Trump is going to pardon General Flynn.
Manafort is the one about whom I’m especially curious. To me that guy is nearly as sleazy as Biden. Except that misbehaviour with Ukraine (Manafort) is less serious than misbehaviour involving both Ukraine AND China (Biden).
Everyone notice Biden’s Secretary of State is Abe Lincoln?
( “A. Blinkin”)
Senator Liz Warren was right:
Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts led three other Democratic lawmakers in warning that Dominion Voting Systems and two other voting technology firms were “trouble-plagued” and “prone to security problems.”
The letters demanding answers from the companies were also signed by Democrat Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.
Dominion’s corporate origins trace back to Smartmatic, a voting technology company established in 2000 that had ties to Hugo Chavez.
Smartmatic was founded by three Venezuelan engineers and incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida. By 2004, the company had vastly expanded and bought Bizta, an electronic voting company in which Smartmatic and the Venezuelan government both owned large stakes.
In 2005, Smartmatic bought Sequoia, one of the top U.S. companies producing automated voting systems.
U.S. officials began to take notice.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York Democrat, wrote in May 2006 to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow demanding an investigation of Venezuelan government influence in U.S. voting systems.
“As you can imagine, having a foreign government invest in or buy a company that services U.S. elections could raise concerns about the integrity of the elections conducted by these machines,” she wrote.
Subsequent scrutiny of Sequoia voting and optical scan machines, which basically were rebranded Smartmatic systems, found tabulation errors similar to those of disputed elections under Chavez in Venezuela.
While under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., Smartmatic in 2006 sold Sequoia to Bain Capital, the corporate raider firm with ties to Sen. Mitt Romney, Utah Republican.
In 2010, Sequoia was purchased by Dominion, at the time a little-known Canadian company that manufactured voting machines.
The real question: will there be a Trump presidential library?
Since he can’t read, what would be in said library?
library of coloring books?
Maps printed on white-erase boards with markers for people to draw their own versions on top?
Where will the library be located?
Next to the Four Seasons Total Landscaping?
I want AMERICA FIRST!!
We have some democrat socialist in our mist… SO bad for our country. (get um out)…
More than one pardoned Thanksgiving turkey? 
(and fwiw, i think the case against him was crap)
Biden’s “victories” in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona are being thrown into question from a direction I did not see coming. It’s not on account of anything Trump and his legal team are doing. It’s a claim by legislatures that voting rules were changed contrary to law:
This could mean fewer electoral votes for Biden
This is not fraud as I envision fraud. But this is a “wholesale” attack on the vote which could easily change the outcomes in those states. This also could make it to the SCOTUS, unlike with unproven fraud claims.
ETA
If Biden ends up losing both Pennsylvania and Michigan he STILL will become President with exactly 270 electoral votes.
However, a win by Trump in all three of the aforementioned states would mean he remains President.
What a beautiful way to make Thanksgiving Day GREAT. Please SCOTUS, use your power!!
This leads to a question of both law and common sense.
Let’s assume for just a second that their claims are true, that the state legislature changes to election rules were not legal under their state’s laws.
First, there should have immediately been challenges to those changes.
Second, and much more importantly, the VOTERS acted in good faith – relying on the legislature and what everyone at the time believed to be doing the right thing.
So even if the changes to the election rules were illegal and should be rolled back, does it actually mean that the votes cast under those rules should also be thrown out? I’m not a lawyer, but common sense says no, because nobody thought they were breaking any laws when they voted.
If something like that ever came before a jury, one would hope that the jury would see right through it. I was once a juror on a case where a defendant technically broke some restraining order agreement, but he was not aware that he was breaking it because that agreement took effect before he reasonably expected it to (there was confusion about how far he had to stay away from his ex and when, even though they had shared custody and he had to drive to the ex’s house to pick up the child). We acquitted him, because the defendant’s intent and understanding that he was breaking the recently updated agreement was not proven.
I really hope it does. Not to somehow change this result, but as precident for the future. Individuals (or individual committees) unilaterally deciding to change rules contrary to properly legislated law is a primary root of all the ongoing controversy. And it isnt a case of “sore losers”, it was called out as a problem long before election day.
Practically speaking, the only way they can take the win away from Biden is by ordering a do-over - and that’s in no way a remotely realistic option. Otherwise, if they find cause to take the victory away from Biden, there’s also no justification for giving the win to Trump instead. Either the result stands, or the results are invalid - there is no in between.
It’s not changes initiated by the state legislatures that are in question. It is instead changes put through, absent legislative approval, by both Governors and state courts.
State legislatures, generally, are actually empowered to make changes to voting rules. This is true unless there is prohibition in a given state’s Constitution. In that case a constitutional amendment is first required.
There were. And the only response was “BASELESS!”. And “But but but…COVID! So it’s all good!”
(and in my own response I did agree with your conclusion that just giving victory to Trump based on this would in fact be baseless. There are only two valid options - let the results stand, or start the whole process over.)
Then I don’t know what you’re talking about, because the link you provided and all the news I read about the case in Pennsylvania says that it revolves around a law passed by the legislature – Act 77.
But even if the rules were put in place by governors or state courts, it does not invalidate my second point – the voters acted in good faith! It would be criminal and undemocratic to invalidate their votes.
Hmmm. You appear to be correct in Pennsylvania. The action being brought there is claiming a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution by both the Governor AND (as you stated) the legislature.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. God knows the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will throw it out. That court is dominated by Democrats. But the SCOTUS? I dunno.
This is ridiculous on its face. We are a nation of laws. If the law was not followed, the votes must be tossed.
The written law at the time of the vote was that the votes could be cast by mail. Nobody broke the law when they voted by mail.
You are being ridiculous by not thinking this through.
If that “law” is later found invalid, the votes must be tossed. Such a finding would obviously be retroactive.
And this would result in a Trump victory in Pennsylvania, the way things ought to be. 
It is not at all obvious that such a finding would be retroactive. There’s no “must”.
