recount
O.C.G.A. 21-2-495 (2010)
21-2-495. Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes; losing candidate's right to a recount


(a) In precincts where paper ballots have been used, the superintendent may, either of his or her own motion or upon petition of any candidate or political party, order the recount of all the ballots for a particular precinct or precincts for one or more offices in which it shall appear that a discrepancy or error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been made. Such recount may be held at any time prior to the certification of the consolidated returns by the superintendent and shall be conducted under the direction of the superintendent. Before making such recount, the superintendent shall give notice in writing to each candidate and to the county or municipal chairperson of each party or body affected by the recount. Each such candidate may be present in person or by representative, and each such party or body may send two representatives to be present at such recount. If upon such recount, it shall appear that the original count by the poll officers was incorrect, such returns and all papers being prepared by the superintendent shall be corrected accordingly.

(b) In precincts where voting machines have been used, whenever it appears that there is a discrepancy in the returns recorded for any voting machine or machines or that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, exists, the superintendent shall, either of his or her own motion or upon the sworn petition of three electors of any precinct, order a recanvass of the votes shown on that particular machine or machines. Such recanvass may be conducted at any time prior to the certification of the consolidated returns by the superintendent. In conducting such recanvass, the superintendent shall summon the poll officers of the precinct; and such officers, in the presence of the superintendent, shall make a record of the number of the seal upon the voting machine or machines and the number of the protective counter or other device; shall make visible the registering counters of each such machine; and, without unlocking the machine against voting, shall recanvass the vote thereon.
...

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/21-2-495/

Part (a) gives an implied legal right to request a recount when it's within the bounds. Part (b) means that in addition to other means of observing a discrepancy, if a data analyst has found irregularities (like what happened with Iowa), a campaign can show the irregularities to proper authorities to get a recanvas. It helps to have a threatening letter or legal letter invoking the Georgia code come from a lawyer in this regard. Arguing what is a right is semantics.

 

[KeepTalking]

Trump doesn't have the right to do a recount in Georgia, however, Georgia recounts are done at the discretion of election officials and the Georgia Sec of State is Republican, so he will get a recount.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 21 - ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2 - ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 12 - RETURNS
§ 21-2-495 - Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes; losing candidate's right to a recount
O.C.G.A. 21-2-495 (2010)
21-2-495. Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes; losing candidate's right to a recount


(a) In precincts where paper ballots have been used, the superintendent may, either of his or her own motion or upon petition of any candidate or political party, order the recount of all the ballots for a particular precinct or precincts for one or more offices in which it shall appear that a discrepancy or error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been made. Such recount may be held at any time prior to the certification of the consolidated returns by the superintendent and shall be conducted under the direction of the superintendent. Before making such recount, the superintendent shall give notice in writing to each candidate and to the county or municipal chairperson of each party or body affected by the recount. Each such candidate may be present in person or by representative, and each such party or body may send two representatives to be present at such recount. If upon such recount, it shall appear that the original count by the poll officers was incorrect, such returns and all papers being prepared by the superintendent shall be corrected accordingly.

(b) In precincts where voting machines have been used, whenever it appears that there is a discrepancy in the returns recorded for any voting machine or machines or that an error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, exists, the superintendent shall, either of his or her own motion or upon the sworn petition of three electors of any precinct, order a recanvass of the votes shown on that particular machine or machines. Such recanvass may be conducted at any time prior to the certification of the consolidated returns by the superintendent. In conducting such recanvass, the superintendent shall summon the poll officers of the precinct; and such officers, in the presence of the superintendent, shall make a record of the number of the seal upon the voting machine or machines and the number of the protective counter or other device; shall make visible the registering counters of each such machine; and, without unlocking the machine against voting, shall recanvass the vote thereon.
...

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/21-2-495/

Part (a) gives an implied legal right to request a recount when it's within the bounds. Part (b) means that in addition to other means of observing a discrepancy, if a data analyst has found irregularities (like what happened with Iowa), a campaign can show the irregularities to proper authorities to get a recanvas. It helps to have a threatening letter or legal letter invoking the Georgia code come from a lawyer in this regard. Arguing what is a right is semantics.

I'm not sure why we are arguing about it at all, given that as I noted the Georgia Sec of State has the discretion to call for a recount, and he is a Republican who has already said there will be a recount. If you want an argument, however, I would of course note that an implied right is no right at all until it is tested, and the wording of the law "the superintendent may... order the recount" leaves that right on very shaky ground. I feel my previous statement that recounts are at the discretion of election officials remains valid in the face of the above.

Thanks for that link BTW, I had only looked at summaries of this law in my previous search, and they did not include any information on recanvassing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/21-2-495/

Part (a) gives an implied legal right to request a recount when it's within the bounds. Part (b) means that in addition to other means of observing a discrepancy, if a data analyst has found irregularities (like what happened with Iowa), a campaign can show the irregularities to proper authorities to get a recanvas. It helps to have a threatening letter or legal letter invoking the Georgia code come from a lawyer in this regard. Arguing what is a right is semantics.

I'm not sure why we are arguing about it at all, given that as I noted the Georgia Sec of State has the discretion to call for a recount, and he is a Republican who has already said there will be a recount. If you want an argument, however, I would of course note that an implied right is no right at all until it is tested, and the wording of the law "the superintendent may... order the recount" leaves that right on very shaky ground. I feel my previous statement that recounts are at the discretion of election officials remains valid in the face of the above.

Thanks for that link BTW, I had only looked at summaries of this law in my previous search, and they did not include any information on recanvassing.

I am not going to argue semantics. Do you think Trump had some precincts recanvassed? I do. And if he hasn't, he will...followed by a recount again. The best defense against this tactic is recanvassing other precincts and lawyers. That's why Democrats did it Iowa during primaries.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/21-2-495/

Part (a) gives an implied legal right to request a recount when it's within the bounds. Part (b) means that in addition to other means of observing a discrepancy, if a data analyst has found irregularities (like what happened with Iowa), a campaign can show the irregularities to proper authorities to get a recanvas. It helps to have a threatening letter or legal letter invoking the Georgia code come from a lawyer in this regard. Arguing what is a right is semantics.

I'm not sure why we are arguing about it at all, given that as I noted the Georgia Sec of State has the discretion to call for a recount, and he is a Republican who has already said there will be a recount. If you want an argument, however, I would of course note that an implied right is no right at all until it is tested, and the wording of the law "the superintendent may... order the recount" leaves that right on very shaky ground. I feel my previous statement that recounts are at the discretion of election officials remains valid in the face of the above.

Thanks for that link BTW, I had only looked at summaries of this law in my previous search, and they did not include any information on recanvassing.

I am not going to argue semantics. Do you think Trump had some precincts recanvassed? I do. And if he hasn't, he will...followed by a recount again. The best defense against this tactic is recanvassing other precincts and lawyers. That's why Democrats did it Iowa during primaries.

Recanvas for what purpose? To ask for a recount?

 

[KeepTalking]

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/21-2-495/

Part (a) gives an implied legal right to request a recount when it's within the bounds. Part (b) means that in addition to other means of observing a discrepancy, if a data analyst has found irregularities (like what happened with Iowa), a campaign can show the irregularities to proper authorities to get a recanvas. It helps to have a threatening letter or legal letter invoking the Georgia code come from a lawyer in this regard. Arguing what is a right is semantics.

I'm not sure why we are arguing about it at all, given that as I noted the Georgia Sec of State has the discretion to call for a recount, and he is a Republican who has already said there will be a recount. If you want an argument, however, I would of course note that an implied right is no right at all until it is tested, and the wording of the law "the superintendent may... order the recount" leaves that right on very shaky ground. I feel my previous statement that recounts are at the discretion of election officials remains valid in the face of the above.

Thanks for that link BTW, I had only looked at summaries of this law in my previous search, and they did not include any information on recanvassing.

I am not going to argue semantics.

Well that's good. I didn't particularly want to argue them either, given that it doesn't matter because the recount is going to happen according to the Georgia Sec of State.

Do you think Trump had some precincts recanvassed? I do.

Why would you think that? Has there been any report of Trump requesting districts to recanvas? If he has, I haven't seen any news regarding it, so I don't see any reason to adopt that belief.

And if he hasn't, he will...

I would imagine that it is highly likely that he will do so. Where I am not clear is if this is part of what the Georgia Sec of State has said is already going to happen.

followed by a recount again.

While I don't doubt that Trump will ask for a second recount if the first one does not go his way, I don't see it actually being granted.

The best defense against this tactic is recanvassing other precincts and lawyers. That's why Democrats did it Iowa during primaries.

If the Georgia Sec of State is including recanvassing in his recount, then there would be no reason for it. Otherwise, as I stated before, I have no doubt that Biden's campaign is taking a look at recanvassing, and will request it in those places where they think it will benefit them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am not going to argue semantics.

Well that's good. I didn't particularly want to argue them either, given that it doesn't matter because the recount is going to happen according to the Georgia Sec of State.

Do you think Trump had some precincts recanvassed? I do.

Why would you think that? Has there been any report of Trump requesting districts to recanvas? If he has, I haven't seen any news regarding it, so I don't see any reason to adopt that belief.

And if he hasn't, he will...

I would imagine that it is highly likely that he will do so. Where I am not clear is if this is part of what the Georgia Sec of State has said is already going to happen.

followed by a recount again.

While I don't doubt that Trump will ask for a second recount if the first one does not go his way, I don't see it actually being granted.

The best defense against this tactic is recanvassing other precincts and lawyers. That's why Democrats did it Iowa during primaries.

If the Georgia Sec of State is including recanvassing in his recount, then there would be no reason for it. Otherwise, as I stated before, I have no doubt that Biden's campaign is taking a look at recanvassing, and will request it in those places where they think it will benefit them.

Recanvass why, even, though? Last time recounts happened, they swung the total by a couple hundred. The differences are just too stark at this point and it's not likely that count total are off by enough to even maybe give tRump an edge.

It's a delay tactic and smokescreen for their inevitable bid at the SCOTUS.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

At this point with the numbers having increased giving extra insurance to Biden, I concede the point. Trump no longer has a viable legal pathway to cheat. This means it is not necessary to counter Trump since Trump's efforts will be too minimally impactful.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If Trump’s plan was to invalidate mail in ballots that arrived *after* Election Day then he may have lost the election for himself by *advertising* that as his plan, thus causing many people to be sure to get their ballots in early, be it by mail or by drop box.

 

[Coleman Smith]

If Trump’s plan was to invalidate mail in ballots that arrived *after* Election Day then he may have lost the election for himself by *advertising* that as his plan, thus causing many people to be sure to get their ballots in early, be it by mail or by drop box.

.......and many of those late ballots may have been for Shithead.

 

[Gun Nut]

If Trump’s plan was to invalidate mail in ballots that arrived *after* Election Day then he may have lost the election for himself by *advertising* that as his plan, thus causing many people to be sure to get their ballots in early, be it by mail or by drop box.

.......and many of those late ballots may have been for Shithead.

in Arizona, that was exactly the case. That's why his cult followers felt like they had to mobilize out front of the ballot counting place in that key county... to counter their leaders mistake of saying to stop counting (while Biden was ahead there).