How I Lost an Election to Sen. Hawley and Did Not Contest

He should do the same when it comes to President-elect Biden's victory over Trump


I have an op-ed in USA Today about how I lost the Yale Law School Federalist Society presidential election in 2005 to Sen. Joshua Hawley, who is currently trying to overturn President-elect Biden's rightful win over Donald Trump. Despite the inelegant way in which Sen. Hawley won against me, I did not contest his victory at any point. His own unwillingness to show grace in defeat risks inciting violence and imperiling our democratic system.

I recommend reading my Twitter thread here, which provides more detail. For those who can't access Twitter, the direct link to the op-ed is here.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: January 5, 1931

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’d think he won in a landslide by how salty all these wizened talking heads still inexplicably are over another silly Trump tweet. At least he’ll live on for years rent free in their heads.

    1. I notice how they were ignoring our claims until there was a credible threat that we might adopt their tactics. BLM-DC has decided to go hide and the Thief in Chief has dismantled his Inauguration Platform out of fears that Trump might use it.

      Tomorrow is just Round One — let’s see what the country is like after six months of this…

      Get used to it…

      1. You are deranged.

        1. No, just mad.

          And go read the “Goldwater Rule.”

          1. I did not know that Barry Goldwater (R-Az, and a favorite of my deceased father) was famous for saying, “If I don’t win this election again LBJ, then we need to burn this country down. Because in America, the patriotic thing to do is to throw a tantrum about not getting your way!”

            Maybe I missed that. 🙂

            1. ‘We need to burn this country down. Because in America, the patriotic thing to do is to throw a tantrum about not getting your way’ Been sleeping since herself was robbed due to ‘Russian interference,’ eh?

              1. Thank you for your thoughtful comment!

                Just to be clear, you believe that anything is justified so long as you can conjure up a scenario where “the other side” did it?

                Which means that if the other side molests children … Hank is down for it?

                This might not be the healthiest way to approach life. At the least, we should probably hide the kids.

                1. “St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules.”

                  1. That’s pithy! Almost like you have it as a regular response.

                    Of course, the problem is one’s perceptions; if you believe your opponent to be evil and immoral, that justifies any activity, doesn’t it?

                    Which brings up two separate issues:
                    The first is … what if you’re wrong? Then you’re the baddie. Because you’re being evil and immoral, based on a false belief.

                    The second is … doing something wrong is, well, wrong. Again, if someone you don’t like is molesting children, and you start molesting children, you don’t get to use the retort of the second grader, “But he started it!”

                    If you continually move your behavior to mirror the actions of what you perceive the worst people do, aren’t you … well, the worst? That’s a rhetorical question. 🙂

                  2. Dr. Ed, there’s a logical flaw in your analogy that completely invalidates it.
                    “St. Paul” certainly has the authority to prohibit a boxer from punching innocent bystanders, absolutely regardless of whether the other side is doing to it too.
                    I’ll concede Hawley is still within the law, since objections are explicitly allowed in the Electoral Count Act. But his “punches” are hurting a lot of people other than Biden and Harris, including people like me that voted against Biden but still want and expect election results to be respected. It was wrong when Barbara Boxer did it in 2005 and it”ll be wrong tomorrow when Hawley does it.

                    1. “It was wrong when Barbara Boxer did it in 2005 and it”ll be wrong tomorrow when Hawley does it.”

                      No Biden supporter will say that. They all just hand wave Boxer and John Lewis et al away.

                      Howley’s stunt is hurting anyone though. Its just a stunt, just like Boxer’s.

                    2. Bah, should be “Howley’s stunt is not hurting anyone though.”

                    3. Bob, not everyone finds “but what about” a persuasive argument.

                      I actually think the two can be distinguished since Boxer was calling attention to voter suppression, which was a real problem, but was making no claim the election itself was fraudulent. But even if you don’t find that distinction persuasive, her actions and Hawley’s actions are each either appropriate or not, on their own merits, without respect to what someone else may have done.

                    4. ducksalad — why was the 14th Amendment passed?
                      What did it seek to do?

                    5. “why was the 14th Amendment passed?
                      What did it seek to do?”

                      To make sure Barack Obama could be elected president.

  2. You’re comparing a law school society election to that of POTUS?

    1. AL….Yeah, I know.

  3. Nearly half of all Americans believe the election was stolen:

    “Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, a view shared by 17% of Democrats and 28% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

    This from a recent Rasmussen poll.

    So, those who say “he should accept defeat” are clearly taking sides here. In fact, we don’t think he was legitimately defeated.

    1. As much as I hope that there is thoughtful discussion in the aftermath of this contested election, I very much doubt that this will be the case. What is far more likely to happen are scorched earth tactics in Congress. So be it.

      1. Remember Lindsey Graham’s outburst during the Cavanaugh hearing? Scorched earth started with the Dems 4 years ago…

        1. Yes, I remember Graham’s performance — a hysterical display worthy of the best hissy fit award for an actor in a supporting role. Almost as notewrothy as Kavanaugh’s performance declaring that the whole Blasey Ford thing was cooked up in a vast conspiracy to exact revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

      2. XY,

        It’s not a “contested” election.

        All the crap that Dr. Ed, and A.L. and others, including Trump himself, is spreading is a bunch of lies, repeatedly refuted.

        It’s disgraceful for you to continue to repeat them.

        1. “CONTESTED (adjective): causing dispute or argument.”

          Regardless of what bernard11 chooses to ignore, this is a “contested” election.

          It’s also a fraudulent one…

        2. bernard11, as a factual matter, the election is contested. We have seen multiple recounts in multiple states. There have been lawsuits galore. I mean, that is the very definition of a contested election.

          Exactly what did I repeat here that was so disgraceful…That I wanted a thoughtful discussion in the aftermath?

          1. It has been contested, but those doing the “contesting” have, at this point, no basis for their objections.

            Their claims, which were very weak to begin with, have been refuted, yet they continue to repeat them, as Trump did in his criminal call to Raffensparger. It’s time to stop. You could find this out if you tried.

            What is disgraceful is to continue to repeat lies about the election, call for investigations, etc.

            You want a thoughtful discussion? Of what? How Hugo Chavez rigged the election?

            1. Learned today that the name redacted from accounts and recordings of the Trump call, the woman who Trump suggested is an election fraud mastermind with a history of such behavior, is actually a rather undistinguished part time election worker who earns her living selling hand bags at a mall kiosk. If she were to so choose, she probably has a pretty good suit against Dildon for slander.

          2. But here’s the thing that is frustrating.

            The “thoughtful conversation” is incredibly … incorrect.

            Here are a few things that we should be thoughtfully discussing:

            1. What are we going to do about the situation with the EC? Not just the whole antiquated notion, but the increasing reality of having the possibility of popular vote winners lose the national vote. That is increasingly causing a crisis in legitimacy, and to the extent we want to continue ignoring it, we should have a frank and open public conversation about why the President is still a relic of that system, and whether it is still desirable.

            2. What do we do about transitions? I mean, it seemed absurd that a question at a debate (any Presidential debate, or any debate for a senate seat for that matter) is whether you would support the peaceful transition of power, and yet here we are. Our system of government is incredibly dependent on norms, and to the extent that norms aren’t followed or explicitly broken, it’s incredibly difficult to have laws that constrain you. “Do the right thing” is hard to enact into law. Yes, in some cases we can enact norms into law (whether by statute or Amendment) as we did with two terms, but most things in our system rely on not just ambition checking ambition, but on individuals having a sense of country, duty, and ethics greater than themselves as well.

            3. Finally, is there an issue with the electorate, on both sides? I think it is fairly evident that the level of hate and vitriol is increasing. It’s not the worst- I mean, we had wars and assassinations and riots and domestic terrorism in the 60s-70s, but the level of pure hate over stakes that are so small is the highest that I remember it, and the amount of misinformation is incredibly high. If people can’t agree on even the most basic facts, how can we have an informed electorate?

            The stuff about elections is just noise. I wish that the people screaming about the BS would take the time to actually work in a non-partisan manner with their local elections office and see how things are really done.

            1. #1…Propose an amendment. That is how you change the constitution.
              #2…I think we go back to the old interregnum period. Why? Because there really is something to the adage, ‘time heals all wounds’.

              I don’t have a good answer for #3. I mean, an uninformed electorate is only part of the problem. We don’t seem to have shared civic values, either. Or shared moral values. Or a general framework we are all working from. All of those things were present in 1789: informed electorate, shared civic values, shared moral values, and a general framework they were working from.

              1. On 1, it’s not a question of an amendment or not (or an interstate compact). You keep saying that you want a conversation- that’s probably the leading issue.

                People who benefit from the EC now want it to continue, without having to explain it too carefully to the “masses.” Whereas people who do not want it simply want it gone without the fuss & muss. I think that instead of defaulting to the position you say, “It’s in the Constitution, deal with it,” it’s productive to actually have people really go out and articulate, beyond the purely partisan reasons RIGHT NOW, as to whether or not it continues to be a good idea. There are some benefits- for example, the idea of “retail” politics, but I’m not sure that the continued downside of having a President elected by the minority of voters makes it worth it. But that’s a worthy discussion, and something that is actually germane.

                As for going back to the interregnum period? That sounds like a terrible idea. If anything, we have see that longer periods of uncertainty in the modern age or worse. The original period was an artifact of the times.

                1. So loki13, what process do you propose wrt EC? You don’t like the EC. You feel it is fundamentally undemocratic, and anachronistic. I get that. I am perfectly willing to have the conversation. Hell, I am perfectly willing to help you make the case to a) the Congress, and b) the states. Then they can vote on it.

                  State your EC case.

                  Interregnum period…One of the points you made earlier was how ‘hot’ things are, presently. Wouldn’t a cooling off period help?

                  1. I can’t speak for Loki, but I’d just get rid of it and go with a national popular vote.

                    Imagine a world in which there were no electoral college. There would have been no Bush v. Gore; the results of the 2000 election would have been known, with finality, within 24 hours of the last polls closing. There wouldn’t have been Trump’s 50 frivolous lawsuits. There wouldn’t have been the grotesque spectacle of the leader of the free world spending two months doing everything he could do undo a democratic election, fair means or foul. There wouldn’t have been a lot of the conspiracy theories, and there wouldn’t have been two months of Trump throwing gasoline on the flames.

                    I myself see no value to the electoral college, but even if there is some that I’ve missed, I wish its supporters would at least acknowledge the harm and mischief it makes possible.

                    1. And you know the REALLY cool thing about going to a national popular vote that I haven’t yet heard anyone mention?

                      That way, you can inject bogus votes into the system anywhere in the country, not just a few select places where you risk attracting too much attention with statistically implausible outcomes (and losing too much credibility squeezing your eyes shut and pretending they aren’t implausible).

                      Just a few thousand here… a few thousand there. Low and slow. Beautiful.

                    2. You know what’s fascinating? How people don’t really understand how elections work, and yet feel the need to opine on it endlessly!

                      It would be amazing if even 1% of you would take the time to work with your local elections officials instead of wasting time pretending to be experts on the web. Think of the good you can do! 🙂

                      So Presidential elections, even if they were on a national vote basis, would still be conducted locally. You know, with all the other down-ballot races for the state and the locality.

                      Now what you’re saying is that these local election officials would have no idea that people are putting in thousands of fraudulent ballots. Because they are corrupt, or stupid, or something?

                      Did you even think this through before posting?

                      Anyway, I will say this again- learn how things work by helping out. It’s a lot more productive and satisfying.

                    3. What Loki said. Also, if you were looking to steal an election, which would be easier: Changing 120,000 votes across three states that changes the result in the electoral college, or changing 7 million votes nationwide?

                    4. Loki, you choose to believe all election officials are honest as the day is long. Reality has shown time and time again that is not the case. Get on with your script, if that’s how you care to live your life. I choose reality.

                    5. Yes, LoB, you can just decide everyone providing evidence it’s not a fraud is a liar, and then believe there was a fraud because Trump and Gateway Pundit wouldn’t lead you astray.

                      But that’d be stupid.

                    6. Sarc, quit it with the straw men.

                      Say the words: “I believe all election officials are 100% honest and are only concerned with accurately reporting the actual votes of the voters. Always.”

                      Say them. Or butt out of the thread.

                  2. Actually, I am willing to be convinced w/r/t the EC. But what I don’t like is the whole, “Well, it’s in the Constitution, so … whatever …” that we have going on now. Most people (Dr. Ed’s truly stupid “Joe Sixpack” for instance) think that the President represents the People. No one, today, thinks that the EC exists as a deliberative body. So if there are good reasons to have it, they need to be articulated and accepted.

                    As for the interregnum period- no. It truly is an anachronism. We have been able to get along for so long because, whatever their faults, Presidents were concerned about the country (or, less charitably, their “legacy”) and had no desire to mess things up. Outside of the controversial pardon here and there, it was fairly smooth sailing for the most part.

                    But as we see now, there is no real benefit to keeping the loser in office.

                    1. I thought Hamilton made an argument in Federalist 68 for the EC that is especially relevant to today.

                      These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

                      Today’s version is Russian and Chinese hackers interfering in our election. The EC by design, Hamilton argued, counteracts that (foreign interference). I think he was right.

                      BTW, you have Madison on your side. He was not a big fan of the EC.

                  3. The anti-EC case has been made repeatedly.

                    It is wildly undemocratic. Why should some states have influence disproportionate to their numbers? What does that do besides introduce randomness into the outcome? Indeed, what is the argument against just going by popular vote? The idea that voters’ influence varies according to the state they live in is ridiculous.

                    It renders voters in non-swing states irrelevant, and causes the election to hinge on a handful of states. Again, some voters are more important than others. Votes in WI, population 6M, are more important than votes in MA or TN, both with population of 7M. Why should the results in two or three close states decide the election regardless of the results elsewhere?

                    The EC threatens to call the legitimacy of the election into question. How many times can the popular vote loser win the EV, before something breaks? Yet we are in constant danger of that happening. Trump lost the popular vote by 7M. Suppose he had won it by 7M instead, and still lost the EV. What do you think would be happening now?

                    1. “Suppose he had won it by 7M instead, and still lost the EV. What do you think would be happening now?”

                      Oh …. lord.

                      I don’t think that there is a word for the tantrum that we’d see.

                    2. Without the EC, only 5 states would be swing states and the other 45 irrelevant. A house divided…

                    3. “Without the EC, only 5 states would be swing states and the other 45 irrelevant.”

                      That’s just not true. (Checks who wrote it … yep, checks out).

                      Every single vote counts. Now, what people would say is that effort is best spent where you have the most votes. In other words, Presidential candidates are more likely to campaign where they can get the most votes.

                      But that doesn’t necessarily mean the most populous states. Different media markets have different prices (in terms of advertising). You can get better “bang for your buck” in certain areas that are less expensive to advertise in. In addition, you can only meet in person with so many people (see Trump’s rallies).

                      So your premise is incorrect.

                    4. Without the EC, only 5 states would be swing states and the other 45 irrelevant. A house divided…

                      What are you talking about?

                      With a popular vote the candidates would have incentive to campaign everywhere. The Republican candidate would have every reason to work on CA, for example, even though he knows he won’t get the majority there, because there are a lot of votes there. Trump got more votes in CA than in any other state.

                    5. With a popular vote the candidates would have incentive to campaign everywhere.

                      Why do you say that? I would want to go only to the major population centers, because that is where the concentrations of voters are. I would never bother with North Dakota or Wyoming.

                      To be even more precise, I’d focus on 525 counties, and not more than that. There are 3147 counties in the US.

                      I am not seeing the incentive here to campaign everywhere.

                    6. “Suppose he had won it by 7M instead, and still lost the EV. What do you think would be happening now?”

                      Oh …. lord.

                      I don’t think that there is a word for the tantrum that we’d see.

                      TBF, I’m not sure he knows (I know he doesn’t admit!) that he didn’t win by 7M.

                    7. Commenter XY, how many major party candidates do you think bother with Wyoming or North Dakota now?

                    8. I am not seeing the incentive here to campaign everywhere.

                      There is certainly more incentive to campaign widely under the popular vote than under the EC.

                      How much time did Trump spend in NY, or MA? How much did Biden campaign in AL or MS?

                    9. TBF, I’m not sure he knows (I know he doesn’t admit!) that he didn’t win by 7M.

                      If you throw out the 14M illegal immigrant votes for Biden, Trump did win by 7M.

                  4. The interregnum should be shorter, not longer.

                    As we see, it’s not at all a “cooling off period.” Rather, it’s a mischief-making period.

                    Figure out the shortest period of time needed for a transition and cut it down to that. My guess is six weeks, maybe less, ought to be plenty.

                    And while we’re doing that, I’d eliminate the pardon power after election day.

                    1. “And while we’re doing that, I’d eliminate the pardon power after election day.”

                      Agreed. Power without accountability is a terrible thing.

                    2. “And while we’re doing that, I’d eliminate the pardon power after election day.”

                      Agreed. Power without accountability is a terrible thing.

                      There’s no accountability for Trump because (a) the pardon power is plenary; and (b) because the senate Republicans are a bunch of feckless cowardly hacks. The last four years have proven decisively that Trump does whatever the fuck he wants, whenever he wants. Shortening the time when he could issue pardons by 2½ months would not solve that problem.

                    3. What DMN said.

                      If election day is the boundary for accountability, then no pardons should be allowed during a second term.

            2. 1) That isn’t really a problem of the EC as it was envisioned by the authors of the constitution. It’s really a problem of states adopting a winner take all approach to appointing the electors by election.

              If a majority of states adopted the approach used by Maine (two electors decided by the state wide vote, but the rest decided by congressional districts) the vast majority of EC inversions would go away.

              Anything beyond that should be handled by a Constitutional amendment.

              2. Contesting the outcome of an election is not the same as violent resistance to a transition of power. Contesting the outcome of an election process through the legal system and other defined processes for contesting elections is not opposition to “peaceful” transition of power.

              If after Congress certifies the EC result (Republican challenges in congress will go nowhere, just like they went nowhere for Democrats in 2004 and 2016) Trump refuses to leave office on the 20th, then, and only then, we may have a problem here.

              1. On 1- I will disagree, because it doesn’t really get to the heart of the problem. What you basically said is that if other states adopted the approach used by Maine (and, presumably, Nebraska), then most of the EC inversions … would go away. So … why not just get rid of the EC instead of employ half-a-fix that requires 48 other states to implement their own solutions that do not work in all cases?

                In other words, the conversation should be is this a desirable feature or not? And if it isn’t, then yes, we should get rid of it.

                On 2- I’m going to strongly disagree with that. As we have seen in the past few weeks, there has been a full court press to overturn the will of the voters. An incumbent President who lost an election, is using the bully pulpit to spew meritless claims of fraud, and using all the levers of power that he has to stay in power.

                This includes use (I would say abuse) of the legal system.
                Trying to intimidate and harass, both personally and through his followers, election officials.
                Attempting in every way to get the election thrown to him, including having surrogates falsely state things like the inauguration date can be changed (it can’t) or that Pence can decide to do whatever (nope).
                Most disturbingly, exploring other options, which caused enough murmurs that an unprecedented letter was issued by all living (ex) Secretaries of Defense …. and called for by Cheney. Cheney! Hard to believe.

                The problem is occurring right now. So far, our institutions (which does not, seemingly, include large parts of the GOP) has managed to withstand it. But we are not at the 20th yet, are we? And that a President as weak and ineffectual as Trump, who lost an election so convincingly, has managed to do this, should be a warning.

                1. “why not just get rid of the EC instead of employ half-a-fix that requires 48 other states to implement their own solutions that do not work in all cases?”

                  Either all 50 states have to individually implement some solution, or you need a constitutional amendment (at which point you might as well eliminate the EC).

                  Have at it.

                  “On 2- I’m going to strongly disagree with that. ”

                  I’m not arguing that Trumps actions here are not a problem. I’m only objecting to how you are defining what the problem is.

                  You won’t reach rational solutions if you define the problem incorrectly.

                  The opposite of “peaceful transfer of power” is violence.

                  Either find a better way to define the problem or call me if Trump resorts to violence on Jan 20th.

                2. Note: In my opinion by making the frivolous election challenges about “peaceful transfer of power”, you make it illegitimate to ever contest an election outcome for any reason by any means.

                  Defining the problem that way, even requesting a recount in accordance with state law is rejecting “peaceful transfer of power”

              2. Does it bother you at all that Trump is pressuring Pence to reject the EV’s of some states?

                Pence is saying he won’t go along, and I guess he won’t, but how do we know some future VP won’t?

                As to the challenges in Congress, I think they should be evaluated on the quality of the arguments advanced. I don’t think it’s useful to say, “The Democrats did it in 2004 and 2016 so it’s fine for the Republicans to do it now.”

                First, let’s talk about individuals rather than their parties. It was only Boxer in 2004, and no Senator joined in the 2016 objections, so there was never a debate that year. It’s wrong to attribute what one Democrat or Republican does or says to “the Democrats” or “the Republicans.” Let’s note that lots of Republicans aren’t a part of this year’s objections, and some even seem to be honestly dismayed by it. So if we want to criticize, let’s criticize actual objectors rather than parties. That only serves to polarize matters further.

                Then, let’s talk about arguments. Even if the previous objections were unjustified, that doesn’t mean we should excuse unjustified objections today. The fact is, the various claims being made have all been discussed and refuted. This is all just posturing and disinformation.

                1. “Does it bother you at all that Trump is pressuring Pence to reject the EV’s of some states?”

                  Yes. I am not saying there’s no problem here, but I object to the way Loki is defining what the problem is.

              3. Matthew,

                The problem with assigning EV’s by Congressional districts is it allows gerrymandering to determine who the EV”s in a state go to. Much better would be to simply assign them proportionately to the vote result. You could even allow fractional EV’s.

                There is no need for all the business about electors.

                I’d much prefer just using the popular vote, but doing it that way would be OK to please those who insist on some sort of EC.

                1. Even without gerrymandering, geographically compact congressional districts currently give Republicans a significant advantage because Democrats routinely win by overwhelming margins in cities. So, Slyfield’s suggestion would only drive the problem down from purple states wielding too much power to purple wielding too much power.

                  1. That’s true too.

                    There really is not much reason to do things by District. It’s not like different Districts will get different Presidents.

                2. No. I think allowing fractional EV’s would be an even bigger problem.

                  For one thing, I think allowing fractional EVs would itself require a constitutional amendment. If you want to go there, you should just do the work to push a constitutional amendment eliminating the EC completely.

                  1. I think any state could allocate whole electoral votes based on rounding without requiring a constitutional amendment. I would suggest a minimum threshold of about 20% of the vote to get any electoral votes.

      1. You can do a full investigation on the issues surrounding the 2020 election. And should.

        Angels…that’s a more difficult problem.

        1. The point is, though, that an evidence-free belief, such as that Democrats stole the election, remains an evidence-free belief no matter how many people hold it.

          1. There’s substantial evidence. For example, a number of affidavits by people alleging fraud. That’s considered evidence. So not exactly “evidence-free”.

            With this, a full audit should be called for.

            1. Affidavits by people claiming that they saw people counting ballots while wearing Black Lives Matter sweatshirts, or that they were surprised to see ballots from members of the military voting for Biden, or that they were told to “go back to the suburbs, Karen,” are not alleging fraud.

              Affidavits alleging fraud that don’t understand that Michigan and Minnesota are two different states, or that use statistics to prove that either (i) there was fraud or (ii) the people who voted on Election Day and the people who voted absentee voted differently, are not considered credible evidence.

              And every close state has already audited the election.

              Trump lost. Get over it.

            2. “There’s substantial evidence.”

              Solely in the collective substandard, inconsequential mind of the Republican Party’s half-educated bigots and superstitious hayseeds.

              I encourage Prof. Manta to find a better blog — you don’t deserve association with these Cruz-class polemical partisans and Hawley-type disaffected clingers, Prof. Manta — and make room for Cleta Mitchell, who should have plenty of extra time for blogging soon and seems just the sort of low-grade loser for the job.

                1. ‘Open wider, Don Nico’
                  — his betters

            3. Perhaps I should not have said “evidence free” as one can always find some morsel of evidence for just about anything. If I bake cookies and they’re gone an hour later, that could be evidence for the existence of UFO aliens since UFO aliens *might* have taken them, and nobody can disprove that theory. Of course, at that point Occam’s razor kicks in — there are far simpler possibilities to consider, such as my husband ate them all. But still, the evidence for UFO aliens eating my cookies is not zero.

              So, I guess the evidence for election fraud is not zero. Close though.

            1. Dr. Ed,

              I thought we settled this in the other thread? Remember, when we asked you about your many curious claims? And you couldn’t back them up.

              I understand that being a known prevaricator is your “thing,” but maybe you’d like to try out a new shtick? It would be nice! A good time of year for it, too. 🙂

              1. If video isn’t good enough for you, please see a competent optician. And if you can’t tell that one number is bigger than another, please go back to 2nd Grade.

                1. Dr. Ed,

                  No need for insults. To recall our prior conversation, you made the claim (which you have made several times) about 200,000 vote in Pennsylvania. That’s a known lie! And when asked to produce evidence, any recent primary evidence to support your lie, you did the following:
                  1. You first provided non-primary evidence from Pennsylvania that did not support your claim, and was also a lie.
                  2. You then provided evidence from … Georgia … that was also a lie. And an old one, too!

                  You get this, right? At what point can you say that you were wrong, or mistaken. Either you recognize that you are regurgitating lies that you are being told, in which case I have sympathy for you- no one likes being the mark, but you have to choose not to keep doing it.

                  Or you are the one deliberately spewing falsehoods. In which case it’s not really cute. Because, to paraphrase a famous comedy skit …. you’re the baddie.

                  1. Give me enforceable power of subpoena and I’ll give you all the evidence you wish. Otherwise, I’m under no burden to produce anything.

                    1. You’re under no burden to be truthful, Dr. Ed!

                      And that’s a good thing, because even with no hurdle to overcome, you still manage to fail to clear that bar. It’s pretty impressive. Normally, a sense of shame would cause most people to stop lying when called out on it. Over. And over. And over. And over. Thread after thread.

                      But not you!

                  2. “No need for insults.”

                    JFC. Pot calling the kettle black.

                    1. I apologize, Bob.

                      I’m pretty sure that stating that Ed is an habitual prevaricator isn’t an insult, and more than saying that you’re a ethics-free partisan is.

                      It’s just a description. Be well!

            2. Your link just says the same things a bunch of liars have been saying, with no proof

              Your beliefs are unimportant, you have no proof
              Oh, and the video evidence just shows ballots being counted and nothing nefarious

              And the other 7 million votes count too

              1. And the George Floyd video only shows an officer making an arrest….

                1. Again, “look, a squirrel” isn’t relevant.

                  Either you recognize you’re deliberately lying to people, or you don’t.

                  1. Typical Leftist logical fallacies.


                    1. So, when it is pointed out that you have lied …

                      And you are asked for evidence….

                      And you just keep lying ….

                      And you try to change the subject …

                      And it just keep digging …

                      That’s a leftist logical fallacy? Okay! I appreciate that you have resorted into pure infantile personality attacks, but I will continue to say- maybe a little less lying? Just some bizarre and unverifiable anecdotes that don’t make much sense about New Hampshire in 1978 or something would be great.

                    2. Where’s the fallacy? You’re making obviously false claims. You’re either lying or you’re deluded/misled.

            3. Dr. Ed,

              Here you go.

              The claims about GA have been utterly and completely debunked.

    2. I suggest your math is off. Currently 31% of Americans identify as Republicans, 31% identify as Democrats and 36 identify as Independents, with remaining 2% undercatogized. Applying your numbers to the fractions you offered we get that 19% of Republicans, 5% of Democrats and 10% of Independents feel the election was stolen for a total of 34%. Far less than half.

      You are also assuming that the Democrats and Independents feel that Trump won and this may not be the case. It may well be that Democrats feel voter suppression robbed Joe Biden of states like FL and TX that he should have won. If difficult to say with those identifying as Independents.

      1. Your elementary school math teacher should mug you and take back your diploma.

        1. It’s actually Middle School Algebra that he gets wrong 🙁

          1. Yeah, I suppose they are dragging their feet on math education these days.

          2. Except he doesn’t get the math wrong.

        2. Maybe you could point out the error.

          Here’s Publius’ quote:

          Nearly half of all Americans believe the election was stolen:

          Based on this, from Rasmussen.

          “Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, a view shared by 17% of Democrats and 28% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

          62% of 31% is 19%.
          17% of 31% is 5%.
          28% of 36% is 10%

          Now, probably we should also add 28% of the 2% “uncategorized,” but that still adds only 1% (.56%, actually).

          Oh, and there is no algebra involved.

        3. The way the math is expressed is inelegant, but the result is correct. If you disagree, what do you think the right number is?

          1. Yes. If there’s an error it’s a labeling error, not a math error.

    3. Nearly half of all Americans believe the election was stolen:

      No; that’s just performative, like painting one’s face in one’s team colors before the game. Nobody intelligent believes that.

  4. By your own account Hawley beat you by better exploiting the rules already in place.

    The argument here is that Biden won by arranging for the rules in place to be violated.

    That is, if true, a pretty significant difference.

    1. Then again, it isn’t true, so that makes it a lot less significant.

    2. “The argument here is that Biden won by arranging for the rules in place to be violated.”

      Not being mentioned is the extent to whick Dem lawyers used “Sue & Settle” to break the election laws.

    3. Biden won by arranging for the rules in place to be violated.

      This is beyond fucking ridiculous. Even if you disagree with some of the court decisions, Biden wasn’t behind them, pulling the judge’s strings.

      Really, Brett, you are seriously ill.

      1. No, Obama was — and Obama is behind BiteMe as well.

        1. You know, Ed, you are utterly destructive here. Your comments make no sense, are full of lies, and are generally from a different galaxy.

          Oh, and they’re stupid, too.

          1. And if I agreed with Dr. Ed on politics, I would cringe every time he posts because every time he opens his mouth, it makes his side look bad.

            1. “And if I agreed with Dr. Ed on politics, I would cringe every time he posts because every time he opens his mouth, it makes his side look bad.”

              What you and your ilk don’t understand about the populist MAGA coalition is that we don’t give a fuck about what you think of us. We don’t care if we aren’t welcome in the country club because we don’t want to belong. We really don’t care.


              1. The list of things you do care about is incredibly short.

          2. And your mother wears Army boots…

          3. “you are utterly destructive here”

            No he’s not, he makes some good points from time to time and his slightly mangled stories can be amusing. Likewise amusing is the complete overreaction of you and loki and others to him.

            You know who is “utterly destructive here”, Kirkland. You guys never call him out though. Maybe try doing that sometimes rather than constantly razzing Ed.

            1. I’ve called him out. Twice. Didn’t do any good ?

              1. If I have been wrong twice, and you criticized me for it, that reflects well on both of us.

                1. Arthur:

                  I mostly agree with you on the issues, but your constant name calling is completely unhelpful. Please stop.

                  1. Calling a bigot a bigot isn’t name-calling. It is describing an objectionable person aptly and concisely.

                    Too many people let the bigotry pass without comment. I try to avoid making that mistake.

              2. “I’ve called him out. Twice.”

                Do you want a cookie?

                “Bigoted POS craps up every thread with the same canned insults but I said something twice so I am absolved. I can attack Ed daily though.”


                1. Show me where I’ve attacked Dr. Ed daily. Occasionally, yes, including on this thread, but far from daily. Most of the time I ignore him.

                  1. Unlike others here, I don’t keep “treasured quotes” because I have a life and am not pathetic. So maybe you don’t do it “daily”, not like bernard and others.

                    Ignoring is best. I made an exception today to engage with some unfortunates here. Fun but corrosive.

                    1. It’s not necessary to keep treasured quotes to at least try to be accurate in your claims. You started out saying that “you guys never call (Dr. Ed) out.” When I responded that that wasn’t true; that I’ve called him out, you responded with an insult rather than own up to your inaccurate statement. You then claimed I attack Ed daily, which is also factually not true. So that’s two false claims from you in a single thread.

                    2. “When I responded that that wasn’t true; that I’ve called him out”

                      I just don’t believe you.

                      Since Kirkland seems even more off his meds than usual, I see that you did so today. Good, keep it up.

                    3. Ah, but if you’re going to call someone a liar there’s an enhanced duty to be sure that you’re right.

            2. To be clear, Bob from Ohio thinks that Dr. Ed makes good points.

              I’m going to keep that as a treasured quote. You are known by the company you keep. 🙂

              1. Yes you are Long Winded Kirkland.

                1. Well, if I have to suffer your insults, Bob, I guess I did something right today.

                  Take care and have a great day!

                  1. Whatever, Long Winded Kirkland.

                    After the last election you went away for 3 years. That was your best decision ever. You ought to make more like it.

                    1. No. I think the best decision I ever made was who I married.

                      But I appreciate your life advice. I wouldn’t recommend trying to get paid for it.

              2. Another of the Left’s logical fallacies — or is it “Gaslighting”?

                And “the company you keep” standard would truly come back to bite the Left if we were ever to use it against them. Charles Manson comes to mind as does Raymond Luc Levasseur.

            3. Arthur’s features that disturb you are different from Mr Ed’s lies and distortions. Besides that, Arthur is quite often clever and funny. Mr Ed is never either.

              1. “Arthur is quite often clever and funny”

                You should seek professional help if you believe that.

                1. You should get your hands out of your pants and stop being such a big girl’s blouse.

                  1. “big girl’s blouse”

                    I was today years old just now when I learned what that means.

            4. You know, Bob, you do have a point.

              I find the “clingers” shtick annoying, and say nothing about it. OTOH, it’s hardly destructive. Kirkland isn’t spewing a constant stream of lies and misinformation the way Ed is.

              I don’t see the “good points” Ed allegedly makes, even from a conservative POV, and his stories are more than “mangled.”

              1. Kirkland is very destructive. Much worse than Dr. Ed. Dr. Ed is just comical. Kirkland is a troll who attempts (and, as we can see, often succeeds) to make every discussion about him. He hasn’t posted <I<anything substantive in years, and hijacks discussions about other topics to insult our hosts and everyone here. He’s utterly worthless.

                1. I find RAK much easier to scroll by than Ed, but that might just be me.

      2. “Even if you disagree with some of the court decisions, Biden wasn’t behind them, pulling the judge’s strings.”

        If we can attribute everything Trump’s campaign did to try to reelect Trump TO Trump, we can attribute everything Biden’s campaign did to elect Biden TO Biden. Even if it required cooperation from people outside Biden’s campaign.

        1. Brett,

          Okay. So here’s the thing since you know so much about the legal process.

          Why don’t you explain to all of us who don’t know about this how it worked, exactly. Because most of us are under the impression that these cases generally are about one campaign (such as the Trump campaign) suing a state (usually a state board of elections.)

          So your contention is that all of these states, like Arizona and Georgia, were actually just surrogates for the Biden campaign? That’s your legal analysis?

          You understand that’s tinfoil hat territory.

          1. My contention is that there were multiple cases of sue and settle collusion between the Biden campaign and it’s surrogates, and election officials, in order to get court orders to violate election laws the campaign found inconvenient.

            Even in states like Arizona and Georgia, you won’t lack for elections officials who are willing to participate in something like that.

            1. If your contention is that there were all of these cases of “sue and settle” collusion (which is a big thing, legally speaking) between the Biden Campaign and Election officials in derogation of the law, then I am quite sure that you about to provide numerous (not a single, or two cherrypicked cases) citations for them.

              You know- cases where the Biden Campaign colluded with willing Election Officials by filing a non-meritorious lawsuit that allowed the Election Officials to break the law.

              Because that really is a heck of a thing that you’re alleging, Brett! I mean, I would be outraged if that was the case. A lot of people would. Lawyers, the judiciary … a lot of people.

              So I will patiently await your documentation. And if not, I trust you will do the right thing and not parrot Dr. Ed’s talking points.

              I mean, you realize that you just adopted what … Dr. Ed said. Dr. Ed.

              You know Dr. Ed, right? You’re comfortable with his positions? Just checking. 🙂

                1. So, after I asked for evidence from multiple cases, involving the Biden Campaign …. you provided a partisan press release about a single case, that doesn’t involve the Biden Campaign.

                  Let’s do this.

                  Go ahead and do your research. Go look at the procedural posture of the case. Not the press release! The actual case.

                  Check out all the legal wranglings that led up to it. Notice that the press release you just quoted … that was from one of the litigants! That’s right, he was a person who litigated (and lost) in federal court. So the losing litigant is issuing a press release that you are accepting uncritically. That … isn’t the Biden Campaign.

                  It keeps going. But I assume, given that you have told us that you are an expert in Pennsylvania’s elections law, that you can now educate us on North Carolina’s laws, and tell us all the issue and what should have happened. Bonus points for discussing how SCOTUS handled it, and explaining how this proves collusion.

                  Heh. Collusion. 🙂

                  1. Brett is not really famous for supporting his assertions.

              1. “… this decision further secures each citizen their constitutionally guaranteed right to the ballot box,” said Democratic Party of Georgia Chairwoman Nikema Williams”


                Or am I now fabricating back issues of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and posting them on the AJC’s website?

                1. Well, this is the usual case of someone citing an article that they don’t understand.

                  State law in Georgia provides voters three days after the election to correct absentee ballots, and that voters must be promptly notified in order to correct issues. In addition, voters are to be provided sufficient time to correct issues.

                  The lawsuit was brought over the 2018 election, when ballots were rejected (not in compliance with state law). This is fairly typical- most election lawsuits tend to be backwards looking and to try and correct procedural errors.

                  Just to emphasize this- the procedural errors handed the GOP a victory.

                  Because there is no will defense, the GOP-controlled state agreed to follow the law.

                  You read the article, right?

              2. Dude, you know that he doesn’t actually know what “sue and settle” refers to, right? He just heard about it on talk radio or some RW blog, and so now he keeps repeating it over and over.

                The other day he claimed that Massachusetts v. EPA was an example of “sue and settle” despite the fact that the EPA did not settle, and in fact won the suit at both the district and circuit court levels.

        2. That’s insane.

          We’re talking about court rulings, not campaign activity. The idea that a judge somewhere was acting on orders from the Biden campaign is demented

          Look, I understand. You simply can’t accept that Trump lost, because you and your pals love him so much. But you’ve become deranged. Your rationalizations grow more ridiculous by the hour.

    4. “The argument here is that Biden won by arranging for the rules in place to be violated.”

      That’s just the chemotherapy, autism, and bigoted, anti-social, bitter clinging talking.

      1. Hey- to the extent Brett shared something in another thread, you really shouldn’t use it to personalize insults.

        I might also think he’s a loon, and disagree with him, but he’s still a human.

        1. I didn’t say he is not a human. I say he is a delusional, bigoted, obsolete clinger. He used the chemotherapy as an ostensible excuse for some of his less rational commentary. The autism was recognizable before he mentioned it.

          Others are welcome to wallow in political correctness — sugarcoating the ugliness of a Brett Bellmore by enabling them to hide behind euphemisms such as “traditional values,” “conservative values,” or the like — but I have lost my taste for political correctness. Call a bigot a bigot.

          1. That I believe that Brett is profoundly mistaken on a number of topic is well-known, but I do not find it appropriate, at all, to bring up personal characteristics like that.

            1. Do you include birther-class bigotry in the list of “personal characteristics” you believe to be off-limits?

              1. I like to be civil because it costs us nothing to be better than they are.

                1. Bigotry is not civil. Bigots are not civil.

                  Calling for liberals to be placed face-down in landfills; advocating that liberals be gassed; threatening liberals with being shot in the face; and proposing that liberals be sent to Zyklon showers are not civil.

                  Viewpoint-driven censorship is not civil.

                  All are common at this blog, though.

                  1. Right, they suck. We don’t need to.

          2. He used the chemotherapy as an ostensible excuse for some of his less rational commentary.

            I don’t recall him doing that. I think he mentioned it in connection with his job.

            I’m clearly no fan of Brett, but personal matters need to be off limits.

            1. ” I don’t recall him doing that. ”

              I do. A week or two ago.

              It might explain some of his stupidity.

    5. The argument here is that Biden won by arranging for the rules in place to be violated.

      Except that no rules were violated, as has been repeatedly explained to you. And note that absolutely nothing proves that the non-issues the GOP is whining about contributed to Biden’s win.

      We know that the only issue you keep talking about, because you aren’t a lawyer, didn’t contribute to his win because those votes aren’t even included in the totals.

  5. I missed the part where Josh Hawley lost an election and refused to accept the outcome. Surely he must have done so in order for this idiot’s point to have any validity.

  6. Is this satire?

  7. Why an independent Congressional investigation (ie “audit”) of the 2020 POTUS election is called for:

    1. The 2020 US POTUS election was highly unusual, with a number of questions and oddities. Abnormally high turnout. Extraordinary levels of absentee ballots. Very late vote counts submitted. Mysterious “flips” in voting machines. Voting poll books that don’t reconcile. Late-changes in voting laws. Primaries with some of the largest fraud ever seen. This all leads to questions about the voting process, and leads to a sizable % of the population to ask serious questions. An audit of the procedures, numbers, and more is called for.

    2. When doing an audit, an EXTERNAL audit is often preferential to an internal audit. This allows for a new look at preconceptions that an internal audit may miss. Thus, having the state voting offices do their own audit it not as desirable.

    3. The FBI is not well suited to this sort of broad audit. Specific crimes, yes. But a broad overview and look at the procedures and what went wrong, with a full report issued at the end? No.

    4. Likewise, the courts are not well suited to this sort of investigatory audit. They are limited to whatever outside parties bring in. Sometimes they can subpoena specific witnesses. But a full on-site investigation they cannot do.

    5. The “There are no questions or issues” argument is misleading. A substantial proportion of the population DO have questions.

    6. Thus, the best solution here is a non-partisan Congressional investigation (AKA “Audit) akin to an IG report, but applied to the states and the voting apparatus they have.

    7. The “Audit” will have the power to fully examine the books, machines, and people involved in the 2020 election in the various states, and full access to these materials. This will allow for a comprehensive audit and assessment. Having that power is critical.

    8. This will allow for the issuing of a full report, on the various issues, with suggestions as to how to fix the elections, so that next time, this type of situation doesn’t occur. Congress can use the report in order to set down new laws that fix the problems that occurred in this election.

    1. non-partisan Congressional investigation

      No such thing. That would be an even bigger circus than these threads.

      1. Of course, an non-partisan investigation would be possible. Congress could hire (say) Coopers & Lybrand plus Jones Day, each of which would designate teams with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, and give them year to conduct a thorough audit and prepare a report. It’s not likely to happen though. My personal predictions are that (i) such an investigation would uncover what AG Barr has found, no evidence of fraud on a scale sufficient to alter the election outcome and (ii) after such an investigation, there would still be VC commenters and others denouncing the investigators as traitors and deep state agents, as they denounce Barr and the federal judiciary now.

        1. I guess you could do that, though it would be pointless. I was thinking of Congressional hearings.

          As you say, they would find nothing significant, and the Trump cultists won’t be convinced no matter what. It’s a religious belief now, with its own set of miracles, its own revelations.

        2. The left hates the rest of America too much to allow such an investigation.

          1. Not that an investigation like that would convince you; if they came out with a result you disagreed with that’d just prove how deep the conspiracy goes.

            1. Yes, but imagine if there had been no Warren Commission…

            2. I have alleged no conspiracy. You don’t seem to have much to offer besides making up stuff and falsely claiming others said it.

      2. Even though it is 1/3 SCOTUS members? You clearly would have to have RINO Roberts on it, along with Kagan and Sotomayer — and then who would Roberts pick for the other two?

        If Earl Warren could run a commission in the politically charged environment of the post-JFK assassination, this is doable.

        1. When the Warren Commission was organized everyone knew there had been an assassination. The question was who did it.

          Here there is not agreement that there was fraud worth investigating. In fact, the “evidence” is remarkably slim, even manufactured.

          So do we want to set a precedent that after every Presidential election the loser gets to claim fraud, make up a bunch of shit, and then demand a commission investigate those ravings? Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

    2. The 2020 US POTUS election was highly unusual, with a number of questions and oddities. Abnormally high turnout. Extraordinary levels of absentee ballots. Very late vote counts submitted. Mysterious “flips” in voting machines. Voting poll books that don’t reconcile. Late-changes in voting laws. Primaries with some of the largest fraud ever seen. This all leads to questions about the voting process, and leads to a sizable % of the population to ask serious questions. An audit of the procedures, numbers, and more is called for.

      Utter bullshit. We need to investigate high turnout? Really.

      Your other crap has been explained repeatedly. The last thing we need is more amplification of the complete nonsense Trump is peddling.

      1. bernard11, I don’t think it is a particularly smart move to dismiss the concerns of such a large segment of Americans as bullshit. That will lead to some unintended consequences (we cannot predict what those will be, but my experience is that unintended consequences are generally bad).

        Before FDR, the interregnum period from election to inauguration was November to March. The Framers had very good reason for that. They dealt with contested elections also. They talked about that interregnum period in their debates. That interregnum period was there to address these kinds of issues. The election of 1876 is very instructive here. Some 2020 electoral issues were in fact addressed/litigated during the current interregnum period; the legal and constitutional process given to us by the Framers was followed.

        Very shortly, the interregnum period ends. Joseph Biden will be taking the oath of office later this month (barring something totally crazy happening); Joseph Biden will be the POTUS and I hope for the sake of this Republic, he does well. Of course, I will refer to Biden as His Fraudulency (just like Team D did with Hayes). 🙂

        I do think that we should have a fully transparent reconciliation of the 2020 election, and I also think we should encourage that for the health of our Republic. After the 2000 election, there were multiple recounts of FL ballots by multiple organizations. Those counts put to bed the contention that Gore won FL. He did not. A forensic audit will definitively answer the questions about this contested election and not let this open wound fester. If Team D partisans are correct, a forensic audit will reveal that Joseph Biden won 81MM votes.

        After 9/11, the Congress put out a formal report. It answered nearly all the outstanding questions of what happened, and how it happened. Yes, there was plenty of debate afterward. But nobody seriously thinks the CIA/Mossad knocked down the towers (remember when that theory was in vogue?).

        We won’t know the full story of this election for many years, I suspect.

        1. “We won’t know the full story of this election for many years, I suspect.”

          But that’s just not true.

          That is roughly the same as saying, “We didn’t know that Mossad wasn’t behind 9/11 as a false flag operation until years afterwards.”

          We do, in fact, know what happened. Trump (and Trup surrogates) said the same thing he always does. “Heads I win, tails you lose.” This isn’t new.

          Let’s rewind back to 2016, with Trump in Iowa:
          “Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!”

          ““Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.”

          So what we have is a person who has a documented history of lying that goes way back. He also has a documented history of crying “fraud” whenever he doesn’t win an election. In fact, the election he won in 2016- he has spent years saying that he also won the popular vote (he didn’t).

          So now you think that because a liar has continued to lie, there is more to it. It’s truly remarkable.

          1. Respectfully, I disagree = We won’t know the full story of this election for many years, I suspect. Time will tell.

            No loki13, what I would say is that there are a number of peculiarities and oddities about the last election. They do warrant looking into, and they will be. Not because I want the election magically reversed; rather, I don’t want 40% of the country to have lingering doubts. That leads to a bad place where you have a huge segment of the country eventually start questioning the legitimacy of the entire system itself. We don’t want to go there. I am pretty sure you don’t want that either.

            I do not want a repeat of the ‘sore loserism’ of the last four years; nor do you. I do not want rioting and violence in the streets; nor do you. I do not want armed confrontation between citizens; nor do you. I do not want an insurrection; nor do you. And I do not want sedition; nor do you. These are all potential (emphasis on potential) consequences of summarily dismissing concerns over the 2020 election.

            At the same time loki13, I totally recognize we have a constitutionally defined process. The clock will very shortly run out. That is how it works in our system. You get roughly 10 weeks in between election to inauguration to contest the election. Then it is over and we swear in the POTUS. POTUS Trump and his team did not produce sufficient evidence in this 10-week period that would change the electoral result.

            That has been my guiding light in all of this: Trust the process the Framers left us, follow it, and things will work out Ok.

            1. “No loki13, what I would say is that there are a number of peculiarities and oddities about the last election. They do warrant looking into, and they will be. Not because I want the election magically reversed; rather, I don’t want 40% of the country to have lingering doubts. That leads to a bad place where you have a huge segment of the country eventually start questioning the legitimacy of the entire system itself. We don’t want to go there. I am pretty sure you don’t want that either.”

              Think of something else-

              Imagine Donald Trump was lying about, well, whatever else he lies about. Ted Cruz’s dad assassinating JFK. Whatever. Let’s use the usual example.

              “Commenter_XY beats his wife.”

              So here’s the thing- you know it’s not true. Your wife knows it not true.

              But Trump keeps tweeting it, over and over and over again.

              So his followers start to believe it. And they start doing their own “research.” Of course, they don’t know anything about you, or your wife. So they start posting stuff like, “I found XY’s wife’s employment records, and she was out for 5 days straight. That only happens when get beaten.” Or “I found a picture of XY’s wife, and it looks like she might have a bruise!” Or perhaps a Trump toady signs an affidavit saying that he saw your wife going into a clinic and that the only possible explanation was that she was beaten. Perhaps someone does a statistical analysis demonstrating that your wife is statistically similar to beaten wives, more or less, assuming Michigan is Minnesota.

              Ahem. People keep shooting down this stuff, because it’s BS, but it doesn’t matter- Dr. Ed will keep posting it anyway. 🙂

              After a while, a lot of people start to believe it. After all, they believe Trump! And then there would be me … and I would say, “Hey, look. It’s not that I think XY beat his wife. But I’m saying … there are irregularities. And people are asking about XY beating his wife. So let’s just go ahead and investigate XY and how XY beats his wife (or maybe doesn’t?), just so we can make sure that all those people who keep saying that XY beats his wife feel a little better.”

              What do you think? Is that right? Is that how things should be?

              1. loki13….What is the point you’re trying to make, I am not following.

                1. Your argument that there’s a critical mass of skeptics about the election such that we need to act to mollify them proves too much.

                  Lots and lots of historical examples of how appeasing populist demagoguery does not work.

                  1. Too bad everyone in public life completely destroyed their credibility during the four-year freak out.

                    There’s no reason for anyone to believe anything they hear from any source.

                    1. We don’t need or want your belief or your respect.

                      But you will comply.

                  2. Sarcastr0, like I said. If this were 0.2% of the population, I’d just dismiss it. You can afford to. When we are talking about ~40% of the population, that is something entirely different. Different rules apply. There is no dismissing it. Won’t happen.

                    To me, the answer is defuse the situation before it becomes something else. Lots of ways to do this. I would prefer that the Congress study the matter and issue a report. There is ample historical precedent for these kinds of things.

                    Note that Josh R separately made a telling point elsewhere in this post relevant here. Can we really count on the ‘honor’ of DC politicians in a dispassionate search for the objective truth not to be ‘political’? Nope. Honor….in Washington DC? 🙂

                    1. There is no need to investigate Trump’s delusional allegations (and most of his charges are just that). The larger issues such as what to do with the electoral college or worth considering.

                2. The point he is making is that it would be ludicrous to investigate you for domestic violence under those circumstances, and the “evidence” that you are a wife-beater is analogous to the “evidence” supporting Trump’s fraud claims.

                  Go read Gabriel Sterling’s rebuttal of Trump’s GA claims, and ask yourself whether they bear further investigation.

                3. Demands for investigating the election are not getting the answer they deserve. There has been talk about allegations, investigations, doubts, courts, state laws, election officials, state legislatures, poll workers, political parties, lawyers, the populace, campaign organizations—just a whole lot of moving parts, and most of it beside the point. That may suggest why there is no sign of any end to the talk.

                  What is the point? The point is, it is an election. The election itself is the arbiter of its own outcome. The power to decide does not lie with any of those listed parties above. It lies with the sovereign People, who insist jealously on their sole power to decide the outcome by voting.

                  None of those other participants, including state governments, state court systems, the federal court system, the congress, or the administration, have legitimate power to constrain election results, or second guess them, or to second guess afterward the processes which delivered the results. By voting, the People put their sovereign imprimatur on whatever processes they use. The outcome becomes their sole decree, not to be tampered with by others.

                  Thus, the duty of all those other participants, whether persons or institutions, is important, but limited. They have a duty to cherish and facilitate the sovereign’s power. That means doing the will of the People to prepare and operate the voting process beforehand, and to count the votes, and to announce (not determine) the outcome afterward.

                  And those duties of persons and institutions end there. When the People have spoken, and their will has been ascertained by counting their votes, that is the end of the election. It must also be the proper end of election activity for every other party which has participated. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that some power, in persons or in government, may legitimately constrain the sovereign—a proposition which would overturn the bedrock principle of American constitutionalism.

                  It is on those bases that the custom was founded of election losers conceding, and quitting the field with good grace, lest they position themselves as opponents of the sovereign. It is on those bases that the courts have long observed, “political questions,” doctrines of minimal interference with elections, because the courts too are subject to the sovereign’s will.

                  It is on those bases, too, that agitators for continued questioning of this election’s outcome should be answered. They should be told, “No, the highest power in the nation has decided the outcome. There is nothing more to do. You voted jointly as the nation’s sovereign, but you come now individually, as persons, and as the sovereign’s subjects. You are entitled to your opinions as persons. But you cannot succeed in any demand that government disparage the election’s outcome. Government is subordinate to the sovereign will, and may not challenge it. The election is over.”

        2. I don’t think it is a particularly smart move to dismiss the concerns of such a large segment of Americans as bullshit.

          Even if they are?

          Look. Understand this. The only reason so many people have these concerns is that Trump and his crew, and the radical RW media, have been energetically spreading lies about the election. Now, because people believe those lies, the same liars are demanding an investigation because so many are concerned.

          That’s ridiculous. Besides, it doesn’t even accomplish anything, because nothing is easier than making up more lies, and then demanding that they be investigated.

          Don’t believe me? How many times has GA been recounted? How many times have the Republican election officials there said they have checked all the claims Trump is making, and that they are false?

          How many times has the business about 200,000 extra votes in PA been discussed?

          Then we have “evidence.” Some guy claims to have driven a truckload of ballots somewhere. Some woman says she saw a Biden-Harris van pull up outside a polling place, and that campaign workers got out and starting marking ballots, right there on the sidewalk, in broad daylight. Sure.

          Somebody said something mean to a poll watcher.

          Some guy says he met with Hugo Chavez fifteen years ago and they rigged the Dominion machines.

          Come on.

          Here’s clue. If you have good evidence you don’t put out this kind of BS.

          There are reasons none of this stuff has stood up in court. In fact, there’s a reason a lot of it was never introduced. Why did the Trump campaign withdraw its fraud allegations in the PA case? because they knew it was crap.

          The point is, you can’t just go on making trouble by claiming fraud forever, and then demanding investigations, which is exactly what Trump wants to do.

          As I said, it’s disgraceful. Worse than that, really.

          1. Yes bernard11, even if they are = Even if they are?

            I think I would feel differently if we were talking about some small segment of the population, like the LaRouche people….Ok, my guy LaRouche ran and he won damn it! We are realistically talking about 0.2% of the population who probably believed that (the eight times he ran – yes, he really ran for POTUS eight times). In that case, you can probably safely ignore that 0.2% as a bunch of cranks.

            That is not what we have here. Now we are talking about roughly 30%-40% of the population who have lingering questions about the legitimacy of the last election. We cannot ignore that large of a segment of the country and write them off as cranks.

            So yes, pragmatically speaking, you look into it even though you think it is total bullshit. Precisely because such a large segment of the country is up in arms about it. You take it seriously because the potential downside from blithely dismissing it is pretty huge.

            Besides, since you know it is total bullshit, you already know that any investigation will show that Joe Biden won the election with 81MM votes. Right?

            1. 60 courts and 50 state secretaries of state all beg to differ with your analysis that the election was not looked into.

            2. No, XY. You don’t.

              First, as DOL says, there has been a ton of looking. We actually have ways to challenge election results. Those challenges failed dramatically. Do you just think Trump gets to keep trying until he wins?

              Second, you don’t give in to irrational demands, because once you start you never finish. So-called “affidavits” can be produced at will, alleging all sorts of things, and there are plenty of people willing to sign them.

              Lies are the easiest thing in the world to manufacture. To investigate them all is abetting the liars. You know what comes next. “Hey, if it’s BS why are they taking it seriously enough to investigate?”

          2. Look. Understand this. The only reason so many people have these concerns is that Trump and his crew, and the radical RW media, have been energetically spreading lies about the election. Now, because people believe those lies, the same liars are demanding an investigation because so many are concerned.

            Indeed. As a tweet I saw the other day noted,

            “Cruz et al do not allege fraud, they allege allegations of fraud.”

        3. XY,

          Here is GA election official Gabriel Sterling refuting, for the umpteenth time, Trump’s claims about the GA voting.

          In essence, Trump is full of shit. After reading that, do you understand why I say all the “concerns” are based on lies, and the demands for an investigation are baseless?

      2. Bernard,
        It was unusual, especially in the sense that we had an unprincipled psychopath running.

        1. I love that joke.

          “In 2020, of the two major party candidates, one was an unprincipled psycopath. The other was Donald Trump.”

          It’s not true, of course, but it is funny.

      3. Investigation of deviation from statistical norms has legal precedent. It’s accepted to presume that someone whose electrical consumption goes up dramatically is now growing pot – and courts have upheld it. Even when it is seasonal fishermen moving into their winter homes…

        And when Civil War veterans start casting absentee ballots, one does have to start wondering…

        1. ANYONE born in the 1800s casting a ballot in 2020 is, by definition, at least 120 years old and as there isn’t anyone that old right now, we do have a problem…

        2. What deviations were there?

    3. There are at most very few, and perhaps no members of Congress who will object to the results and are interested in a honest audit of the election. All they want is some combination of 1) Trump winning and 2) mollifying Trump’s base to help their own political future.

      1. And money, money, money.

      2. Josh R…That is a big part of the problem, IMO = There are at most very few, and perhaps no members of Congress who will object to the results and are interested in a honest audit of the election.

        To me, the electoral process as laid out by the Framers is just about over (thankfully). I’ve done a lot of reading about the commission that was appointed in 1876, post-election. It is almost eerie how we are saying the same things now. I am not suggesting a meeting between The Donald and Joe Biden at the Mayflower Hotel. 🙂

        The best way to defuse this IMO is to take the objections seriously, and not dismiss them while also throwing salt on the wound.

        What we need are sober statesmen; what we have temperamental toddlers. It does not bode well for the future.

        1. They were taken seriously by 61 courts, and 60 courts found Trump’s claims to be laughably bad.

          It is time to encourage the children to end their tantrum. There is almost certainly about to be violence in DC tomorrow caused by these craven, cynical lies.

        2. I’m all for sober statesmen addressing our elections (I like what loki had to say elsewhere in this thread). We can go there after we all agree that Biden won a free and fair election.

      3. Josh, how many lawyers go into court for the sole purpose of obtaining an honest answer to the issues in question?

        In fact, wouldn’t it be legal malpractice to do that?

        1. In fact, wouldn’t it be legal malpractice to do that?

          No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

  8. “Read my Twitter thread” fuck off

    1. Doesn’t help that it basically just links to a USA Today story behind a paywall.

    2. Exactly. What kind of person thinks that telling people to read a twitter thread makes them look like anything but an out of touch asshat.

      1. Disaffected, bigoted, obsolete clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        And most of the Volokh Conspiracy’s following.

        1. Most? That would be Reason. I come to Volokh for a breath of fresh air.

  9. Hawley hadn’t spent the prior four years trying to get you expelled from Yale, had he?

    And as to “inciting violence and imperiling our democratic system”, where were you in condemning the Bitchy Little Marxists over the past six months? Forget “inciting”, the Thief in Chief has encouraged and abetted it — they’re called “Obama’s Children” after all — and why shouldn’t we fight back?

    1. “Obama’s Children”

      We’re getting closer.

      1. Get real — Obama is the puppetmaster behind Biden & Harris — Harris who didn’t even make it to New Hampshire and Biden who was even more pathetic than he’d been in 1988.

        1. Can you explain how that works or are you just making shit up?

  10. In a related story, Fox Sports broadcaster Joe Buck announced that the Philadelphia Eagles had defeated the Washington Football Team Sunday night and as a result the New York Giants would be going to the playoffs.

    Buck said that there were a number of allegations of wrong doing in the Washington Philidelphia game and that after talking to Trump he said that as the announcer he had absolute discretion to decide the outcome of the game, regardless of what the players or the referees on the field said or did. Furthermore he noted, “Everyone knows the Giants won the division and are in the playoffs and there are millions of New Yorkers who support my decision. Only the fake media and liberals and ANTIFA want Washington in the playoffs, and that’s because of is minority majority population”.

    1. And the Chicago White Sox won the 1919 World Series…

  11. How to lose someone’s interest in one easy step:

    Include “I recommend reading my Twitter thread” in your post.

  12. This is childish.

    Election integrity should matter. You want people to accept election results, then run a clean election.

    1. Sure. But what if you know that a clean election will result in you losing? (And you’ve convinced yourself that you winning is of paramount importance, the end that justifies any means.) You’d run a dirty election and tell the people to go hang.

      1. I wouldn’t do that because I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the civil war that might result.

        1. All-talk, inconsequential, right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war victims.

    2. They did, and it didn’t do anyone much good, did it? It turns out people are perfectly happy not to accept election results no matter how clean the election is.

      1. False. A clean election includes verifying signatures on ballot envelopes. A clean election preserves chain of custody information and other tampering safeguards on ballot lots.

        1. What are you doing to do about these delusions, Ben, other than to whimper about them?

  13. Hasn’t Hawley said he’s doing this to speak up for the 70 some million Trump voters and that he knows it’s not going to impact the election?

    Stupid rationale for a stupid action, but I don’t think it’s correct to say he’s “trying to overturn” the election like the OP asserts. He’s pretty clearly trying to ensure that he’ll be remembered favorably by Trump voters in future years.

    1. Someone has indicated that you are either lying or a clueless loser, bevis the lumberjack, and that someone is Josh Hawley:

      “Are you trying to say that as of January 20th, that President Trump will be president?” Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Hawley, who has pledged to object to Congress’ certification of the Electoral College’s votes.

      “Well, Bret, that depends on what happens on Wednesday,” the senator replied. “This is why we have the debate-”

  14. Which is even worse. Trying to subvert confidence in the electoral process for personal political gain. What a disgusting person.

    1. Sidney,
      While the present circus is deplorable, the Left spent 4 years trying to subvert confidence in the 2016 election.
      In both cases, I say to the losers, “Get over it.”

      1. Where did anyone try to subvert the confidence in the 2016 election?!?

        We accepted the election and then tried to subvert the confidence in Trump (not the election) – which complete valid (and yes, works both ways).

        If anything, Trump established an election commission (which utterly failed to accomplish anything).

        1. You weren’t paying attention the past four years.

      2. the Left spent 4 years trying to subvert confidence in the 2016 election.

        I don’t think this is true.

        Clinton conceded almost immediately, and no one was running around filing lawsuit after lawsuit, or trying to intimidate state elction officials.

        It’s simply not comparable. Sure, you can drag out a quote here and there, but take a hard look at what Trump is doing – he actually wants Pence to throw out certified slates of electors.

        You won’t find anything close on the Democratic side in 2016.

  15. Ms. Manta has every right to put up this post, due to her personal connection with Hawley and the clear line drawn between what he did then and what he’s doing now.

    He shaded the rules in 2005 and now is trying to break the rules now. For his generation of conservatives this is a natural progression. We remember that same year the ethics-free mobfest that was the election for chair of the College Republican National Committee — how the campaign was filled with dirty tricks, gay-bashing, tons of outside money, for a position that was well-funded. By contrast the College Democrats were like both sides used to be — a volunteer position, a small office with a modest cardboard sign.

    This generation of Republicans sees lying, cheating, greed as signs of toughness. Being honest, working hard, respect for your opponent — values of the GWHBush – Bob Dole generation — those are for chumps. That’s why they’re so into Trump.

    Their hero is Roger Stone, who started an anti-Hillary PAC called “Citizens United Not Timid” (note the initials). When the Trump tape came out about “grabbing p**ssies” — they cackled with glee. Needless to say, there’s not much room here for women, unless they have sexy bodies and are willing to show them off. That explains the usual misogyny in the comments here whenever Ms. Manta posts.

    1. They’re desperate — and you would be desperate, too, if trying to maintain a viable electoral coalition for Republican backwardness and bigotry in a nation that becomes less White, less religious, less rural, less backward, and less bigoted each day — and disaffected.

      The culture war is not over, but it has been settled. The good guys have won, and will continue to shape American progress against the wishes and works of our vestigial conservatives for so long as any of us is alive.

      1. AK do you grind axes for a living? Just curious because your posts are an indicator of output you must have a whole shed full of nicely sharpened axes ready to go.

        1. I do not like bigoted, stale-thinking, reason-disdaining, hypocritical dumbasses.

          I blame my education and character.

    2. “We remember that same year the … election for chair of the College Republican National Committee”

      Really? That’s as pathetic as her post.

      1. I’m quite sure that Republican law students are very much in touch with Republican undergraduates. Most kids go straight from undergrad to law school. Lots of friends, lovers.

        1. Why would anyone remember details of a student election 15 years later?

          Most people grow up and put childish things behind them.

          1. If you had had a similar interaction with someone currently in the news, and you were a blogger, I can guarantee that you would post about it.

          2. “Most people grow up and put childish things behind them.”

            If you say that three times, Josh Blackman appears.

    3. Tell Alex Morse how noble the UDems are. He was the primary challenger to Congressman Richie Neil (D-MA) and the UDems painted him as a gay predator and sought to have him banned from the UMass campus. He is gay, but all the accusations against him were completely unfounded.

      And notwithstanding what Roger Stone may have done, the “brain” behind the College Republicans is Karl Rove. A Bushie and not MAGA…

      1. There was a reason even Rove’s friends called him “turd blossom”.

  16. Josh Hawley is not a bigoted, superstitious hayseed — because he is a prep schooler and establishment climber (although he is a superstitious bigot) — but he plays one on television to lather the rubes and clingers:

    “Are you trying to say that as of January 20th, that President Trump will be president?” Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Hawley, who has pledged to object to Congress’ certification of the Electoral College’s votes.

    “Well, Bret, that depends on what happens on Wednesday,” the senator replied. “This is why we have the debate-”

    Baier cut him off. “No, it doesn’t,” the Fox News host told Hawley. “The states, by the Constitution, say they certify the election. They did certify it. By the Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the right to overturn the certification, at least as most experts read it.”

    1. Finally an RAK post that is on-point

  17. It is not just semantics to point out no one is tryin to “overturn” an election result. We do not yet have an official result. There are indicators, some official, that a particular candidate is the qualified winner. But those have not been officially reported and received using the mechanism found in the Constitution. Until that happens there is nothing to “overturn” and the use of it is not only improper bluster but inaccurate.

    1. Thanks for clearing that up. That’s making me feel a lot better about the GOP trying to abolish US democracy.

      1. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…

        Or maybe the Dems shouldn’t have engaged in rigging elections, trying to “get” Trump with witchhunt investigations, faking up the whole Russia thing, and a myriad of other actions which were designed to actually overturn an election.

        1. “Sure, Trump dissolving Congress end ordering all liberals executed was bad, but maybe the Dems shouldn’t have engaged blah blah blah.”

          1. Would it be all that bad…?

          2. That thing we imagine might happen is a lot worse than the evil things we keep doing over and over.

      2. The way the Dems did back in 1972? I seem to remember that it was President FORD who lost to Carter in 1976 — how’d Congressman Ford become POTUS???

        1. Spiro got busted.

    2. ” It is not just semantics to point out no one is tryin to “overturn” an election result. ”

      Other than this , great comment!

      (I recognize that getting stomped by better people in the culture war must be dispiriting for right-wingers, but if clingers don’t keep the gloves up, this isn’t going to be much of a contest.)

  18. “I did not contest his victory at any point”

    No, you just whined about it in a national paper. 15 years later!

    1. Stating that Josh Hawley is an ambition-consumed fraud, a superstitious bigot, and a disaffected culture war loser constitutes a public service.

      Find anything interesting in those backwater title searches lately, Bob?

  19. If the Dems are not trying to fan the flames, could have fooled me.

    1. Call in the National Guard in DC for a “pro-Trump” rally but let BLM loot the city freely all summer long.
    2. Arrest the leader of Proud Boys on some petty vandalism charges but let BLM trash the entire city without consequence all summer long.

    So try telling me that one kind of political violence is not acceptable in the eyes of the liberal elite…

    1. The “Proud” Boys are stupid but arresting him and dismissing all the charges against the summer BLM rioters is just government deciding what side to back.

      Trump ought to pardon him. [Yes, a President can pardon DC code offenses].

      1. I agree, Trump should pardon him. Trump should pardon Nicholas Tartaglione too.

    2. BLM looted nothing all summer long. Mostly they did protests.

      The thing that brought the national guard in? Vandalism.

      The Proud Boys are violent white supremacists, and bringing a high-capacity ammunition magazines to DC for whatever happens on the 6th is breaking DC law in a pretty nontrivial way.

        1. Fair enough, Bob, I see a CVS on one day at the height of things at the end of May.

          A far cry from ‘let BLM loot the city freely all summer long.”

          1. They only had to do it once – with impunity – to have the credible threat of being able to do it again, any time they wanted to.

            A credible threat of violence is often more terrifying than violence itself.

            1. Those are impressively shameless new goalposts, Ed.

          2. “A far cry from ‘let BLM loot the city freely all summer long.”

            Ok, Gaslightro. It just happened to one store on one day. Yup.

            You know that we can only post one link here. I’d look up more but you’d just hand wave them away.

            Your friends terrorized Hawley’s wife and baby last night too.

            1. Bob: Are you arguing BLM looted DC all summer long?

            2. “Your friends terrorized Hawley’s wife and baby last night too.”

              AND WHY THE HELL WEREN’T THEY ARRESTED FOR THAT?!?! As I understand it, they also damaged the door and other related property.

              In Maine, a woman alone with an infant would be considered well within her rights to open the door while holding a shotgun (women tend to prefer 20 gauge) and start firing. It would be (and has) been considered legitimate self defense.

              I’m surprised that Virginia lacks respect for women with infants….

              And don’t be surprised if the Proud Boys (or someone else) retaliates for this. That’s what happens when folk realize that neither the law nor the state will protect them…

        2. It’s called “speech” when Sarcastr0-approved groups do stuff like that.

      1. C’mon, man. BLM looted like crazy.

        They also blocked roads.

        And are you actually asserting that the Black people busting up restaurants and forcing people under threat of physical violence to say BLM slogans were not BLM?

        I thought you tried to be objective.

        1. 1) It is far from clear where BLM is involved. (Unlike, say, the Proud Boys)

          2) Looted like crazy is confirmation bias. Lots of protests, some violent (usually vandalism/anti-police), and some widely publicized looting that could as easily be opportunistic as BLM related.

          3) I was unclear; I was speaking to Jimmy’s comment ‘let BLM loot [DC] freely all summer long’ which is absolutely not true; I lived there.

          4) I do think the looters and vandals should be prosecuted, and they seem to be for the most part. But that’s not making headlines.

          5) It’s *really* troubling that no one paid attention to the protests until things got violent. Just as no one would have paid attention to these stolen election protests until Trump started intimating fireworks beyond just people holding signs.

          What does it mean for non-electoral civic change if America doesn’t care much about nonviolent protest anymore.

          1. This is some ultimate gaslighting!

            1. Yeah the BLM protests, organized under that label, raising money for the organization, and coordinating events totally was not BLM. OK…..

            2. “Mostly peaceful protests” is just blatant cover by the media. Ask anyone who had to endure these “protests” and they will tell you that violence was everywhere and unchecked. If they wanted to loot a store they were allowed to just walk in and do it. This is all well documented.

            3. I did not see it with my own eyes is ultimate confirmation bias.

            4. There are no headlines because every single case is either being dismissed or deferred. Charges might have been filed in some cases, but none are going to result in any real criminal liability. The DA has already pretty much said this.

            5. Maybe no one cared about the extreme position of BLM or the whole manufactured controversy before it became riotous, criminal, anti-social behavior. I know it might surprise you but a lot of people don’t care about zany, crazy lib thinking because most of it is a joke. This goes to say more about the how extreme the left has become, how much the media tries to mainstream it, and the actual reality of the public views it.

            1. 1) Protests are and were not riots.

              2) I was in some of those protests; they were peaceful.

              3) I pay attention to where I live beyond just what my eyes see. You are lying about DC and looting all summer long.

              4) every single case is either being dismissed or deferred. This is just nonsense you made up because you feel it’s true.

              5) This was not a partisan statement.

              1. Your gaslighting is showing…

                1. They were largely riots not protests. This is widely known and documented. Calling it a “mostly peaceful protest” does not make it so.

                2. More confirmation bias.

                3. There was no looting in my neighborhood I saw, but there was plenty going on. Metro areas are huge and of course the looting was probably not in your white privilege area of town.

                4. Yeah look at the local court numbers, not a biased media hit job piece…

                5. My statement was not partisan in nature. No one cared, because no one cared. That happens when you advocate public policy. Visibility is part of caring. If you start burning buildings and looting well people are going to start caring (probably for the wrong reasons). If your issue has a bully pulpit (like the President of the US) that is another way (and at least respects the rights of others instead of trashing stuff).

                1. You said all summer long. You can’t back it up.

                  And you’ve decided to ignore the Guardian via ad hominem, but offered nothing to back that up either.

                  1. The Guardian is not a reputable source, period.

      2. A “peaceful” 15-year-old from the suburbs.

        “The Proud Boys are violent white supremacists, and bringing a high-capacity ammunition magazines to DC for whatever happens on the 6th is breaking DC law in a pretty nontrivial way.”

        No. The breaking of DC law was when the Brownshirts were permitted to assault and terrify the citizenry with impunity — remember that this included a US Senator and his wife.

        The rumors that the Proud Boys are coming to town armed — if, in fact, they actually are — is what is necessary to ensure that the actually peaceful MAGA protesters have the right to exercise their Constitutional rights.

        Ever read Romeo & Juliet? It’s not just a love story — it’s the prince (i.e. the state) saying that he will maintain order in the streets, that neither of the rival factions will.

        But, starting 30 years ago in academia, the left has licensed its thugs to use violence with impunity — and the inevitable result are things like the Proud Boys. 30 years ago, I was warning that they inevitably would arise if objective “thou shalt not” rules were not enforced equally and in a content-neutral manner.

        Trump’s biggest mistake: Not opening his Bible that night and reading the 23rd Psalm. THAT would have been effective…

        1. The rumors that the Proud Boys are coming to town armed — if, in fact, they actually are — is what is necessary to ensure that the actually peaceful MAGA protesters have the right to exercise their Constitutional rights.

          This is literally Brownshirts. You’re describing fascism maintained through threats of violence.

          1. Ever confronted Antafa?

            Get back to me when you have.

            1. Don’t look over there, look over here, at what you’re advocating for.

            2. Black shirts. Totally different. Their violence is “speech” and Sarcastr0 wants to think you are a villain for not giving Antifa a free hand to commit their acts of “speech”.

          2. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

          3. Like the Brownshirts who almost lynched a United States Senator….?

            1. Jimmy, what’s going to get interesting is the new Rep from Colorado who insists on having her Glock on her hip:

              Capitol police can’t touch her, and while the DC police say they will, I am not so sure that they can, either. What will get interesting under Heller is that she is not a DC resident, by definition can’t be as she has to be a CO resident to represent CO in Congress.

              Could be interesting…

              1. Residency, of course, has nothing to do with this.

                1. Residency does have something to do with it. If the firearm is being transported from outside of DC (presumably from a residence there) into the District then federal transportation protections most likely attach. That would mean as long as it is legal to own it in her office and on the Hill (and possibly carry) it could be lawfully transported regardless of DC laws.

                  If, however, the gun is coming from DC to the Hill it would need to b lawful for transport in that area which according to reports is possible but extremely difficult.

                  So yeah residency does matter and once again you demonstrate you have no grasp on the real issues. Probably should just stick to the gaslighting gig.

          4. Using your Second Amendment right to self-defense when a violent opponent is looking to shut you down, attack you, and censor you all with violence is a simple extension of ones First Amendment right to protest.

            1. censor you all with violence

              This sounds a lot like wanting to shoot counter-protesters.

              1. No it is an insurance policy your First Amendment right does not end because a goon (antifa) intends to beat you with a bat, skateboard, or bike lock because they do not like what you are going to say.

  20. Hon, did you say, Yale Law School? Dismissed, you America hating lawyer. These big government, treason indoctrination camps should all be closed.

    1. The Volokh Conspirators must be shocked to observe that their White, male, movement conservative blog attracts followers who call female professionals “Hon.”

      I doubt this is enough to incline a dean to apologize for having a Volokh Conspirator on the faculty, though.

  21. What? Are you saying a sitting politician is behaving like a hypocrite? Unheard of! This is Front Page News!!!

  22. Ms. Manta in one of the linked tweets notes the popular vote margin. I had previously assumed Yale Law grads would understand relevance. She omitted mention of official processes to contest her painful defeat.

    Mr. Hawley does not appear to believe that his actions will change the outcome, but that does not make it wrong to use an established Senate process to object and have a bit more official debate over various allegations of irregularities. This is a relatively small price to satiate millions of voters who want to see process fully exhausted. It seems like Biden supporters acting in good faith would want to bridge gap with Trump supporters who believe county election officials did not follow state laws, rather than just telling them to shut up. I appreciate her reference to court action/inaction, which is relevant, but everyone with court experience also understands that courts may avoid reaching merits, especially on political questions.

    1. This is a relatively small price to satiate millions of voters who want to see process fully exhausted.

      This will literally do the opposite.

  23. Two troubling items this am:
    1. Trump declares that it is within Pence’s authority as VP to reject some slates of electors. Many of us have been hopeful about Pence — that he would do his duty and not do something really stupid. But, we are talking about Pence and Trump is obviously aplying pressure. Tomorrow has the potential to be a very bad day.

    2. Reports from the Georgia courthouse indicate that John Eastman is part of Trump’s team. Trump getting more bad, even stupid, legal advice is not a good thing.

  24. “Trump getting more bad, even stupid, legal advice is not a good thing.”

    Perhaps permitting the Bar to be a self-policing entity is not a good thing. There are way too many incompetent lawyers being allowed to practice…

    1. Who should police the legal profession if not the lawyers? A commission of Ed.D. holders, perhaps?

      1. All other professions are regulated by a board that is appointed by the state, usually the Governor, which includes both practitioners and members of the general public.

      2. I was thinking maybe Scientists should police the bar as science seems to have all the answers to everything…

        1. They’ll deputize some communist activist as a scientist to police it.

          1. Isn’t that what most university professors who claim to be “scientists” actually are?

  25. Biden only “won” because of the worthless third worlders who were imported here against the will of Americans. White Americans, who made up 90% of the population in 1965, never asked for their progeny to be replaced with illiterate mestizos from Mexico, illiterate Muslims from Somalia, criminal Haitians, Syrian terrorists, and others.

    1. Thank you, Volokh Conspirators, for exposing unvarnished conservative commentary to a broader audience than customarily encounters this stuff at RedState, National Review, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, and other movement conservative sites.

      1. Aktenberg78’s comment appears sincere and is horrible. Also a very rare view in my observations, including among those who believe without prejudice that immigration laws should be enforced. Popular leftwing racism–such as the premise underlying White Fragility and Critical Race Theory–is not so rare.


          This White, male, conservative
          blog has operated for
          FOUR (4) DAYS
          without gratuitous use of
          a vile racial slur and for
          620 DAYS
          without imposing partisan,
          viewpoint-driven censorship.

  26. Speaking of mischief, what’s up with the musical US attorneys in Georgia?

  27. The GOP is giving up on democracy in PA as well.

    Democrat was certified, but is not being seated.
    His swearing in wasn’t delayed but denied. There is no future date.


    1. That case is more complex then that. You speak so much about democracy and then you give the short shrift to the fake that the ultimate thumb your nose to democracy is seating illegit reps.

      1. He’s not illegit, dude. The PA GOP had to kick out their own speaker in order to refuse to seat someone certified by the state supreme court.

        Having a pending federal case doesn’t give you license to do that.

        1. It does when you have serious questions about ballots and the legitimacy of those votes. Those are not illusionary either. We don’t seat usurpers in a democracy.

          And, no, the PA Senate had to kick out the Lt. Gov who is also President of the Senate and a Democrat. At least get your facts straight if you want to opine on something and make grandiose pronouncements of fascism.

          1. The courts are the one you look at. They ruled.

            He isn’t a usurper, he’s the incumbent.

            You really are antidemocratic. Whatever trick to keep Democrats out of office, regardless of the coters.

            1. Actually the state legislature there is the qualifier of elections if you look at the state constitution. So, no, it is not the courts. Once again you are wrong.

              And there is nothing more anti-democratic then admitting ballots after the fact that do not comply with the written law. People who follow the rules and vote properly have a right not to have their vote diluted by those who can’t be bothered. And changing the rules after the fact to allow more votes is not “democracy”, it is expediency.

              So maybe you should just file this under “things I clearly don’t know” and stop opining while you are ahead.

Please to post comments