President Donald Trump condemned the Supreme Court as "lacking wisdom, lacking courage" on Friday night after dismissing a case asked by the Texas Attorney General to do so intervene and overthrow the elections in four states won by Joe Biden.
SCOTUS 'decision not to even hear the case has dealt a crippling legal blow to Trump's legal strategy, adding to the long list of failed lawsuits his campaign has filed to change the election result, as the president still refuses to admit , and claims for election fraud remain unfounded.
"The Supreme Court has really let us down," Trump claimed as he went on Twitter to express his disapproval.
He added quotes from Fox News "The Ingraham Angle" claiming "The establishment has failed us" and "The American people deserve answers" when the show argued that the case should have been heard.
The SCOTUS decision was immediately upset by the president's loyalists when hundreds protested the result in Washington DC, along with members of the far-right Proud Boys and pardoned Trump ally Roger Stone.
Stone addressed the protests, which turned violent in the early hours of Saturday morning when Proud Boys clashed with counter-protesters from the Black Lives Matter.
Before the SCOTUS result was announced, Trump had tweeted that the Texas AG lawsuit was "perhaps the most important case in history" and that the "country's electoral process will be respected again" if the judges of the court have "great wisdom and Courage "showed.
However, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with the president, and seven of them voted to dismiss the case entirely without his being heard.
Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they heard the case but refused to reverse the election result, effectively leading the result to a 9-0.
The astounding end to Trump's legal offer to overthrow the election came shortly after 6:30 p.m. in a unilateral court ruling that held the Texas AGs trying to try the case had little meaning.
Trump slammed the Supreme Court on Friday after dismissing a case filed by the Texas Attorney General asking them to intervene and overthrow four states that Biden won in yet another blow to the president's campaign
President Trump claimed on Twitter that Supreme Court justices had "no wisdom, no courage".
Trump added quotes from Fox News & # 39; The Ingraham Angle & # 39; added when he raged against the result on Twitter, claiming & # 39; the establishment failed us & # 39; and & # 39; the American people deserve answers & # 39; and argued that the case should have been heard.
D.C .: Roger Stone, center, a longtime friend and adviser to the President, joined forces with Trump supporters and members of the far right Proud Boys to protest the DC Supreme Court decision on Friday night
D.C .: Cops pull apart a pro-Trump protester and a counter-protester when the demonstrations became violent
D.C .: Many of the protesters carried Trump flags as they marched against the Supreme Court decision
D.C .: Enrique Tarrio (center), chairman of the Proud Boys, marches as hundreds of Trump supporters and members of the far-right group in Washington DC after the Supreme Court ruled Friday night to dismiss a case for alleged electoral fraud
The case was filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, pictured, who claimed the voices in the four states were tainted
The Supreme Court declined to take on what Trump called "the big one" and dismissed it in full on Friday night
D.C .: Washington DC police hold back members of the Proud Boys as they clash with Black Lives Matter protesters in a protest near Black Lives Matter Plaza after Trump's loss in the Supreme Court on Friday night
"Texas has shown no judicially recognizable interest in the way another state conducts its elections," the verdict said. He refused to take up a case that legal scholars had already torn as a legal farce.
Trump raged over the result until the wee hours of the morning when he launched a Twitter tirade calling it "legal shame" and "embarrassment for the US".
He was supposed to speak at the White House earlier the night before the Christmas party, but guests were informed at the last minute that he would not be attending.
"So you're the President of the United States, and you've just gone through an election in which you won – and supposedly lost – far more votes than any sitting president in history," he wrote.
“You cannot“ stand ”before the Supreme Court, so“ intervene ”with wonderful states who, after careful study and deliberation, believe that you have been“ screwed ”, which will hurt them, and many others join the suit , but it is thrown away in a flash and vanished without even considering the many reasons for which it was brought.
"A rigged election, keep fighting!" he added, looking determined to continue to refuse to allow the choice.
He punctuated the barrage of tweets with reminders that the FDA had approved the emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine earlier that evening.
D.C .: A Trump supporter is lying on the ground after clashes with counter-protesters from the Black Lives Matter
D.C .: The recently pardoned Roger Stone is one of Trump's most loyal allies. He joined the protests in Washington DC on Friday night and spoke to hundreds of people using a mega-phone, according to the Supreme Court announcement
D.C .: Hundreds of Trump supporters showed up at the Capitol on Friday evening to protest
D.C .: One counter-protester was discovered among the hundreds of Trump loyalists marching in Washington DC on Friday evening
D.C .: Roger Stone was found in protests with Trump supporters in Washington D.C. on Friday evening.
D.C .: Trump quickly backed the streets to voice their anger after the Supreme Court decision was announced
"It is a legal shame and an embarrassment for the US!" Trump said in one of his tweets on Friday night
Trump hit the Supreme Court for dismissing the case without even being heard
Meanwhile, Stone supported Trump on his march through the nation's capital with the far-right Proud Boys, of which he is a member.
Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, was at the rally and spoke to the crowd of Trump supporters near the Washington Monument on Friday evening.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the group is a male-only right-wing group that has neo-fascist, violent, nationalist, Islamophobic and misogynist views.
With the Supreme Court dismissing the high-profile effort – the mother of all "Kraken" trials – Trump has no way of overturning the elections he describes as "rigged," despite dozens of lower courts ruling against Allied efforts.
A disappointed Texas AG Ken Paxton responded to the result on Twitter, saying, "It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has ruled not to take this case and determine the constitutionality of these four states that do not comply with federal and state electoral law." "
The president attempted to intervene in the case – and 126 members of the Republican House followed suit, while 17 states signed a friend of the court letter who supported the lawsuit in Texas.
This did not prevent the four sued states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia from condemning the lawsuit as "legally indefensible and a violation of the principles of constitutional democracy".
Trump punctuated the flood of tweets reminding that the FDA had approved the emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine
But the majority found that Texas was unable to even raise the case. It also showed no "reasonably discernible interest in the way another state conducts elections". In other words, his legal argument could not justify why it was justified for a court to consider his objection to choosing another state to conduct his elections.
The dissent between Alito and Thomas was a particular blow. The two conservatives didn't give a quarter to the substance of the Texan reasoning.
Their separate objection only spoke to their position that because of its nature as an interstate dispute, they had heard or granted certiorari the case.
You said it was our original jurisdiction to refer to the Constitutional Grant to the Supreme Court to hear such cases. Both have previously said they believe they have no choice but to hear cases from states.
Their statement that they "would not provide any other relief" constitutes a reprimand for the case itself and it was not required that they telegraph what they would decide.
Breathtaking blow: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who are considered the two downright conservative judges, said they were obliged to accept it – and then refused to overturn the election
Rejected: Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court as recently as October, helped decide on the election as Donald Trump predicted – but not in his favor, and joined the unanimous rejection
Two more picks that went against him: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both elevated to high court by Trump, dashed his hopes that they would undo Joe Biden's victory
However, the seven-strong majority in the court did not believe that such a dispute would automatically receive a hearing. In the present case, which was tied to Trump's own claim to have suffered “massive” electoral fraud, not a single liberal or conservative judiciary spoke about the content of his claim.
This would include the Court's newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, though Trump has openly debated the need to enforce her affirmation to hear election disputes.
Three of the judges in the majority: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett voted in the majority not to even hear the case.
"Every rule of law American should take comfort that the Supreme Court – including all three of President Trump's recommendations – has closed the book on the nonsense," said Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse, one of the few Republicans to who was publicly condemning the effort.
It also dashed any hope Trump had Bush versus GoreIntervention of the Court of Justice – on an analogy found in pro-Trump briefs which overlooked that this Supreme Intervention involved extremely tight competition in a single state and a judicial question as to whether a census should be stopped.
The decision was welcomed by the Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro, whose legal filing invalidated claims made by the Texas Republican attorney general.
Our nation's supreme court has seen through this seditious abuse of our electoral process. This swift denial should make anyone considering further attacks on our election think twice, ”he said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is an important reminder that we are a nation of law, and while some may bow to the wishes of an individual, the courts will not. "
Republican Senator Ben Sasse praised the Supreme Court for refusing to take on a case in Texas aimed at turning the results of the presidential election upside down.
The Nebraska Senator also mocked the president and his legal team's conspiracy theories used on Trump supporters to question the winner.
"Since election night, many people have puzzled voters by cutting the Kenyan birther guy 'Chavez' out of the grave conspiracy theories, but any rule of law American should take comfort that the Supreme Court – including All Three Tips from President Trump – closed the book on this nonsense, "Sasse said.
However, some of Trump's allies were outraged.
Texas Republican Party leader Allen West sent a statement outlining the idea of secession.
"Maybe law-abiding states should band together and form a union of states that adhere to the constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court on Friday denied a Hail Mary attempt by the Texas Attorney General who asked the court to intervene and overturn elections in four states that chose Joe Biden in order to cripple Donald Trump's legal strategy.
Trump's obsession with the case was such that he allegedly even asked Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) if he would argue the case if the court agreed to hear him.
With the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case, the next crucial moment comes Monday when the electoral college meets in state capitals across the country to effectively ensure Biden's inauguration.
Biden leads the electoral college with 306 to 232 votes, unless an "unfaithful" voter tries to vote against the referendum in a state.
A safe harbor phase for counting challenges has expired in every state.
This does not mean, however, that political support for Trump's continued efforts to rage against the elections will end. During the weeks of challenges since election day, the vast majority of Republican elected officials have refused to declare Joe Biden the winner while Trump pursued his options.
126 REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS ARE BEHIND HIM – AND ARE NOW INJURED FROM THEIR DEFAULT
The court's move came after a wave of Republicans tried to join Trump, even in his final days in office.
House minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California joined the effort on Friday.
He is now one of 126 Republican lawmakers who have signed a legal mandate to join the seat – out of a congregation of 196 members, meaning well over half of the Republicans elected have named their names for the effort.
In addition, 17 states attempted to file a "friend of the court" letter in support of the Texas lawsuit, preventing the court from admitting the outcome and causing Republican-led lawmakers in four states to elect Trump Donald Trump voters in place of those who voted are voted for Joe Biden.
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), minority chairman of the House of Representatives, has signed a brief signature of the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit to overturn the election
The names provide a real-time guide within the elected GOP for those who support Kraken-style lawsuits to overthrow the election despite the referendum, as opposed to a smaller bloc that clings to traditional norms.
In the Senate, Republican John Thune of South Dakota rejected the lawsuit. “I just don't know why a state like Texas that never wants anyone to tell you what to do now wants to tell a number of other states how to conduct their elections. I doubt the Supreme Court will take that up, ”he told The Hill newspaper.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a 2016 Trump rival, called the lawsuit "insane" in Texas.
& # 39; That's crazy. it is killed on arrival. Why do smart people advance this thought? Forget it. The election is over, he tweeted Thursday evening.
TEXAS AG even claimed that it was up to the swing states to show that there was no fraud – they just had to claim that there was a misunderstanding
State AG claimed in a new filing on Friday that it was "impossible" to know who won the election – and accused the four states of failing to "show" that Biden won.
AG Ken Paxton, who was photographed with the Trump in the presidential limo and is charged but maintains his innocence, responded to the allegation that his lawsuit is aimed at "overturning the voices of the American people".
Although the lawsuit was aimed at overturning the vote in four states that voted for Joe Biden, Paxton denied claims that she would do such a thing.
"Texas is not asking this court to re-elect President Trump and, according to the response, Texas is not attempting to disenfranchise the majority of the" voters "of the accused states Managing the defendants in 2020 in the 2020 elections makes it impossible to know which candidate collected the majority of lawful Votes ”, so the submission.
"Texas will likely prevail," reads the legal report filed with the Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's, which was seen here at Trump in June.
Supporters of President Donald Trump gather in front of the US Supreme Court on December 11, 2020 in Washington, DC
The lawsuit aimed to overturn the votes in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – which would be enough to give Trump the White House. The lawsuit alleges that states violated the constitution because mail-in voting was expanded significantly in the wake of the pandemic.
"Texas will likely prevail," the letter said.
After Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor responded Thursday evening to the lawsuit that it had "not seen a single ounce of systemic or organized fraud," Paxton's filing kept the burden of states carrying on to prove their elections were legitimate.
"The share balance goes to the plaintiff state," says the file. & # 39; Defend states first accept that Mr Biden legitimately won their states, then take advantage of that adoption Criticizing Texas' arguments for disenfranchising voters. If the erroneous results for 2020 are available, this result would disenfranchise the voters ”, the file says.
The file states that the four states "assume" that Biden has legitimately won. Each runs a judicial apparatus to assess the vote, and two of them did recounts
& # 39; At best for the defendant states, the equity balance could be neutral. But because the defendant states cannot seriously defend the merits, or at least cannot seriously show or show that Mr. Biden actually prevailed, the stocks in favor of Texas and the lawful process to resolve the controversial elections do little to the merits of defend their actions, ”according to the submission.
All four states have already certified their results for Joe Biden. Georgia führte bereits mehrere landesweite Nachzählungen durch, und Wisconsin führte auf Ersuchen und Kosten der Trump-Kampagne eine Nachzählung in zwei stark demokratischen Landkreisen durch.
TRUMP WÄRME AUF TWITTER AUF
Trump benutzte wiederholt sein Twitter-Megaphon, um den politischen Druck zu erhöhen und sogar Argumente vorzubringen, die das Gericht beeinflussen könnten.
"Wenn der Oberste Gerichtshof große Weisheit und Mut zeigt, wird das amerikanische Volk den vielleicht wichtigsten Fall in der Geschichte gewinnen und unser Wahlprozess wird erneut respektiert!" er schrieb am späten Freitagnachmittag.
Er brachte Wahlkampfspekulationen auf, dass Biden versuchen würde, dieses Gericht zu packen – obwohl Biden von einigen auf der linken Seite der Partei dazu gedrängt wurde, vorausgesetzt, er gewann eine beträchtliche Senatsmehrheit, was nicht geschah.
"Wenn die beiden Senatoren aus Georgien verlieren sollten, was für unser Land eine schreckliche Sache wäre, bin ich das einzige, was zwischen" Packing the Court "(letzte Nummer, 25) und dessen Erhaltung steht. Ich werde unter keinen Umständen das Gericht packen! ' Er sagte in einem Tweet, der die einzelnen Richter ansprechen sollte, die eine enorme Macht als lebenslange Kandidaten für eine Gruppe von neun Personen nach dem derzeitigen System haben.
"SEDITIÖSER MISSBRAUCH" UND "FANTASIE": WIE DIE VIER SWING-STAATEN DIE TEXAS AG VERLETZTEN
Die pochende Niederlage für Texas kam, nachdem die vier Staaten auf die erste Klage reagiert hatten, der sich Präsident Trump anschließen will.
Ihre Einreichung hat die Bemühungen, die Abstimmung als "surreale alternative Realität" und "aufrührerischen" Missbrauch der Gerichte zu betrachten, zunichte gemacht.
Sie griffen die Klage an, um die Wahlergebnisse zu "stürzen".
Es war ein letztes Argument, auf das sich Trump sofort stützte, als er sich bemühte, dass Gerichte und Gesetzgeber die Wahlen "umstürzen".
Aber die Argumente der Texas-Anzüge waren "strittig, unbegründet und gefährlich", argumentierten die vier Staaten, deren Stimmen abgezinst würden.
'Lassen Sie uns klar sein. Texas lädt diesen Gerichtshof ein, die Stimmen des amerikanischen Volkes zu stürzen und den nächsten Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten zu wählen. Diese faustianische Einladung muss entschieden abgelehnt werden “, fragten sie das Gericht.
Das Büro der Pennsylvania AG beschrieb den Anzug in Texas als ein krasses politisches Manöver, um Trumps Amtszeit zu verlängern.
'Texas' Bemühungen, dieses Gericht dazu zu bringen, den nächsten Präsidenten zu wählen, haben keine rechtliche oder faktische Grundlage. Der Gerichtshof sollte diesen aufrührerischen Missbrauch des Gerichtsverfahrens nicht aushalten und ein klares und unverkennbares Signal senden, dass ein solcher Missbrauch niemals wiederholt werden darf “, forderten sie.
Die Anwälte der vier Bundesstaaten, die von Josh Shapiros Büro in Pennsylvania geleitet wurden, zielten auf einen schwerwiegenden Föderalismusfehler in diesem Fall ab, der es einem Bundesstaat ermöglichte, die Wahlgesetze eines anderen zu "diktieren", selbst wenn die Verfassung den Staaten die Befugnis zum Amtsantritt einräumt ihre eigenen Wahlen.
"Texas hat keinen Schaden erlitten, nur weil es das Ergebnis der Wahlen nicht mag, und nichts im Text, in der Geschichte oder in der Struktur der Verfassung stützt die Ansicht von Texas, dass es die Art und Weise bestimmen kann, wie vier andere Staaten ihre Wahlen durchführen." Diese Ansicht beruht auch nicht auf einem Präzedenzfall dieses Gerichtshofs. Texas versucht nicht, dass der Gerichtshof die Verfassung auslegt, sondern ignoriert sie. & # 39;
Die Pennsylvania AG nahm sich sogar Zeit, um eine "statistische Analyse" des texanischen Anzugs zu versenden, wonach die Gewinnchance von Biden trotz Trumps "Führung" um 3 Uhr morgens in der Wahlnacht "weniger als eins in einer Billiarde" betrug.
'Texas stützt sich auch auf eine statistische Analyse, die von Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D., erstellt wurde, um die Behauptung zu stützen, dass die Ergebnisse in den vier beklagten Staaten so unwahrscheinlich waren, dass sie ein Beweis für Fehlverhalten waren. Bill of Complaint ¶¶ 9–12. Die Behauptungen von Texas und die Analyse von Dr. Cicchetti sind Unsinn “, heißt es in der Akte.
& # 39; & # 39; Diese erstaunliche Behauptung basiert auf Dr. Cicchettis Einschätzung für jeden der Staaten, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Stimmen vor 3 Uhr morgens und die danach gezählten Stimmen "zufällig aus derselben Bevölkerung gezogen" wurden, äußerst gering ist.
Die Art und Weise, wie die Stimmen eingingen, war jedoch nicht zufällig.
"Aber die später gezählten Stimmen wurden unbestreitbar nicht" zufällig "aus derselben Stimmenpopulation gezogen, da es sich bei den früher gezählten Stimmen überwiegend um persönliche Stimmen handelte, während es sich bei den später gezählten Stimmen überwiegend um Briefwahlstimmen handelte", stellten sie fest.
Die Behauptungen von Texas "sind weder ernst noch würdig", heißt es in der Akte. Der Streit "beinhaltet die Auslegung der eigenen Gesetze durch Pennsylvania und die Nichtübereinstimmung von Texas mit dieser Auslegung."
Texas "wiederholt die gleichen falschen Anschuldigungen des Wahlbetrugs, die bereits wiederholt von anderen Gerichten zurückgewiesen wurden", heißt es in der Akte nach Dutzenden von Niederlagen von Trump und seinen Verbündeten in Wahlklagen seit dem 3. November.
"Und seine Bitte um Erleichterung – die Entrechtung von zig Millionen Wählern, die sich vernünftigerweise auf das Gesetz verlassen haben – ist einzigartig unseriös."
Georgiens Vizegouverneur Geoff Duncan hat den Anzug gesprengt. 'This is not American, this is not democracy. This is not our finest moment. My hope is we quickly move past this,' he told the PBS News Hour.
'We have not seen a single ounce of systemic or organized fraud,' he said. 'I'm proud of that even though the person I supported didn't win.
Adulterer and an FBI Probe: Meet the AG behind Hagel Mary to annul the election
The FBI is investigating allegations that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton broke the law when he used his office for a wealthy donor.
Federal agents are investigating allegations by former Paxton employees that the Republican committed bribery, abuse of office, and other crimes to aid Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.
Die Untersuchung wurde Mitte November von der Associated Press gemeldet.
Paxton has denied wrongdoing and declined calls to resign after his top MPs reported him to federal authorities in late September.
Trump ally: Ken Paxton with Eric Trump and his wife Angela – whom he's cheating on
It is unclear to what extent the FBI is investigating the allegations against Paxton. A spokeswoman for the agency in San Antonio declined to comment.
Paxton wird vorgeworfen, seine Position als bester Strafverfolgungsbeamter in Texas genutzt zu haben, um Paul auf verschiedene Weise zu helfen.
At the center of their claims is the fact that Paxton hired an outside attorney to investigate the developer's allegations that the FBI failed to properly search his home and office over the past year.
Each of Paxton's accusers has resigned, been suspended, or released since reporting him. Last week, four of them filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the attorney general, claiming he had suppressed them in retaliation.
The full nature of the connection between Paxton and Paul remains unclear. In 2018 Paul donated $ 25,000 to the Attorney General's re-election campaign. The developer said in a recent statement that Paxton recommended a woman for her job at his company.
Zwei Personen sagten zuvor gegenüber The Associated Press, dass Paxton 2018 eine außereheliche Affäre mit der Frau, die damals eine Senatsassistentin war, eingestanden habe. People spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Paxton has spent most of his tenure in office maintaining his innocence in the face of an unrelated securities fraud charge. The case has stalled for years due to legal challenges.
THE FBI SUBPOENAED THE TEXAS AG WHILE HE FILED HIS CASE (AND CRITICS SAID HE WAS HUNTING FOR A PARDON)
Adding to the intrigue and farce of the situation, it was revealed just hours after the latest filing that Texas Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton, who filed the suit, had his office served with a federal subpoena on Wednesday.
FBI agents delivered 'at least one' subpoena to the AG's office, the Austin-American Statesman reported Thursday, in connection to an ongoing investigation.
The subpoena follows multiple aides in his office quitting and alleging abuse of his office and bribery. Paxton's prominent role in the case, combined with his own legal troubles, has led to speculation he is seeking a presidential pardon – following Trump intends to dole out a slew of pardons to allies in his final weeks in office.
Paxton was among the Republican attorneys general who met with Trump at the White House Thursday amid his suit seeking to overturn the election.
Nebraska GOP Sen. Ben Sasse was among a few elected Republicans dissing the case, even as 17 state attorneys general sought to sign on.
A total of 22 states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief against it.
'I'm no lawyer, but I suspect the Supreme Court swats this away.
From the brief, it looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit – as all of its assertions have already been rejected by federal courts and Texas' own solicitor general isn't signing on,' he wrote.
His 'begging for a pardon' comment likely referenced Texas AG Ken Paxton, who was indicted in 2015 for alleged securities fraud and been accused by former aides of abuse of office and bribery. He is currently under FBI investigation.
REPUBLICAN AGs GOT BEHIND TRUMP AND GOT A TRIP TO THE WHITE HOUSE TOO
Trump kept up his bid to try to get the Supreme Court to overturn the election Thursday, tweeting about a 'coup' and a 'corrupt election' hours after another federal judge dismissed an election challenge by a Trump ally.
Trump met Thursday with state attorneys general have have followed his lead in seeking to intervene in a Texas lawsuit asking the high court to disregard millions of ballots in four states that Joe Biden Won.
And he continued to tout a conspiracy theory involving voting machines that Trump's lawyers say were designed to rig the election, despite courts and state officials not buying it.
'Great. Most corrupt Election in history, by far. We won!!!' Trump tweeted, as he blasted out post about Republican House members seeking a special counsel to probe the election, which Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes.
'Voter Fraud!' he wrote in another tweet, where he retweeted a Newsmax host who posted video purporting to show 'mysterious ballots' being counted in Georgia.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro filed a blistering response to the Texas AG's lawsuit seeking to overturn the election
The filing calls out a 'cacophony of bogus claims' and calls it 'legally indefensible'
Trump retweeted video purporting to show voter fraud that the Georgia Secretary of State said showed nothing improper
THE 126 HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT SCOTUS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION RESULT
Ralph Abraham Louisiana
Robert Aderholt Alabama
Rick W. Allen Georgia
Jodey Arrington Texas
James R. Baird Indiana
Jim Banks Indiana
Jack Bergman Michigan
Andy Biggs Arizona
Gus Bilirakis Florida
Dan Bishop North Carolina
Mike Bost Illinois
Kevin Brady Texas
Mo Brooks Alabama
Ken Buck Colorado
Ted Budd North Carolina
Tim Burchett Tennessee
Michael C. Burgess Texas
Bradley Byrne Alabama
Ken Calvert California
Earl L. 'Buddy' Carter Georgia
Ben Cline Virginia
Michael Cloud Texas
Doug Collins Georgia
Mike Conaway Texas
Rick Crawford Arkansas
Dan Crenshaw Texas
Scott DesJarlais Tennessee
Mario Diaz-Balart Florida
Jeff Duncan South Carolina
Neal P. Dunn Florida
Tom Emmer Minnesotone
Ron Estes Kansas
A. Drew Ferguson Georgia
Chuck Fleischmann Tennessee
Bill Flores Texas
Jeff Fortenberry Nebraska
Virginia Foxx North Carolina
Russ Fulcher Idaho
Matt Gaetz Florida
Greg Gianforte Montana
Bob Gibbs Ohio
Louie Gohmert Texas
Lance Gooden Texas
Sam Graves Missouri
Mark Green Tennessee
Morgan Griffith Virginia
Michael Guest Mississippi
Jim Hagedorn M.innesota
Andy Harris Maryland
Vicky Hartzler Missouri
Kevin Hern Oklahoma
Clay Higgins Louisiana
Jody Hice Georgia
Trey Hollingsworth Indiana
Richard Hudson North Carolina
Bill Huizenga Michigan
Bill Johnson Ohio
Mike Johnson Louisiana
Jim Jordan Ohio
John Joyce Pennsylvania
Fred Keller Pennsylvania
Mike Kelly Pennsylvania
Trent Kelly Mississippi
Steve King Iowa
David Kustoff Tennessee
Darin LaHood Illinois
Doug LaMalfa California
Doug Lamborn Colorado
Robert Latta Ohio
Debbie Lesko Arizona
Billy Long Missouri
Barry Loudermilk Georgia
Blaine Leutkemeyer Missouri
Kenny Marchant Texas
Roger Marshall Kansas
Kevin McCarthy California Minority leader
Tom McClintock California
Cathy McMorris Rogers Washington
Dan Meuser Pennsylvania
Carol D. Miller West Virginia
John Moolenaar Michigan
Alex Mooney West Virginia
Markwayne Mullin Oklahoma
Gregory Murphy North Carolina
Dan Newhouse Washington
Ralph Norman South Carolina
Steven Palazzo Mississippi
Gary Palmer Alabama
Greg Pence Indiana
Scott Perry Pennsylvania
Bill Posey Florida
Guy Reschenthaler Pennsylvania
Tom Rice South Carolina
Mike Rodgers Alabama
John Rose Tennessee
David Rouzer North Carolina
John Rutherford Florida
Steve Scalise Louisiana Minority whip
Austin Scott Georgia
Mike Simpson Idaho
Adrian Smith Nebraska
Jason Smith Missouri
Ross Spano Florida
Pete Stauber Michigan
Elise Stefanik New York
Gregory Steube Florida
Glenn 'GT' Thompson Pennsylvania
Tom Tiffany Wisconsin
William Timmons South Carolina
Jeff Van Drew New Jersey
Ann Wagner Missouri
Tim Walberg Michigan
Mark Walker North Carolina
Jackie Walorski Indiana
Michael Waltz Florida
Randy Weber Texas
Daniel Webster Florida
Brad Wenstrup Ohio
Bruce Westerman Arkansas
Roger Williams Texas
Joe Wilson South Carolina
Rob Wittman Virginia
Ron Wright Texas
Ted S. Yoho Florida
Lee Zeldin New York
IS IT REALLY ALL OVER? ELECTORAL COLLEGE WILL MEET ON MONDAY – AND TRUMP IS LIKELY TO TRY ANOTHER ROUND OF FIREWORKS IN JANUARY
With the end of the case Trump called the 'big one,' his legal options appear to have fizzled. It is possible Trump allies who lost in lower courts could seek to appeal more cases to the Supreme Court.
But those appeals wouldn't likely reach the court until after Monday, when the Electoral College meets.
And the Texas appeal already included even far-fetched appeals from lower court cases, such as claims that voting machines 'flipped' votes from Trump to Biden.
The new Congress will convene on Jan. 3.
Congress meets in a joint session on Jan. 6, the day after the Georgia run-off elections.
It presents an opportunity for political fireworks, but it there are procedures in place for both chambers voting on any challenges to the electors that emerge.
According to the Electoral Count Act, if a state only sends one set of electoral votes, they will be counted unless both chambers 'determine that they were not ''regularly given'' by ''lawfully certified'' electors,' according to a Lawfare blog on the subject.
The Texas suit seeks to have the four states delay their participation, despite the Constitution's call for a single meeting.
'There are 20 million reasons' the case will fail, Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsburg told CNN this week, referencing the number of people who would be disenfranchised if the Court decided as Texas proposes. 'Now this is just a sour grapes case,' he said.
NO DAY IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR MELLISSA THE STRIPPER WHO WAS TRUMP'S STAR WITNESS (OR FOR TED CRUZ OR THE KAMALA BIRTHER WHO WAS TRUMP'S LAWYER)
The Supreme Court Texas case, filed this week, featured an affidavit by Mellissa Carone, whose wild and antagonistic testimony went viral and got treated to a sketch on Saturday Night Live.
It pertains to a case filed in Michigan supported by the affidavit, and contains their affidavit attached to the case.
Carone was recently on probation after initially being charged with a computer crime.
Trump on Wednesday night told a White House Hanukkah party that he is going to 'win this election' if Supreme Court judges have 'courage and wisdom' to overturn results.
This came after Trump's new lawyer produced a filing claiming there was something 'deeply amiss' in the election results.
The lawyer, John Eastman, had also penned an op-ed this summer doubting whether Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was eligible for office despite her being born in California.
The legal brief with Trump's name on it, included a motion for Trump, identified as the president, 'to intervene in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election'.
The brief included many of the same arguments Trump has put forward on his Twitter account – including Wednesday, when Trump tweeted no candidate has ever lost the White House while carrying Florida and Ohio.
"The fact that almost half of the country believe the election was stolen should come as no surprise," the file said.
President Trump prevailed on almost all historical indicators of success in the presidential election.
'For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; No candidate in history – Republican or Democrat – has ever lost the election after winning both states. & # 39;
Attorney John Eastman, pictured above, who filed the motion for Trump to intervene in the Texas lawsuit, penned an op-ed this summer doubting whether Vice President-elect Kamal Harris was eligible for office despite her being born in California
It also relied on statistical claims about the vote, in a race Trump has claimed was 'rigged' despite Joe Biden getting 7 million more votes than he did.
& # 39; This despite the fact that the nearly 75 million votes he received – a record for any incumbent president – was almost 12 million more than in the 2016 election, also a record (unlike the 2012 election, in which the incumbent president received 3 million fewer votes than four years ago, but still prevailed. "
'These things just don't normally happen, and a large percentage of the American people know that something is deeply amiss,' according to the filing, which comes after passage of the 'safe harbor' deadline and after enough states certified their vote for Joe Biden to win the Electoral College.
Trump had asked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to argue the case if the Supreme Court decides to listen to its merit.
Cruz argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court before he was elected to the Senate and been a loyal Trump defender, although he also ran for president in 2016.
By way of remedy, Trump asked that the vote be thrown out and for the high court to 'direct' that state legislatures 'have the authority to appoint a new set of Electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause, or to appoint no Electors at all' – which would have the result of nullifying millions of votes in the four states.
A DARING LAWSUIT – OR DOOMED TO BEAT THE WASTE? NOW WE KNOW…
Texas AG Ken Paxton lawsuit made a legal Hail Mary by going straight to the Supreme Court – meaning he could either win big, or he could simply be ignored. In the end it was even worse: he got humiliated.
Der Oberste Gerichtshof ist der richtige Ort für Streitigkeiten zwischen Staaten, aber normalerweise sind solche Streitigkeiten langwierig, beispielsweise über Wasserrechte. In 2014, Oklahoma and Nebraska asked the Supreme Court to stop Colorado's marijuana legalization – but they declined to hear the case.
That could be the judges' first answer to Paxton.
To convince them to take the case, he had to convince them that the people of Texas – whom he represents – suffered harm from the election's outcome, and that the four states either breached the Article 1 clause establishing how elections are run, or the Equal Protection clause, by making the votes of the people of Texas somehow less important than those of the swing states.
The states themselves pointed out that election law is dealt with in individual states, and that cases there have universally lost. If the case had gone to trial, they would have pointed to the results in federal circuit courts and – in Pennsylvania – federal appeals courts which have dismissed claims too.
The usual approach by judges to interstate disputes is to set up their own special court under a “special master” to examine the cases on both sides, gather evidence and approach the case as a separate trial.
This is because the Supreme Court is unusually starting from scratch, not dealing with a case that has already found its way through the judicial system and is very well defined.
P.axton would have had to present voluminous evidence to back up his demand, that millions of ballots be voided and the results of four swing states' elections be overturned – rather than the two brief sets of papers he filed.
The core of Paxton's case was that the four states changed mail-in ballot rules before the election, then used those to fraudulently switch the result to Biden from Trump.
The Supreme Court would have had to rule both that the four states acted unconstitutionally, and then that the way to deal with those actions is by voiding their elections. Such an extreme act runs in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year on 'faithless electors,' which allowed states to punish or remove those who planned to vote against the states' winning candidate.
During the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke about the "chaos principle of judgment" and said if there is a "close call … we should not allow or create chaos".
As for his evidence, Paxton faced an obvious challenge: his submission relied on a string of claims about both the constitutional actions of the states in allowing more widespread access to mail-in voting, and of fraud, which have already been slapped down by state and federal judges in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.
Among the 'evidence' was that Republicans were not allowed to watch ballots being counted in Philadelphia, which was laughed out of court when a Trump lawyer admitted there was a 'non-zero' number of observers.
He also claimed that Georgia's mail-in ballots would have gone to Trump if they had been rejected at the same rate as they were in 2016 – which the state has already ruled out happening.
In Michigan, the evidence included the affidavit of Jessy Jacob, already dismissed by a Detroit judge, claiming that that election workers coached voters to either vote Biden or straight Democrat by standing beside them in the voting station, and that she was asked not to seek photo ID from voters. The judge dismissed her claims as "generalized", saying she did nothing about it when she claimed it had happened and did not step forward until Trump lost.
In Wisconsin Paxton claimed voting drop boxes were unconstitutional. The state's attorney general invoked what is known as 'laches,' a defense that Paxton should have sued at the time the boxes were authorized, rather than waiting to see the outcome of the vote. It also included a claim from a USPS sub-contractor about ballots being backdated after polls closed – even though the state had already reported its result.
And in all four states Paxton quoted a statistical analysis: 'The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently given President Trump's early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.' However, its basis is undeclared and comes from an energy economist, not an elective specialist.
Now it will never be fully tested in court – and both sides of the case don't need a statistician to tell them who won.
Republicans rage! Texas GOP chairman calls for secession, Diamond and Silk demand military intervention, and Rudy Giuliani fumes that its 'censorship' after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case to throw out millions of votes
Donald Trump supporters have voiced outrage after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case to throw out millions of American votes in the election, with Rudy Giuliani raging that its 'censorship', Diamond and Silk asking for military intervention and the Texas GOP chairman calling for secession.
The Supreme Court on Friday denied a Hail Mary effort by the attorney general of Texas who had asked the court to intervene and overturn the election in four states that went for Joe Biden, dealing a monumental blow to Trump's flailing legal strategy.
The president's loyalists instantly hit out at the decision calling for various forms of drastic action in response.
Texas GOP Chairman Allen West said some states should break away from the rest of the United States and 'bond together' in a call for secession not seen since the American Civil War while vloggers Diamond and Silk questioned: 'where is the military?'
Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer and the man who has spearheaded his legal battle against the election result, appeared on Fox News' Sean Hannity to cry 'censorship' and claim the 'facts have been suppressed'.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany also joined the show to blast the Supreme Court for 'dodging' the lawsuit and 'hiding behind procedure'.
Meanwhile, Roger Stone, Trump's former adviser who was pardoned by the president for lying to Congress during its probe into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, marched through Washington DC in protest with members of the Proud Boys, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a hate group.
Texas GOP Chairman Allen West suggested states should secede from the union after the Supreme Court refused to hear a Texas-based case President Donald Trump hoped to use as a vehicle to overturn the results of the presidential election
West wrote, 'Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that abide by the constitution,' in a statement released shortly after the Supreme Court refused to take up the Trump-backed case
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked the idea of a new union being formed tweeting that it would be 'a confederacy of dunces'
Texas GOP Chairman Allen West put out a statement suggesting states should secede from the union in response to the ruling.
'This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable,' West said in a statement after the ruling.
'Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.'
His comments were quickly read as a push for secession, what southern states did in the lead-up to the Civil War, in a dispute over slavery.
Democrat socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked the idea of a new union being formed tweeting that it would be 'a confederacy of dunces'.
Vloggers Diamond and Silk, aka Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, also called for drastic action, tweeting a demand for military action.
'If the Supreme Court can't save our Republic, then where is the Military?' they tweeted.
In a follow-up post they added: 'There needs to be a Forensic Audit done by our Military in all the Swing states in question.
'The ballot boxes need to be open, and the Dominion machines need to be examined for irregularities. All Illegal Ballots and Illegal tabulation counts should be removed!!'
Vloggers Diamond and Silk, aka Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, also called for drastic action, tweeting a demand for military action
While some Trump supporters called for unprecedented action in outrage, Trump's inner circle took aim at the Supreme Court over its ruling.
Giuliani fumed about the court's decision as he spoke on Hannity from his hotel, where he is recovering from COVID-19.
He branded the move 'censorship' and a 'scandal' that will 'go down in history'.
'So far the facts have been suppressed, they've been subject to censorship by big media, censorship by big tech, censorship by the Democrat party, and censorship by the courts,' he said.
'What are you so afraid of?' he asked.
Giuliani accused the Supreme Court of 'evading its responsibility'
'People in this country are entitled to a hearing on this,' he said.
'I feel the Supreme Court or at least seven of the justices have evaded their responsibility to try to bring this country together and give us a rational view of this case as opposed to the hysterical propaganda we've had so far.
'These are very sound allegations, they may or may not be true, they have to be tested but that's what the court is for. They can't just dismiss it like that because it is too difficult to hear.'
Giuliani fumed about the court's decision as he spoke on Hannity from his hotel, where he is recovering from COVID-19
He branded the move 'censorship' and a 'scandal' that will 'go down in history'
He added: 'And I think are evading their responsibility as the chief law enforcement agency – the chief court in this land.'
He attacked the Supreme Court justices for taking what he called a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach.
'No judge has been willing to give us a hearing about it – its see no evil, hear no evil keep it away from us, don't let us have to deal with it it's too controversial,' he said.
Giuliani doubled down on unfounded claims that Trump 'won' the election, saying 'President Trump, if you were to look at Pennsylvania, won Pennsylvania by 300,000 to 400,000 votes – it's been stolen from him.'
He added: 'I think this is going to be a terrible thing in American history… this is going to live in our history and the Supreme Court has made a terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, decent, and equitable way because it's going to leave a real black mark with regard to the selection throughout our entire history.'
McEnany also appeared on Hannity where she hit out at the court saying it 'dodged' and 'ignored'.
Kayleigh McEnany also appeared on Hannity where she hit out at the court saying it 'dodged' and 'ignored'
'We've gone state-by-state outlining the egregious equal protection violations and due process claims that were entirely ignored,' she fumed
'There's no way to say it other than they dodged, they dodged, they hid behind procedure and they refused to use their authority to enforce the constitution,' she said.
'We've gone state-by-state outlining the egregious equal protection violations and due process claims that were entirely ignored.'
She went on to accuse 'none of the judges' on the court of giving 'a view on the facts of the case'.
Instead, she said the case 'was dismissed on standing.'
Meanwhile, Stone took his support of Trump marching through the nation's capital with the extremist far-right group the Proud Boys, of which he is a member.
Proud Boys Chairman Enrique Tarrio was at the rally and addressed the crowd of Trump supporters near the Washington Monument Friday night.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the group is a far-right males-only extremist group that has neo-fascist, violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic views.
.(tagsToTranslate)dailymail(t)news(t)Donald Trump(t)Joe Biden(t)Texas(t)Breaking News