Fraud votes doesn't counts.
lol, cant even prove anything no evidence at all, court told him to fuck off
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/supreme-court-trump-reelection-434071
Why the Supreme Court probably won’t help Trump’s reelection fate
The president’s vow to take his unsubstantiated election claims to the highest court was met with confusion.
The only case about vote-counting deadlines that could be teed up at the high court right now is from Pennsylvania, where Democrats and Republicans have fought over an extension to accept mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day for three days past the election. | AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
By JOSH GERSTEIN
11/04/2020 02:55 PM EST
Updated: 11/04/2020 08:10 PM EST
President Donald Trump’s drive to have the Supreme Court ensure his reelection faces serious obstacles — both legal and practical — that could wind up leaving him empty-handed.
“We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump declared early Wednesday during a speech to supporters at the White House. “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list, OK? ... We will win this and as far as I’m concerned we already have won it.”
Legal experts from both parties said they were somewhat baffled by Trump’s remarks about asking the high court to stop voting. Even interpreting his statement to mean halting vote counting was confusing because under any scenario, vote counting in some states was sure to continue for several days after the election.
Asked to parse Trump’s comment, longtime GOP election lawyer Jan Baran said: “I have no idea—and I don’t think he does either.”
As of Wednesday afternoon, the president still had a path to victory, but it had significantly narrowed after Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden clinched Arizona and increased his gains in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump campaign officials had little to say Wednesday about the Supreme Court, although they did announce plans to seek a recount in Wisconsin, where Trump was running about 20,000 votes behind Biden.
2020 ELECTIONS
Trump's post-election marching orders: Dispute ballots, contest results
BY
NANCY COOK AND
GABBY ORR
Baran suggested that was a longshot, judging by history. He said he was unaware of any statewide race where a recount moved close to that many votes.
“There are legal mechanisms, but you need some evidence and some facts, as well as legal arguments,” Baran said. “Twenty thousand votes? Who knows what you may find under the rug or behind the couch that does pop up. It’s possible.”
The only case about vote-counting deadlines that could be teed up at the high court right now is from Pennsylvania, where Democrats and Republicans have fought over an extension to accept mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day for three days past the election.
Indeed, on Wednesday evening, Trump’s campaign formally asked to intervene in petitions on that issue that are already pending at the Supreme Court.
“Given last night’s results, the vote in Pennsylvania may well determine the next President of the United States,”
the campaign’s motion said. “And this Court, not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, should have the final say on the relevant and dispositive legal questions.”
The court gave the existing parties on both sides until 5 p.m. Thursday to respond. The campaign’s filing appeared to be a precursor to Trump‘s asking the high court for relief in Pennsylvania, such as a halt to further vote counting, but so far no request to the justices to do that has come.
Yet even if Trump somehow were able to succeed in stopping the state from finishing its vote count, the state’s 20 electoral votes would not be enough to put him over the top in the Electoral College.
POLITICO DISPATCH: NOVEMBER 5
Joe Biden is inching his way toward a win, but Congress is on track to be more divided than ever. POLITICO's Dan Diamond explains how the coronavirus pandemic split the nation — and how polarized views of President Trump's response shaped results up and down the ballot.
Subscribe on Apple Podcasts |
Subscribe on Google Podcasts
So the president would likely have to broaden the legal fight to at least one other state to hold onto his job. It’s not immediately clear which state would be a fruitful target for him.
Most of the other states that have seen recent legal jockeying at the high court already appear to be in Trump’s column (North Carolina, for instance). While Trump might benefit from a recount in Wisconsin, Democrats lost a court battle over late-arriving ballots there, so it’s unclear what new litigation could be filed to cut off the ballot tabulation, or how it would reach the Supreme Court.
Another, perhaps insurmountable, legal challenge for Trump is that even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that a change like Pennsylvania’s three-day was unconstitutional, there are signs a majority of the court could order those ballots to be counted anyway.
“I wouldn’t want to speculate on how the Court would rule, but the argument that voters relied on the rules in place on and before Election Day – and should therefore have their votes counted – is very strong,” said Dan Tokaji, dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School.
MOST READ
- GOP begins pushing back against Trump's false election claims
- Trump’s almost out of time
- The polling industry blows it again
- Gore: 2020 election ‘completely different’ than 2000
- Pelosi formally seeks another 2 years as speaker
The best indication of the uphill battle Trump faces may be the Supreme Court’s approach early last month to a legal fight over a federal court order that blocked South Carolina’s requirement that a witness sign absentee ballots. Republicans prevailed in that battle, as the high court reinstated the usual rule.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision came with a seemingly minor caveat that voters who’d already sent in their absentee ballots without a witness signature wouldn’t have the absence of that held against them. The justices even added—seemingly out of thin air—a two-day grace period from their decision to allow those unwitnessed ballots to reach election officials.
In the Oct. 5 order, three GOP-appointed justices noted their objection to that carve-out: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. It appears that the five other justices — the three liberals, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — formed a majority to create a safe harbor for voters who skipped the witness requirement based on a good-faith belief that the rule had been waived for this election.