Early Sunday Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/8/2020: The 2020 Presidential Election Ethics Train Wreck Accelerates…

Train-Wreck air

The news media, Democrats and Trump-Haters—are there any Biden supporters, I wonder?—are behaving like—no other word will do— assholes to a degree that even I could not have imagined. They are doing so in such a flagrant matter that one has to ask if they all really are assholes, if they are this way permanently now, and if we can ever trust any of them again. Gloating, threatening, insulting and lying is not the way to heal the damage done to the nation (by them, primarily) over the last four years.

Do not send Ethics Alarms comments about how “this is no surprise.” Just cut that out. Writing that mitigates the offense. It is a surprise. It may have been predictable, but one has to be surprised at such despicable conduct by such a huge component of the population, or one just has to give up.

It’s unethical to give up.

1. I just blocked my first Twitter account, and it was that of the self-banned, former puckish Ethics Alarms commenter Jeff Field, known here as Fattymoon. Jeff was an enthusiastic member of Occupy Wall Street, meaning he was essentially an anarchist and thoroughly deluded, but he was treated well here. Then he went off to Medium to attack me and the blog by name. That’s fine. What’s not fine is the string of tweets he has sent out lately threatening me for daring to point out the same kinds of issues I’m covering in this post. That is signature significance for both an asshole and a totalitarian (anarchists are often totalitarians, as long as they see themselves in charge, and all totalitarians are assholes).

I really thought better of Jeff. I have never blocked anyone on Twitter; I object to it on principle, but I’m willing to be insulted—I know how to defend myself—but threats on social media are intolerable.

2. The news media cannot ethically refer to Joe Biden as “the President-elect.” He isn’t. That’s a fact. They didn’t call George W. Bush “President Elect” when Al Gore and Florida Democrats were searching high and low for any way to flip Florida into the Gore column in 2000, and at this point, the 2020 election is no more decided than that one was. It is a remarkable—and obviously unethical—exercise for the news media to declare Biden the winner and then use its own fake news to proclaim him President-elect. There are sufficient states with their vote totals in question, with recounts looming and lawsuits mounting, to wait. Waiting costs nothing; premature declarations and celebrations make the nation look ridiculous, because at this juncture, it is ridiculous.

3. Well, the metaphorical masks are coming off. Jake Tapper finally left no doubt that he is a jerk, a hack, and a fool. Good to know, really: I have periodically been tricked into thinking he was ethically superior to his colleagues because of his periodic outbursts of contrarian truth. Actually, Jake may be ethically superior to his colleagues, but this only shows how unethical his colleagues have become. Luckily for Tapper, CNN’s race-baiting specialist Van Jones followed him to make Jake look good by comparison, actually weeping his way through a premature victory speech.

Here is the transcript:

WOLF BLITZER: Again, CNN projects Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States. Jake, he is now President-elect Joe Biden. 

JAKE TAPPER: What a moment in history. We have all been waiting on the edges of our seats since Tuesday. It is the end, the end of a tumultuous presidency, a time of some accomplishments, no question, a time where many Americans throughout the country and in shuttered steel towns and rural America, they felt for the first time, they felt heard, which is important. But it is also, Wolf, it has also been a time of extreme divisions. Many of the divisions caused and exacerbated by President Trump himself. It’s been a time of several significant and utterly avoidable failures, most tragically, of course, the unwillingness to respect facts and science and do everything that can be done to save lives during a pandemic. It has been a time where truth and fact were treated with disdain. It was a time of cruelty where official inhumanities such as child separation became the official shameful policy of the United States. But now the Trump presidency is coming to an end, to an end, with so many squandered opportunities and ruined potential, but also an era of just plain meanness. It must be said to paraphrase President Ford, for tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over.

VAN JONES: Well it’s easier to be a parent this morning, it’s easier to be a dad. It’s easier to tell your kids character matters, it matters. Tell them the truth matters. Being a good person matters. And it’s easier for a lot of people. If you’re Muslim in this country, you don’t have to worry if the president doesn’t want you here. If you’re an immigrant, you don’t have to worry if the president’s going to be happy to have snatched away or send dreamers back for no reason. It’s vindication for a lot of people who have really suffered, you know, the “I can’t breathe,” that wasn’t just George Floyd, that was a lot of people have felt they couldn’t breathe. Every day you’re waking up and getting tweets and you just don’t know and you’re going to the store and people who have been afraid to show their racism are getting nastier and nastier to you and you’re worried about your kids and you’re worried about your sister, can she just go to Walmart and get back into her car without somebody saying something to her. And you’ve spent so much of your life energy just trying to hold it together and this is a big deal for us just to be able to get some peace and have a chance for a reset and the character of the country matters and being a good man matters. I just want my sons to look at this, to look at this. It’s easy to do it the cheap way and get away with stuff, but it comes back around. It comes back around and it’s a good thing for this country. I’m sorry for the people who lost, for them it’s not a good day. But for a whole lot of people it’s a good day.  


  • No, Wolf, CNN does not decide the election. The final votes do.
  • Those extreme divisions were disproportionately stoked by your employers, Jake.
  • Right, the policy was “separating children from parents.” Again, a lie. The policy was to stop people from illegally sneaking into the country.
  • The pandemic lie is so idiotic and infuriating I am tempted to score it as evil.

But I won’t…well…at least it gives me a chance to post this:

That CNN blather isn’t just unethical journalism, it isn’t journalism. It’s not even punditry. It’s propaganda.

4. Actually, the non-metaphorical masks are also coming off. A large crowd celebrated in NYC’s Barkley Square yesterday, and Chuck Schumer joined them.

Schumer crowd

About that “science” the President ignored: do you see any social distancing in this photo? Americans can’t gather in schools, churches, funerals,  family celebrations and Trump rallies because those are “super-spreader” events, but Black Lives Matter demonstrations and mass premature gloats by Democrats are safe and responsible.

Boy, that science is complicated….

5.It was stunningly unethical for Biden to address the nation and behave as if he had won last night. Again noting the appearance of impropriety: this rush feels like an urgent effort to avoid due process. If it isn’t, then Biden has an obligation to urge caution and restraint. No, there is no definitive evidence—yet, and maybe never— that proves widespread fraud, but there is a lot of smoke, and the nation deserves to know exactly what occurred, even if it is only to prove what a terrible, incompetent, disastrous idea mail-in voting is.

6. You want a nightmare? Here’s a nightmare...Consider this: what if there is a major break in the inquiry, and the Biden vote totals in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania are shown to be inflated sufficiently to give the President the victory. Oh, there would have been riots if Trump won in any scenario, but having a victory declared to be finals and absolute taken away would ensure an insurrection, or at least a serious threat of one. That’s obvious, isn’t it?

How hard would it be to just wait until the questions—and there are questions and good reasons for them—were answered before proclaiming victory? Apparently too hard. This is an irresponsible, power-hungry, untrustworthy party, and it is showing that what Ethics Alarms has diagnosed about its ethics for four years was neither exaggerated nor unfair. I’ll post this clip…

…but I’ll also say thatthical Americans will not submit to fear and bullying. If Jake Tapper equates Biden’s dubious win with peace, harmony, submission and cheerful ideological re-education, he could not be more wrong. The nightmare his pals intend may be a pleasant dream to him, but I predict a rude awakening.

68 thoughts on “Early Sunday Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/8/2020: The 2020 Presidential Election Ethics Train Wreck Accelerates…

  1. They’re trying to force it down our throats; if they act as if he’s won, if it turns out he hasn’t, well….we can’t turn back now! We have to let him be President or who knows what might happen!

    How much more foul can all this become? I fear his ‘victory speech’ is nothing more than lighting a fuse on a massive powder keg. They know it, and they do it anyway…

  2. “The news media, Democrats and Trump-Haters—are there any Biden supporters, I wonder?—are behaving like—no other word will do— assholes to a degree that even I could not have imagined.”

    Yes, my wife and I heard fireworks in our neighborhood area last evening when Biden was addressing the nation. There are both Biden and Trump supporters in this area but I never though people would be celebrating with fireworks. It makes me feel kind of ill that people would behave this way over the election results (that aren’t even final at this point).

  3. We certainly now see graceless trumphalism and inhumane unpersonning looming, all very vae victis, but at the risk of offending your objections to suggestions of “I told you so”, can I turn that around and frame it as a genuine question? How on earth can anyone familiar with the back story have missed so many precedents, from the fate of the Loyalists, the infiltration of the Oregon Territory, the persecution of the Mormons, Reconstruction, and so on?* The only variation seems to be who/whom. (and NO, asking this isn’t anti-American, as the same could be said of many others; it’s just that today’s who/whom involves the U.S.A.).

    * “They deserved it” misses the point, even if – perhaps especially if – true. It actually accepts that those who deserve to lose deserve to suffer, and that that exonerates deserving winners for inflicting that – which is just how these triumphalists see their own case.

  4. #2 The purpose of calling the election for Biden is it’s much easier to claim that the Republicans are trying to steal the election if it’s already been “called” and things begin to go sideways for Democrats. It really won’t take much for the political left activists to completely loose their minds and start violently rioting if things aren’t going their way and the left’s propaganda media starts smearing the Republicans as stealing the election. The political left has been building up the mound of steam under the already wacked out political left since November 2016 and it’s at a bursting point, at this point in time it really won’t take much for the political left to completely loose it and that steam mound will burst open upon our society.

    President Trump needs to address the nation with a public announcement that’s something along these lines..

    “It’s inappropriate to call an election for a candidate when there are so many active legal challenges in the courts, we need to insure that this election is legitimate and all the legal votes are counted while any illegal votes are rejected. The courts will promptly deal with these challenges. Right now the appropriate thing for the American people, the media, and the Biden campaign to do is to wait until those legal challenges have been reasonably satisfied. When the time comes, there will be either a peaceful transition to a Biden administration or a continuation of my administration; that time has not yet arrived. Patience is the virtue that needs to be exhibited by everyone right now.”

    I know this is not President Trumps style but it’s what needs to be stated by the President.

    • I don’t think it matters. The left bubble is so complete with all forms of social media and the mainstream media censoring anything about the accuracy of the vote tally. As far as half of the country is concerned, there is no sign of impropriety.

      • Twitter has already deleted Trump’s tweets about questionable vote tallies in numerous states. The media have moved on from Trump, dismissing him as yesterday’s old news. Anything he says or does will be treated as sour grapes from a petulant bully.


          • If some people decide that the system is so rigged that it is impossible to win again and there is cheating at all levels, then they have nothing to lose by going rouge.
            Yes, that is very dangerous.

        • Not only has Twitter censored half of the president’s communications, but they’ve also gloated that by doing so they have measured a decrease in the public discourse around the communications in question by more than eighty percent.

          The phrase “democracy dies in darkness” sure comes to mind.

  5. I wonder?—are behaving like—no other word will do— assholes to a degree that even I could not have imagined. They are doing so in such a flagrant matter that one has to ask if they all really are assholes, if they are this way permanently now

    You could have wished Hillary Clinton a happy birthday.

    4. Actually, the non-metaphorical masks are also coming off. A large crowd celebrated in NYC’s Barkley Square yesterday, and Chuck Schumer joined them.

  6. 2) they’re establishing by acclaim Biden’s right to rule. They know full well what they are doing. The millions for whom Covid is no danger partying in the streets who couldn’t come vote in person will be much easier to turn into revolutionaries on the odd chance it turns out the entire election in the important yet statistically odd swing states turns out to be a sham.

    You think this summer’s rioting was bad?

    It’s almost like the media wants these conditions.

    I wonder why?

  7. I see you noted this in #6. I should’ve finished reading.

    Yes this seems to be all by intentional design.

    If this really went down the road of the true nightmare imagine the blood on the hands of the left wing talking heads knowing they’d be relatively safe compared to the masses they’re relying on to do the dirty work.

  8. #2. It’s not ridiculous, it’s incredibly dangerous to call him a winner when it’s not decided. They’re going to throw a fit if that changes and…. burn down their cities. This is not 2000. Attitudes are much more polarized and tolerance is in short supply. For them to declare a winner is incredibly inept.

  9. I wish I could say I was surprised at the way things played yesterday. I’m not. I AM a little surprised at the degree of what I can only describe as steamrolling by Biden and his supporters, from mayors and governors sending out congratulatory statements within the hour to stupid facebook posts, to the release of a meme showing all of the vice presidents next to a full-length photo of the Harridan posed like the queen of the world. It isn’t completely over, although it is probably 95% there, but it isn’t ethical to act like it is when the last shot isn’t fired. I am pretty disgusted at some of my friends joining the “concession now” crowd, calling for the president to concede gracefully as soon as possible and stop embarrassing himself. The time may come to concede, but we’re not there yet, and to say someone is embarrassing himself by exercising his rights is an attempt to bully him by false shame, and THAT’S unethical.

    1. No big loss, I once told him he had the IQ of a clump of shit when he pushed me the wrong way during discussions after the attempted massacre of Republican congressmen 3 years ago in your hometown. I see that, although I did speak in vulgar hyperbole, I was not off the mark in calling him unintelligent. It’s stupid to threaten someone repeatedly in writing. I’m afraid in a lot of cases if you scratch a liberal or an anarchist or even in some cases, an environmentalist, you will find a totalitarian underneath. I dunno about all totalitarians being assholes, but a totalitarian is synonymous with being tyrannical, and being tyrannical is per se morally and ethically wrong.

    2. The two circumstances are not exactly analogous. 2000 was about a close vote in Florida, which would decide the election, which Al Gore tried to flip to his side with a cherry-picked manual recount of three D-leaning counties. The media had called it the night before but just as quickly uncalled it, realizing they hadn’t accounted for the R-leaning panhandle, which is on Central Time, so the polls hadn’t closed. In this case you are talking about SIX states, which together put Biden way over the top, and it’s not just a matter of a recount in close counties, it’s an allegation of widespread misconduct and corruption in the system. In 2000 you were also dealing with a normal voting situation. Oregon was doing all-mail voting, but I don’t think we even had the five states who are doing it that way now. Pretty much the whole country was doing it this time out, and doing it for the first time. The outcome was very much up in the air in 2000 until Florida was decided, the media here thinks it isn’t, and that these lawsuit will turn out to be so much bs that will be dismissed in 10 seconds flat. So they are moving on, and they are moving the nation on with them.

    That said, I don’t think it’s an accident that the media was SCRUPULOUS about not calling W the president-elect until after the SCOTUS made that final call and Gore gave his concession. Had it been the other way round, I’m not sure they would have been.

    3. They’ve been spouting propaganda for pretty much the last twelve years, it’s just they can now be totally blatant about it like in Obama’s time.

    4. This is just an extension of the protesting without social distancing or masks this summer. Apparently liberals are immune to the virus.

    5. Nope, it’s his moment and he’s running with it. Maybe he knows that this examination of the process is doomed to fail, so he might as well get everyone into the “new normal.”

    6. I think they are banking that the inquiries will find nothing, that the judges will just dismiss things as not wanting to get involved, and that even if they find something, it either won’t flip things, or will be dismissed as moot, which the odds are on the side of, but, Trump and 2020. If that were to happen, I really think you would see riots that would make this summer look tame. I think they are also banking on that to intimidate the judges, even if they see something, to bury it. I also think they are hoping mail-in voting is here to stay in a lot more places.

    I will say this: I don’t know what happened here. My confidence in the process was already not too strong. I think this year has been the most perfect of perfect storms. I think this was not the time to do mail-in voting on such a huge scale in so many places where it had never been done before, and, but for the pandemic, it wouldn’t have been done. I also think that there are way too many red flags (which we ran through in an earlier post, so I won’t run through them again) for a quick, blithe, and breezy dismissal of all questions and a smarmy “the word for your guidance is mum.”

    I think some of the allegations being made are nothing, but I think others ARE deserving of a full and fair hearing, and not of being passed over “for the good of the nation and moving forward.” If it turns out to be a lot of smoke, I’ll accept it, and so should everyone else. However, if it turns out to be a lot of stuff that stops short of just being provable or just shy of being illegal, then I will lose confidence in the system, and so should everyone. It’s supposed to be about doing the honest thing, not about doing as much as you can hide or get away with. I particular dislike every kind of social media flashing stickers that election official work under rigorous and robust safeguards, like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg feel the need to repeat that every damn time you log on to send a message or post a picture of a kid or a dog, so you come to conclude that these lawsuits are bs.

    I’ll also say that I was pretty damn angry in 2016 after Trump’s surprise victory at the party and the people who had been insulting me, mocking me, threatening me, bullying me, blocking me, and so on for a good year before that. I did not become any less so as the same behavior continued over the past four years. I am no less angry at the insults and belittling and statements that those who want this suspicious circumstance looked into are just sore losers and stalling now, and I’m not amused at the abuse being thrown at the president himself. I wonder what Biden’s supporters would say if I flipped their guy’s motorcade the bird? Probably they’d think I was just a mouth-breathing redneck sore loser. I know I’m not the only one who felt this way then and I doubt I’m the only one who feels it now.

    The Democratic Party are poor losers, when they even acknowledge that they lose, as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton sure didn’t, and as they have shown time and time (and time) again through “the resistance” and everything else we’ve talked about here. They are also poor winners, lording it over the defeated and remarking on what great people they are for winning and what rotten people the losers are and how they deserved to lose. The fact is that they encourage the worst in their own, but demand the best from their opponents. I am not buying this unity nonsense for a moment. For the party whose last president was the Divider-in-Chief, and who spent the last four years attacking, obstructing, and waging political war on the other side’s president to now say they want to unite the country is an insult to the other party’s intelligence, integrity, and memory. Oh yes, and let’s not forget the lying: Russiagate, the Steele Dossier, etc. That goes double when the promised rout didn’t materialize, and the other side still holds some cards. Normally an incoming president is entitled to a certain amount of deference when he picks his cabinet. Mitch is fully entitled to say no, go to hell. An incoming president is entitled to some deference to his choice of judges. Bzzzt! Nope. Not that there will be many to nominate, since there are few empty slots. There is absolutely no reason for McConnell not to send every bill that comes from the House (which may not be blue much longer) down the memory hole, except the occasional budget resolution to avoid a counterproductive government shutdown. There’s frankly no reason for the Senate not to drill deeper into Huntergate, and embarrass Biden’s family as the grifters they are. There’s no reason, if the House flips in 2022 (a distinct possibility, given the Democrats’ failure to pick up a single seat this time out) for them not to concoct their own impeachment charges. They probably won’t stick, absent damning evidence that costs Biden the support of his own party (and maybe we don’t want them to stick and put Harridan in power), but they will keep him busy for a few months. Oh, and if he wants a relief bill for those cities that have torn themselves apart? Ah, nice joke, Joe. There’s also no reason for Trump not to buy Newsmax and OAN, create his own media empire, better than anything Fox ever built, and show every gaffe, every error, and every mistake, and turn Biden into the senile laughingstock that he is.

    Not fair? Not nice? Not good for the country? Maybe not, but the precedent has been set. In the meantime, get ready for your 401k to tank, your taxes to go up, the borders to open, and the government to make another attempt on healthcare. Look forward to the Camdenization of a few more cities, too.

      • Yep, however, I interpreted what you said to mean that you were not surprised at the fact, but at the degree. I am very surprised at the swiftness and completeness of the reaction, which is what I was trying to say. I’m not surprised that it happened, but I am very surprised that it happened the way it did.

        • Oh yes, and let’s not forget the lying: Russiagate, the Steele Dossier, etc.

          Do not forget how social media tried to stop the spread of the Biden laptop story, which Jack blogged about here extensively.

          In the minds of many people, that begged the question of what other truths were they suppressing? What about other issues? For example, are there things about the COVID-19 pandemic or the states’ response to it that they were not telling us? There can be no unity, no healing, with these people.

          In one of his earlier blog posts (do not have the link at the moment), Jack cited a poll (yes, I know, a poll) showing that 70% of Democratic voters believe in the Russian collusion nonsense.

          What percentage of Republican voters would believe this election was stolen, that this was a coup? Even Jack, in yesterday’s ethics review, called this a coup, because ” election was not held on even ground, between the news media’s open bias and the use of the pandemic to justify early and inherently corruptible mail-in voting”.

    • Your worries come down to two Georgia senate race run-offs. If it is. 52-48 senate, we will have a whole bunch of divided government and little will happen.
      If the democrats cheat there and take both, they will steamroll all of their promises.

      • Divided government is actually great for America. Generally means little in terms of imposing on your rights happens.

        But, the Democrats know the game plan. There will be *no* fixing the ground game vote counting.

        They will flip the Senate and they WILL NOT allow the circumstances to lose power again.

  10. #1. I note that several former participants in this blog seem to have viciously turned on you Jack, taking their anger to other social media platforms, and attacking you there. Fattymoon, Charles 1 and Charles 2, the whack-job who sued you(!). Am I correct in my impression that all of the disgruntled former Ethics Blogetariat who do this are from the political left, or is that my bias coloring my perception? Are there conservatives, Monarchists, Libertarians, or Rastafarians that also do this? Is Alizia about to serve you with a 700 page legal complaint?, because that would disprove my theory…I think.
    In my experience with leftists, they often mistake friendliness and fairness, even politeness, with agreement. When they realize that one actually disagrees, they get nasty, as if they have been misled.

    • Joe Fowler: “Is Alizia about to serve you with a 700 page legal complaint? because that would disprove my theory…I think.”

      This is a parting post and not a “I am returning” post! I have not yet found another forum-place to ‘live’ yet — it is not easy — but perhaps in time I will.

      A few additional words if I may, inspired by Joe’s comment. I have left the blog permanently but thought a wee follow-up was fair. A way to say Good-bye formally.

      Some might not have seen the thread where I announced that I would leave the blog permanently. It was in a thread where Spartan pointed out, fairly and accurately, that my presence would drive people away and likely had been driving people away from Jack’s blog. Her description of my as a racist bot is as far as her intellectual capacities and descriptive abilities could take her, but I will leave that there.

      Her larger purpose was, of course, to undermine my presence by any means necessary and in standard *progressive* style — shut out of discourse those you *hate* — nevertheless this one point of her’s is completely valid. Of course I knew this long ago and, it is true, thought about it then. In retrospect it was a selfish choice to stay on for as long as I did. I might even say unethical to a degree.

      I figured though that *you* needed and could benefit from a person familiar with the oppositional discourse of the American and European Dissident Right. Only because, in different ways, their discourse is having effect, and even if you do not know it and can’t recognize it, our ideas have already penetrated very far. This is how I understand this process and please forgive the directness: The ideas of the Dissident Right are strong and powerful ideas. They are truly conservative because they actually conserve.

      Nearly every psuedo-conservative who writes here works with weak, compromised false-conservative ideas that are, in truth, progressive-centrist ideas. Because this is so, you end up being weak, impotent men and women who cannot defend your family, your people, your heritage, nor your future. In this *you-plural* invoke disgust in me, that is in an abstract, general sense. Just as it would for you if you faced a weak, whimpering ‘man’ who could not face his responsibilities and acted more like a beaten-down and scared woman. I regret to say that this is how I see the American Conservative, largely.

      This is what I think of your ‘Conservatism’. And I believe that I have said as much and in this way engaged here with parrhesia: direct,fearless and truthful speech. There are many here, not all of course but many, who simply cannot tolerate parrhesia in the sense I mean this. So they turn to ridicule and that oh-so-familiar *hatefulness* of that which they feel is their ‘enemy’.

      Jack is a psuedo-Conservative as well of course. Jack is fundamentally a Progressive activist of that uniquely postwar (ll) sort. This sort of ‘conservative’ is a very strange and peculiar animal. It was really through years of participation here that I came to see and understand this fake-conservative and this cripto-progressive. Trust me: after 5 years I now really do. And this came about because of Jack’s essential courtesy to me — simply allowing me to be here and write, often excessively. That alone has earned my eternal and unchanging respect. Essentially, I completely respect Jack and his rational-discourse approach. But certainly that he allows, and encourages, people to participate from very different orientations. That they later *bite* him earns my total contempt. And no one would be allowed to say anything unfavorable or undermining about his generosity and his won strong intellectual commitments in front of me and get away with it.

      We of the Dissident Right now can only continue to do what we have always done: try to profit from what the circumstances and the time provide to us. President Trumps loss, and the acrimoniousness that will arise out of it, is of course an opportunity to bring our discourses and our ideas out even more. I had thought that a ‘win’ for us — to the degree that Trump would be a win — would serve us less than would his loss. Really, there is nothing but solid opportunities for us now, and I suppose for *you* as well.

      I want to off my thanks to all of you, no matter if you disliked me or my excessiveness or thought of me as some sort of ‘evil creature’. I hope that you do recognize that The System, with its apparent win, will follow through with more bannings, more assaults on free communication, and I hope that you do grasp that our own intelligence agencies are deeply involved in this. A larger System is doing what it can and what it must to rein-in the dissident elements. This is a war though a low-scale one. It is a structural fight to control America and what America ‘is’. But it is not just America. They have no choice but to try to isolate and to destroy what they recognize as their opposition. At the very least, the very least, the coming months and years will be unreally interesting!

      I propose that much of what I wrote about, the strong ideas, the ideas that run contrary to ‘conventional discourse’, will become to seem more truthful and more relevant as time goes by.

      If I send anything to Jack it will be a Christmas card of just one page!

      I wish all of you very well. This is a formal Adios. I appreciate it very much that you allowed me to participate as long as I did.

  11. 4. Query: If face masks work, why is social distancing required? Why six feet? I remember months ago reading about a case in China where a guy had the virus on a bus and infected another guy fifteen feet away. Of course, there have been no cases of the virus and no deaths in China, the most populous country in the world, for over half a year. Those Chinese are amazing. We really should be more like them.

  12. Unless your mask is a well-fitted medical N-95 or an equivalent (Respro etc), masks are not 100% effective. They block something like 70-80% of airborne droplets. They are better than being unmasked, by far, but not foolproof, hence social distancing/limiting interaction time. 6 feet is the distance that mist from a masked sneeze, or cough can be propelled, or gradually float if you hang around talking for a long time.

    The bus incident shows how an unmasked individual in a relatively small enclosed space can infect others, aided by air conditioning or fans. We had a cluster here in a small restaurant, and the people who got sick from the one infected person there were seated far enough away, but the air conditioner air flow carried it throughout the room. We have not only distance limits but suggested time limits for seeing people. 2 1/2 hours in close proximity especially with the addition of alcohol seems to be about how long it takes to acquire enough of a viral load to get sick. When people drink they tend to get boisterous, laugh more and louder, it’s easier for the virus to spread. Bars and live music houses under a certain square footage were closed for three months or thereabouts here.

    • Crella, could you please explain the foregoing to the people who step off the curb into the street and, potentially, traffic to avoid me when they pass me walking down the street and I’m not coughing or sneezing. I suspect they’re in significantly greater danger of death from being hit by a car or a bicycle than contracting the virus from me and dying. Which almost happened the other day when a woman passing me from behind was almost hit by a bicyclist pedaling up the street she’d stepped onto without looking behind her for any traffic going in the direction in which we were walking.

      And by the way, can’t people who are coughing and sneezing be gotten away from other people? I don’t think I’ve seen a single cough or sneeze in public this entire calendar year.

      • Wow, that’s dangerous! It’s hard to transmit it in the open air, especially in the brief time it takes to pass someone. Examples of the possibility of outdoor transmission (none documented that I know of) are running a road race or bicycling directly behind an infected person . Again, proximity and time. Getting hit by a car is far more likely.

        I haven’t either, come to think about it. I have been vigilant about taking my allergy meds, as I really don’t want to be sneezing my way through the supermarket (people look daggers at you!i), maybe others are as well. Also, all the hand washing and mask wearing is really keeping the numbers of seasonal colds way down. Last year at this time (last week’s stats) there were over 2,000 active cases of influenza, there are now 2. I haven’t seen anyone with an obvious cold yet.

  13. 5. I think you are confusing evidence with proof. There is absolutely evidence of fraud. In Philadelphia, poll watchers were refused access to observe the vote counting. There are 50+ certified poll watchers who have submitted signed affidavits swearing they were either not allowed into the counting centers, or not allowed close enough to actually observe the vote counting. Pennsylvania law mandates that poll watchers be allowed to stand within 6 feet of the ballots being counted.

    Those people are witnesses, and the affidavits are evidence. 50+ signed affidavits worth of evidence is pretty solid evidence. It may not be proof, but it is definitely evidence.

    Preventing the examination of evidence, ie the ballots, is evidence in and of itself of fraud. My understanding of the law, which might be faulty as I’m not a lawyer, is that the mishandling of the evidence can lead to that evidence being disqualified. So those ballots may get disqualified from being counted at all. If that happens, it is pretty much a travesty, because at minimum I would assume at least some of the illegally processed votes were legitimate votes. Perhaps all of them were legitimate. There is no way to know because they didn’t allow the legitimate observation of the counting.

    There is no definitive proof those ballots were fraudulent prior to being illegally processed, because they were processed illegally without an observer being allowed to observe.

    Maybe this is semantic nitpicking.

      • Well, a deliberate public statement by a lawyer that a document exists that doesn’t will get that lawyer suspended from the practice of law. Lawyers aren’t like politicians: they can’t away with that. Tell you what: if they don’t exist, I’ll file the complaint myself.

        • Rudy’s gotten away with grandstanding before. In any case, his statement shouldn’t be taken as evidence of fraud–or even evidence of evidence of fraud. As things stand now, there is no evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing on a scale that would have influenced the results of the election, which is why Trump’s lawsuits are getting dismissed, one after the other.

    • You mean the term “circumstantial evidence” is really “circumstantial proof”? I think not. My statement that there is no definitive evidence is correct. Proof is when there is either direct evidence that PROVES a fact, or enough circumstantial evidence that collectively cannot be explained by any other theory than what is being proposed. So far, none of the evidence constitutes proof of intentional fraud. Which is what I wrote: “No, there is no definitive evidence—yet, and maybe never— that proves widespread fraud,”

      I have been practicing law as well as non-legal analysis in various ways since 1975. I think I know what “evidence” is.

  14. I agree with Jonathan Turley’s take. There’s reason to look into these allegations but the issues need to be systemic, not episodic. Turley also said Trump hasn’t shown any concrete evidence. It seems to me Trump is just going after soft spots, poking and prodding, hoping something will stick. Trump’s tweets saying he won the election and that there’s wide-spread fraud is a disgrace and I think a deliberate attempt at ruining our trust in democracy. It seems many of you have fallen for it. Just like he wanted.

    Has anyone read any of the court documents? I think this one shows Trump’s strategy. If there’s concrete evidence that there’s something systemic happening here, I’d love to see it.

    Click to access 20201106_Opin_and_Ord_707156_7.pdf

      • Giuliani could have had a press conference with 50 (or 20, or 4) observers who had been denied proper access. That would be evidence enough to convince a good portion of the public that further investigation is warranted. Instead he says he has a bunch of affidavits that we might get to see later, while his client tweets increasingly ridiculous statements.

    • Trump’s tweets saying he won the election and that there’s wide-spread fraud is a disgrace and I think a deliberate attempt at ruining our trust in democracy. It seems many of you have fallen for it. Just like he wanted.

      Jack did not cite President Trump’s statements as evidence for probable cause.

      Can you point to a statement from him saying otherwise?

    • It would help if someone trustworthy was investigating and reporting on these voter fraud issues. The mainstream media is pretending there is nothing that even has a whiff of impropriety about it, and reporting on none of it. That gap is being filled by people who don’t know what they are doing reporting on it for them. Then people like me who want to know what is going on with all this are reading misreported information. I don’t know enough about the law to know whether they are lying about, or misinterpreting, whatever topic they are discussing.

      There is nothing but biased news sources, whether biased for the left or biased for the right. It makes it difficult to educate yourself. I trust Jack when he says this is what’s what. There aren’t really many places where you can get trustworthy information like that, though. Everyone has an agenda right now, and it’s making me paranoid.

      I’ve studied a lot of topics, but my expertise on the law is limited to a couple undergraduate business law courses I took 15 or so years ago. I know just enough to be an idiot misinterpreting things I think I know about but really don’t.

      I should probably just stop commenting on topics that are not my area of expertise.

    • What the President says is irrelevant, except that it magnifies the confusion, just like Biden’s false statements that he has won.

      Pointing to his typically off-the cuff excesses is ducking the issue

  15. Everybody knew months ago that Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were likely to be hotspots of vote fraud — they’re all states that Trump won last time, that have Democratic governors and that changed the rules this year to make fraud easier to accomplish. It’s amazing to me that Trump did not have a legal team ready in each state to file emergency motions when last week’s totally predictable events happened. The papers that they filed (the ones I’ve seen anyway) have all been late and lousy.

    Here’s evidence of fraud, although not proof:

    1. Statistically anomalous vote counts being found in the exact states that we predicted fraud would occur.
    2. Counting that goes on and on and on in the states where statistically anomalous vote counts are being announced, long after counting has been completed in other states.
    3. Republican poll watchers being ejected from the counting rooms in these same states, but not in any other states.

    I think that if proof is found of fraud in sufficient numbers to overturn the election, it will be statistical proof, not testimonial, but I’m also doubtful that Trump’s team can make statistical arguments and even more doubtful that most judges can understand them, even assuming that the judges who decide the case aren’t actually just Democratic activists who rubber stamp the fraud.

    • See this is what I’m confused about. Your third point…did you read the PA judge’s comments about the the poll watcher not being allowed in:

      In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats.
      The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign.
      “I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?” said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. The suit was dismissed without prejudice.


      Also, your second point. Are you talking about the mail-in ballots being counted? Because that obviously takes more time. The more mail-in ballots in certain States, the longer it takes to count them.

    • Yes, the Republicans, from all I heard, had a very robust ground game as far as knocking on doors, registering new voters, getting out the vote. So did they think that the necessity for that ended on November 2nd?

      It’s a very good question — especially since there were serious doubts about the process — of why the Republicans didn’t also have a very robust ground game for the counting and tabulating part. There should have been documented (preferably video) evidence of any irregularities or malarkey going on.

      That is disappointing, especially given the leadup to this election. Lawyers are good to have on hand — evidence gatherers would have been even better.

      And, they just seem to go on and on and on counting in those states. Why could a giant state like Texas basically get everything counted on election night — Texas has absentee voting and has more and bigger cities than just about any state other than California.

  16. I’m not a US constitutional lawyer (obviously).

    What, apart from tradition, says that the VP has to accept the reported EC vote as accurate, while presiding over the joint sitting?

    Even winning the EC vote is not enough for a candidate to be the President Elect.

    If no determination is made by the joint sitting of a winner, it goes to House state delegations, so Trump wins by 28:22, regardless of Electoral Colleges, popular votes, or even state legislatures.

    So many things have gone against tradition in this administration, that unless there’s a law against such shennanigans, there’s no reason to suppose they won’t happen.

    I’m sure I will be vehemently corrected if I’m wrong. So, as a favour to me, show me my error.

    • Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution seem clear to me about the Electoral College vote determining the winner.

      The various state laws seem pretty clear to me about how Electoral College votes are determined.

      Not sure your confusion.

  17. The one affidavit regarding prevention of an observer doing their job had the following alleged facts on the affidavit:

    Deponent is a GOP observer.

    He brought in a camera, which is forbidden to anyone except members of the media.

    He was told to leave it outside, if he was to continue observing.

    He then claimed to be a member of the media.

    He was then removed to the section of the tally room reserved for the media, some distance away.

    That’s it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.