Discovery

…can be fun. I’ve often said that in a variety of other venues. Here’s an example of the fun that can be afforded by discovery. Of course, what I’m talking about is the legal process that kicks off most any legal proceeding, a stage during which all parties to a litigation are required to show to all the other parties, voluntarily or under subpoena, everything they have that bears on the matter being litigated.

Obfuscating Harm

The Wall Street Journal has an opinion on the nature of Texas’ suit against four other States regarding their conduct of the 2020 Presidential election in their States.

This legal analysis will upset many readers….

The Editors’ analysis is itself flawed:

Can a state be harmed by the way other states conduct their elections?

and

This one [Texas’ suit] concerns election law in states other than Texas.

And many other, similar statements. These are attempts to change the subject that would make Saul Alinsky proud.

Who’s Eligible to Vote?

Recall the Georgia runoff elections for two Federal Senate seats and the parallel efforts by both parties to register new voters—including encouraging folks from out of State to become citizens of the State and register to vote on that 5 Jan 21 election day.

Here’s Tracy Beanz of UncoverDC.com:

In reading the GA constitution, it appears that newly registered voters should NOT be eligible to vote in the runoff election.

Here’s the Georgia Constitution.  Here’s Section II, Paragraph II of that Constitution, which deals explicitly with runoff elections (some folks really do plan ahead):

Who Was Audited?

Recall the hoo-raw over the Dominion Voting Systems machines in Georgia. Georgia’s Secretary of State  Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, authorized an audit of those machines and last month announced the audit’s results: “no evidence of the machines being tampered.”

Pro V&V, “a US Election Assistance Commission certified testing laboratory,” was the company Raffensperger hired to do the audit. The company, according to its Web site,

was founded in 2011 by individuals possessing a combined testing experience of over 30 years[]

and it was accredited by the US Election Assistance Commission in 2015.

Censorship

Douglas Vincent Mastriano is a Pennsylvania State Senator. He’s also a retired United States Army Colonel.

Last week, he organized the State Senate’s Senate Majority Policy Committee hearing to uncover[] exactly what happened in the Keystone State regarding the just concluded Presidential and down ballot general election.  Never mind that the Committee heard testimony

from multiple witnesses who gave evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 elections….

Now State Senator Mastriano also is a Twitter Account Suspendee. After the hearing, without warning or explanation, Jack Dorsey’s Twitter suspended Mastriano’s account. His account wasn’t restored–again without explanation–until late Friday.

A Thought on Brann’s Decision

Recall that Federal District Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the Trump campaign lawsuit that sought to reject hundreds of thousands of votes in Progressive-Democratic-run Pennsylvania counties because, the suit alleged, changes to State voting rules violated our Constitution’s equal protection requirement.

Brann ruled in part that he

has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens.

What Brann chose not to consider is that he also has no authority to see the vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens (more accurately, hundreds of thousands; “millions” is his cynical exaggeration), be diluted to the point of meaninglessness by illegally cast or illegally counted ballots.

Rule By Law

Rather than Rule of Law, which is how we do things here.

The men and women of the government of the People’s Republic of China change the nation’s laws whenever convenient to their personal aims and whenever convenient to their personal power. This is how those men and women have acted, have preserved their power, since the beginning of the days of Chinese emperors.

Two current examples: their enactment in 2017 of an intelligence cooperation law that requires all PRC companies, whether state-owned or “private,” to cooperate with any intelligence community request for information, including about any company affiliate or customer wherever in the world that affiliate or customer might be.

Misunderstanding the Court’s Role

Here, the misunderstanding is of the role our court system, including our Supreme Court, plays in our elections.

Recall that President Donald Trump’s campaign lawyers have filed a number of lawsuits challenging various States’ vote counting procedures. In particular, the lawyers have filed, in Federal court, alleging that

some of the state’s [Pennsylvania’s] actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.

A Misapprehension

John Yoo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY), and others, are suggesting that, given the apparent irregularities (because I’m being polite) in several States’ ballot acceptance and counting procedures, “the courts may decide the election.”

McConnell, et al., misunderstand the situation. The courts won’t decide anything. This election has been decided by American voters. It may take the courts to enforce our decision, though.

There would seem to be strong cases, too, for reversing those…irregularities. Our Constitution’s Article I, Section 4 says pretty explicitly that State legislatures set the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections… and that Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. There’s no wiggle room there.

Progressive-Democrat Hypocrisy

Again.

California’s Progressive-Democrats have been busily rewriting election laws to help their party “ballot harvest.”

In 2016 California [Progressive-]Democrats passed a law allowing anybody, including paid campaign operatives and political parties, to collect and return mail-in ballots. Two years later [Progressive-]Democrats prohibited “disqualifying a ballot solely because the person returning it did not provide on the identification envelope his or her name, relationship to the voter, or signature.”

And

[Progressive-]Democrats boasted that they used ballot harvesting to flip seven House seats in California that year including four in Orange County. Before this year’s March primary, hospitality unions threw a “ballot party” for workers outside of Anaheim hotels.