Connect with us

Politics

Michigan and Nevada Dismiss Trump Campaign Lawsuits as President Continues To Falsely Claim Election Victory

Published

on

  • President Trump on Wednesday tweeted that he had “claimed” wins in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan, despite the fact that no single outlet had called races in any of the states.
  • Shortly after, Trump again claimed that he had won the election and accused Democrats of fraud, though he provided no evidence.
  • Meanwhile, the Trump campaign filed a flurry of lawsuits in multiple swing states, including challenges that attempted to cut the counting of legal votes short. Several cases have already been dismissed by state courts.

Trump Declares Himself the Winner

President Donald Trump again prematurely declared himself the winner of the presidential election on Wednesday after falsely claiming he had won several key battleground states while his campaign simultaneously filed a barrage of lawsuits against most of those same states.

“We have claimed, for Electoral Vote purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (which won’t allow legal observers) the State of Georgia, and the State of North Carolina, each one of which has a BIG Trump lead,” he said on Twitter. “Additionally, we hereby claim the State of Michigan if, in fact, there was a large number of secretly dumped ballots as has been widely reported!”

At the time, none of the states the president “claimed” had been called by any media outlet for either candidate, though shortly after, all outlets projected that former Vice President Joe Biden had won Michigan.

Twitter flagged the tweet, noting that the races had not been called by official resources, and specifically warning that the claim about “secretly dumped ballots” was misinformation.

However, just over an hour later while speaking at the White House, Trump again declared victory and claimed that there had been election fraud without any evidence.

“This is a major fraud on our nation,” he said. “We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 in the morning and add them to the list.”

Legal experts have said that Trump cannot simply ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election and stop counting ballots. In order for the highest court to take action on such questions, a legal case must first go through lower courts and a sometimes lengthy appeals process.

Lawsuits

Notably, the Trump campaign did announce roughly half a dozen legal challenges in multiple swing states on Wednesday, though some have already been rejected or dismissed by local courts.

Several of the lawsuits, including those in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, were aimed at stopping the counting of legal votes.

In Pennsylvania, which is currently facing the most challenges of any state, the campaign filed a lawsuit it demanding the courts stop all ballot counting until their poll observers were given better access to oversee the process.

A lower court dismissed the case, but an Appeals Court judge overruled that decision Thursday and allowed the observers to stand closer to the officials counting ballots.

In a nearly identical lawsuit, the Trump campaign also alleged their election inspectors did not have proper access to observe the counts in Michigan as well. On Thursday, a local judge dismissed that case, arguing it was basically moot because most of the ballots have already been counted.

In both states, top officials have refused to stop counting ballots and defended how their elections were run.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf described the administration’s legal claims as an attempt “to subvert the democratic process,” and the state’s Attorney General also called the lawsuits “meritless.” The Michigan Attorney General also echoed those remarks, saying in a statement that the state provided access for both parties.

Meanwhile in Nevada, the campaign is taking a slightly different route in its legal challenges.

It first attempted to stop the counting of absentee ballots in Clark County, home to Las Vegas, by filing an emergency injunction demanding that officials there stop using an automatic signature verification machine.

After the state’s Supreme Court denied that request, the campaign decided to file another legal challenge Thursday, filing a federal lawsuit claiming they had evidence of tens of thousands of “illegal votes” cast by non-residents of the state and dead people. However, when asked by reporters about the evidence, the campaign refused to answer any questions. 

As for if any of these cases go to the Supreme Court, many legal experts say it is unlikely because most of them have absolutely zero legal basis. A point echoed by other election officials and Democrats, who accused the president of only filing the challenges to sow discord and undermine legally cast votes.

In another tweet flagged by Twitter Thursday, the president said he would bring fraud-related legal challenges against “all of the recent Biden claimed States.” While yet again not citing any evidence, he claimed there was “plenty of proof” and directed people to “just check out the Media.” 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (NBC News) (The Associated Press)

Politics

Republicans Say They Will Block Bill To Avert Government Shutdown and Debt Default

Published

on

Democrats argue the bill is necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe.


Democrats Introduce Legislation

Democrats in the House and Senate unveiled sweeping legislation Monday that aimed to keep the government funded through early December, lift the federal debt limit, and provide around $35 billion for Afghan refugees and natural disaster recovery.

The bill is needed to avoid a government shutdown when funding expires next week. It is also necessary to prevent the Treasury Department from reaching the limit of its borrowing authority, which would trigger the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time ever.

For weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit, also known as the debt ceiling, warning that the department will soon exhaust all of its measures to keep the federal government within its legal borrowing limit.

If the U.S. were to default, it would be unable to pay its debts, sending massive shockwaves through the financial system.

Democrats have painted the bill as crucial to avert an economic doomsday that would massively undermine recovery.

They argue that the combination of a government shutdown and a debt default would destabilize global markets and leave millions of Americans without essential aid.

Republicans Vow to Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling 

Despite the considerable threats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said Republicans will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, arguing that Democrats should do it without their help because they are pushing trillions of dollars in new spending priorities.

Democrats have slammed the Republican leader’s stance as hypocritical. They point out that while it is true they are proposing new spending, it has not been approved yet, and the debt that currently risks default has been incurred by both parties.

Democrats also noted that trillions of dollars were added to the federal debt under former President Donald Trump, which is more than what has been added by President Joe Biden. As a result, Republicans raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration with the support of Democrats.

McConnell, however, remains unlikely to budge. On Monday, White House officials said McConnell has not outlined any requests or areas of negotiation in exchange for support of the legislation. 

While the bill is expected to pass the House, it appears all but doomed in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to break the filibuster.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Politico)

Continue Reading

Politics

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Survives Recall

Published

on

Experts say the outcome should act as a warning for Republicans who tie themselves to former President Donald Trump and attempt to undermine election results by promoting false voter fraud claims.


Recall Effort Fails

After seven months and an estimated $276 million in taxpayer money, the Republican-led effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) failed Tuesday.

Just under 70% of the votes have been reported as of Wednesday morning, showing that “no” on the recall received 63.9% of the vote. That’s nearly twice as many votes as “yes,” which had 36.1%.

According to The Washington Post, even if the margin narrows as more votes are counted, this still marks one of the biggest rejections of any recall effort in America over the last century.

Analysts say the historic rebuke was driven by high Democratic turnout and broader fears over resurging COVID cases.

While the Delta variant continues to push new infections to record highs in many parts of the country with lax mask rules and low vaccination rates, California, once a global epicenter of the pandemic, now has one of the highest vaccination rates and lowest new caseloads in the nation.

Newsom has continually tried to convince voters that those figures are the results of his vaccine and masking policies, which have been some of the most aggressive in the U.S. 

Given that polls showed the pandemic was the top concern for California voters, it is clear that the majority favored his policies over those of his competitors. Larry Elder, the Republican talk radio host of led the field of 46 challengers, ran on a platform of getting rid of essentially all COVID restrictions.

Newsom’s Remarks

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Newsom painted the recall’s failure not only as a win for Democratic coronavirus policies but also for Democracy at large.

“We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic,” he said. “We said yes to people’s right to vote without fear of fake fraud or voter suppression.” 

“I think about just in the last few days and the former president put out saying this election was rigged,” he continued. “Democracy is not a football. You don’t throw it around. That’s more like a, I don’t know, antique vase. You can drop it and smashing a million different pieces. And that’s what we’re capable of doing if we don’t stand up to meet the moment and push back.”

“I said this many, many times on the campaign trail, we may have defeated Trump, but Trump-ism is not dead in this country. The Big Lie, January 6th insurrection, all the voting suppression efforts that are happening all across this country.” 

A Warning for Republicans

Newsom’s remarks took aim at the efforts by Elder and other Republicans — including former President Donald Trump — who over the last week have claimed falsely and without evidence that voter fraud helped secured the governor’s win before Election Day even took place.

While it is currently unknown whether that narrative may have prompted more Republican voters to stay home, Newsom’s effort to cast Edler as a Trump-like candidate and the recall as an undemocratic, Republican power grab appears to have been effective.

Now, political strategists say that the outcome of the recall should serve as a warning that Republicans who pin themselves to Trump and his Big Lie playbook may be hurt more in certain states.

“The recall does offer at least one lesson to Democrats in Washington ahead of next year’s midterm elections: The party’s pre-existing blue- and purple-state strategy of portraying Republicans as Trump-loving extremists can still prove effective with the former president out of office,” The New York Times explained.

Even outside of a strongly blue state like California, analysts say this strategy will also be effective with similar candidates in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, which will be essential to deciding control of the Senate.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)

Continue Reading

Politics

Justice Department Sues Texas Over Abortion Ban

Published

on

The department claims the Texas law violates past Supreme Court precedents on abortion and infringes on Constitutional protections.


Biden Administration Takes Aim at Texas Law

The Department of Justice sued Texas on Thursday in an attempt to block the state’s newly enacted law that effectively prohibits all abortions by banning the procedure after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.

The abortion law, which is the most restrictive in the country and does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a person terminate their pregnancy after six weeks.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it violates past Supreme Court precedents through a technical loophole.

While numerous other states have passed similar laws banning abortion after about six weeks, federal judges have struck down those measures on the grounds that they are inconsistent with Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that states cannot prevent someone from seeking an abortion before a fetus can viably live outside the womb, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

The Texas law, however, skirts the high court decisions by deputizing citizens to enforce the law rather than state government officials, taking the state out of the equation entirely and protecting it from legal responsibility.

Individuals who do so do not have to prove any personal injury or connection to those they take legal action against, which can range from abortion providers to rideshare drivers who take someone to a clinic.

If their lawsuit is successful, the citizen is entitled to a $10,000 award.

DOJ Lawsuit Targets Constitutionality

During a press conference detailing the DOJ lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland referred to the enforcement mechanism as “an unprecedented” effort with the “obvious and expressly acknowledged intention” to prevent Texans from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Garland said, adding that the provision of the law allowing civilians “to serve as bounty hunters” may become “a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”

The Justice Department argued that the Texas policy violates equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state law.

The lawsuit also claimed that the law interferes with the constitutional obligation of federal employees to provide access to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, to people who are under the care of federal agencies or contractors such as those in prisons.

Both Sides See Path to Supreme Court

While proponents of abortion rights applauded the Justice Department’s legal challenge, officials in Texas defended the law and accused the Biden administration of filing the lawsuit for political reasons. 

“President Biden and his administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn,” a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said in a statement. 

“We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life.”

The DOJ’s suit will now be decided by a federal judge for the Western District of Texas, based in Austin. 

Depending on how that court rules, either opponents or supporters of the abortion ban are expected to appeal the case, sending it to the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal and likely ultimately placing the matter before the Supreme Court again in a matter of months.

The Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect by declining to approve an emergency petition to block the measure last week, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy.

As a result, the Justice Department’s legal challenge could force the high court to hear another facet of the law that it has not yet considered if it decides to see the case.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Texas Tribune)

Continue Reading